Read More About:

Share This Post

Resisting the Longest Hatred

The few must stand against the trend toward anti-Semitism

By Clifford D. May

The Washington Times

June 1, 2015

Robert S. Wistrich, who died suddenly last week, was considered the foremost scholar of anti-Semitism, which he called “the longest hatred,” one that appears to be metastasizing in the current era.

Writing about Nazi anti-Semitism ruffles no feathers within academia and other elite circles. Mr. Wistrich, however, had been warning that “anti-Semitism has undergone a process of growing ‘Islamization,’ linked to the terrorist holy war against Jews and other non-Muslims with its truly lethal consequences.” This “new” anti-Semitism,” he added, targets Israel, the only state with a Jewish majority: “the collective Jew.”

“New” is a relative term: It was 40 years ago that the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution condemning Zionism, a charged word that actually implies nothing more than support for the right of the Jewish people, like other peoples, to self-determination in part of their ancestral homeland — territories that for centuries had been ruled by foreign empires. Within these lands there has never been a Palestinian nation-state, but a majority of Israelis would help establish such a polity — if Palestinian leaders would only commit to peaceful coexistence with their neighbors across an agreed-upon border.

While most Muslims do not support terrorism, Mr. Wistrich noted, “levels of anti-Semitism among Muslims clearly remain the highest in the world,” and Islamists — most succinctly defined as those committed to the imperative of Muslim dominance over all others — “are the spearhead of current anti-Semitism.”

Aided and abetted by anti-Semites of the radical left (who view Israel as an outpost of American empire) they have created what Mr. Wistrich called a “culture of hatred” that is “sufficiently radical in tone and content to constitute a new warrant for genocide.”

Such ethno-religious antipathy takes many forms. Three examples: Last week, Greek officials demanded that the Star of David be removed from a new Holocaust museum in a Greek city where some 1,500 Jews were murdered by Nazis. Though Israeli hospitals have opened their doors to casualties of the civil war in Syria, the U.N. has just labeled Israel the world’s top violator of “health rights.” And last month Mohammad Neza Naghdi, commander of Iran’s Basij paramilitary force, said, “The destruction of Israel is non-negotiable.”

Another manifestation of anti-Semitism is the so-called “boycott, divest and sanction” (BDS) campaign. Though it aims to damage Israel economically, it has so far made little progress. More perniciously perhaps, it means to demonize and delegitimize Israel, particularly in the eyes of young people on college campuses — an investment in the future of Jew-hatred.

BDS propagandists are patently Orwellian. Hamas fires missiles at Israeli villages and digs tunnels under Israeli farms to facilitate hostage-taking and mass murder; they call that “resistance.” Israelis attempt to defend themselves; they call that “genocide.”

Close to 20 percent of Israel’s citizens are Arab and Muslim. They enjoy freedom of worship and speech, cast votes, hold seats in the Knesset and sit on the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, BDS advocates slander Israel as “apartheid.” Some, utilizing a tactic Mr. Wistrich termed “Holocaust inversion,” call Israelis Nazis.

BDS advocates shed no tears for victims of jihadi head-choppers, for young girls enslaved by “mujahideen,” or young men hanged for “sodomy” under strict readings of Islamic law. All that pales next to Israel’s refusal to make additional concessions to Palestinian leaders who rule out compromise.

“The real aim of BDS is to bring down the state of Israel,” California State University professor As’ad AbuKhalil has said. “There should not be any equivocation on the subject. Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the state of Israel.” Pro-BDS author John Spritzler has written: “I think the BDS movement will gain strength from forthrightly explaining why Israel has no right to exist.”

Despite such threats, boycott, divest and sanction has faced few serious challenges — until now. Rep. Peter Roskam, an Illinois Republican, Sen. Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, and Rep. Juan Vargas, a California Democrat, have authored bipartisan measures — amendments to the major trade act currently being considered by Congress — that would discourage America’s trading partners from discriminating against Israelis.

At the same time, Illinois is poised to become the first state in the nation to defend Israelis against economic warfare. Last week, an anti-BDS bill supported by newly elected Gov. Bruce Rauner passed the state House and Senate — with bipartisan unanimity.

“The significance of the bill cannot be underestimated,” wrote Eugene Kontorovich, a law professor at Northwestern University. “BDS is not like the civil rights protests, as its supporters love to claim but rather more like the anti-Jewish boycotts so common in Europe in the 20th century and in the Arab world until this day.” European financial institutions that have become concerned about the risks — legal, economic and reputational — of doing business with Israelis will now need to consider the risks of refusing to do business with Israelis.

Other states are considering similar actions. In Congress, additional measures are being proposed. For example, Rep. Doug Lamborn, A Colorado Republican, has introduced the Boycott Our Enemies, Not Israel Act, which would require government contractors to certify that they are not shunning America’s most reliable ally.

Mr. Wistrich devoted his life to understanding anti-Semitism which, in the 20th century, pursued the goal of a Europe without Jews. He also recognized the goal of this century’s anti-Semites: a Middle East without a Jewish state.

Those who mourn his passing may take some consolation in knowing that there are now a few American statesmen doing more than averting their eyes and wringing their hands.

• Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a columnist for The Washington Times.

Subscribe: (see right hand column)


Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post


June 12, 2015 

Scott Walker Eyes Marco Rubio as His Running Mate

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is talking positively about a Republican presidential ticket — potentially announced even before the first nomination balloting — that would include Sen. Marco Rubio as his running mate.

In a Bloomberg Politics interview Thursday, the likely candidate also expressed agreement with President Barack Obama on the pressing issue of fast-track trade legislation. Walker, 47, isn’t expected to formally enter the race until early July, after his state has completed a two-year budget plan.

Still, he’s apparently given some consideration and had discussions already about a potential running mate, with the focus on Rubio. “I’ve actually had quite a few people, grassroots supporters, donors, and others who have made that suggestion,” he said when asked about a Walker-Rubio ticket. “For now, you know, Marco is a quality candidate,” Walker said. “He’s going to be formidable in this race as things progress. And if we were to get in,  we’ll see where things take us.”

Walker was in Utah to meet with potential financial supporters and to speak at a summit hosted by 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney that’s attracted six declared and likely presidential candidates. The full interview can be seen on

Walker said he and Rubio often hear the suggestion that they should combine forces, potentially even before the first nomination voting in Iowa in February 2016, as a way to stand out amid a crowded field. “We’d just probably have to arm-wrestle over who would be at the top of the ticket,” he said.

At this phase of presidential campaign, the norm would be for a White House hopeful to summarily dismiss such a move, in public and in private. Walker said he likes governors and their executive experience better than senators as potential presidents and vice presidents, but that Rubio stands out. “I do like Marco Rubio,” he said. “I think he and I have similar thoughts on national defense and foreign policy.”

Walker noted how he tweeted greetings to Rubio, 44, for his birthday last month, a move that also underscored his own relative youthfulness amid a mostly older Democratic and Republican field. “Marco, happy birthday from one 40-something to another,” Walker said of his greeting. “There’s certainly a generational issue there.”

In the most recent Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, Walker led in the state that starts the nomination process, while Rubio was the most popular second choice among likely Republican caucus participants.

Walker said he supports giving Obama the authority to submit trade agreements to Congress for an expedited, up-or-down vote without amendments. “If we don’t go down this path, we’re going to be at a competitive disadvantage, and so I think it just makes sense,” he said.

At the same time, like many Republicans who support granting the trade authority recent past presidents have had, Walker said the deal would allow the Republican-controlled Congress to review Obama’s actions. “If this president were to give them a bad deal, they should hold him accountable and vote it down,” he said. “They have every right to do that under the proposal.”

Walker said he’d look for ways to lower them especially for those in “the middle of the bracket” as well as for businesses. “I certainly wouldn’t be talking about anybody paying any more,” he said. The popular home-mortgage deduction is not a place where Walker would look for additional revenue to balance the cuts he’d like to see made, he said. “We’re going to look at the entire tax code and what the best way to reform is, but I think homeownership is an important part of living the American dream,” he said. He expressed similar views about the popular deduction for charitable contributions.

Subscribe: (see right hand column)


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

II  Addendum below:  Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this morning (Thursday, 11 June 2015), in Jerusalem, met with US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey

At the weekly Cabinet meeting today (Sunday, 31 May 2015):

1. Redacted from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s remarks:

“We are in the midst of a great struggle being waged against the State of Israel, an international campaign to blacken its name.

It is not connected to our actions; it is connected to our very existence. It does not matter what we do; it matters what we symbolize and what we are. Now, this is a phenomenon that we have known in the history of our people – what hasn’t been said about the Jewish People? They said that we are the focus of all evil in the world. They said that we are the poisoners of the wells of humanity. They said that we drink the blood of little children. All of these things are being said about us today as well. It was not true then and it is not true today. This does not have a shred of truth.

I think that it is important to understand that these things do not stem from the fact that if only we were nicer or a little more generous – we are very generous, we have made many offers, we have made many concessions – that anything would change because this campaign to delegitimize Israel entails something much deeper that is being directed at us and seeks to deny our very right to live here.

I think that one must ask how can it be that Israel is accused over homes in Gilo, or over this or that action that we take to defend ourselves from terrorists, but that when a hundred times more victims – a hundred times more, not twice or ten or 50 times as many, but a hundred times – more people are being slaughtered in Syria, just in Syria – there are no protests, no condemnations, no 80% of decisions by UN human rights committees, against Syria.

It is we who are accused, IDF soldiers who are accused of killing children. I saw the IDF delegation to Nepal which rescued Nepalese children and brought babies into the world. I did not see a delegation from Boko Haram. I did not see delegations from Iran there. I did not see delegations from Al Qaida and I did not see delegations from Syria.

There is no justification for the campaign of delegitimization being waged against the State of Israel, in which they are trying to suspend us from international organizations. The last thing we need to do is to bow our heads and ask where we went wrong, where we erred. We have done nothing wrong and we have not erred.

We are not a perfect country; we do not pretend to be such, but they are setting standards for us that are both twisted and higher than those for any other country, any other democracy. There is no democracy that is more challenged than the State of Israel, which respects human rights, which respects pluralism, which respects humanity even in the most difficult war situations, even when thousands of missiles are being fired at our cities. Therefore, here we are not dealing in justifications, here we are telling the truth.

This past weekend we had to rebuff a major international effort to oust us from FIFA and I am pleased that we succeeded. This was part of the continuing effort; I am not deluding myself that these efforts will cease, and we need to act on a very broad front, but the first thing that we must arm ourselves with is the truth, the truth, and also with the inner pride that we know who we are and what we represent, and that we will not capitulate to libels.

Today we will deal with the home front exercise. I must say that alongside the development of our offensive capabilities, which is in a very impressive high gear, most of which is known to the public, we are also busy with preparing the home front for future campaigns because we have discovered that home front is a front line. There has been very great success; we saw this in Operation Protective Edge and at other times, in developments that we have made in both active and passive defense. Adequate preparation is important because planning well will pay off in the end.

II Addendum: June 11, 2015

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this morning (Thursday, 11 June 2015), in Jerusalem, met with US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey and told him at the start of their meeting:

“You’ve been a wonderful friend and a grand champion of America and of America-Israel relations. We appreciate it. I want to take this opportunity to also express our respect and deep admiration for America’s fighting men and women. We know you’re extended around the world, including in our region. We know we have no better friends than the American people, the American governments, the American fighting men and women. You fight for America, but you also fight for freedom.”

General Dempsey said, “The greatest gift has been the friendship that we’ve managed to forge with the leaders in the IDF, and I know you’re proud of them but we are too. It’s our constitution, and you know that that’s what inspires us as I know service to your nation inspires you.”
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis


Subscribe: (see right hand column)


Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

From: Community News Service

By COL live reporter, Jun 4, 2015

Pharaoh’s Jockey Victor Espinoza came to pray at the Rebbe’s Ohel (Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson’s tomb) BEFORE the Belmont Stakes horse race. The Jewish owners, refugees from Egypt, were making a Kiddush Hashem. (A prayer to G-d ceremony with wine and treats — like herring and all the Manischewitz wine you can drink)

Victor Espinoza, the Mexican native who is hoping to make history by riding the first Triple Crown-winning horse in 37 years, turned to a spiritual source for blessing.

Espinoza, a jockey who will compete in the 2015 Belmont Stakes horse race in Elmont, NY, came to pray at the Rebbe’s (Schneerson, OBM) Ohel at the Old Montefiore Cemetery in Cambria Heights, Queens.

CBSNewYork reported that Espinoza visited the grave site of the Rebbe, “considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the 20th century” and where “hundreds of thousands come to the cemetery every year 24/7 to pray.”

Espinoza opened a prayer book, recited psalms, wrote out his own message and added his to a mountain of prayers at the sacred site, the TV station said.

He was flanked by Rabbi Efraim Zaltzman, Director of Chabad of Kingsborough in Brooklyn, Kabbalah teacher Rabbi Berel Lerman and Rabbi Motti Seligson, Director of ‎Media Relations at

Espinoza, who is not Jewish, said that after receiving a blessing from Rabbi Sholom Ber Korf Chabad of Delray in Florida last month, he scheduled the detour to the Ohel from his regular race prep for the Belmont, COLlive was told.

“So much energy right here,” he said. “It would kind of build you up right here. It’s like good energy drinks.”

Mike Weitz, Espinoza’s Jewish publicist, said: “He believes with G-d’s help and the Rebbe interceding for him that he’s going to be very successful and very safe.”

Meanwhile, the owners of American Pharaoh Thoroughbred racehorse, which Espinoza will be riding, have announced that they will be observing the Shabbos on the day of the race.

The Zayats were raised in Egypt as observant Jews. On race day, which is the Sabbath, the family will abstain from driving in observance and will camp overnight in luxury RVs on Belmont’s grounds, CBS reported.

“We have a value system in our life, and that is a priority in our family, said Ahmed Zayat, who lives in Teaneck, New Jersey. “G-d comes first. (Then) family, country and all the others — all the others, you can put horse racing in with them.”

Subscribe: (see right hand column)


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

(II   A factual, revealing analysis of UNRWA is found in a previous Israel Commentary article dated May 24, 2012 and linked below. Please read.) 

I  From:  MFA,  Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Newsletter

Israeli Ambassador David Roet addresses UNRWA 65th anniversary conference

June 2, 2015

(UNRWA has often remained silent while Hamas endangers the lives of Palestinians, including refugees, and commits war crimes by using civilian areas to target Israeli citizens. UNRWA spokespeople are quick to make accusations against Israel, but go out of their way to avoid mentioning Hamas.)

Ambassador Roet:  I wish I could just describe all the ways Israel cooperates with UNRWA, and end it there. I wish I could sit here today and join in with the other speakers to simply thank UNRWA for all the humanitarian work it does, and leave it at that.

However, as the saying goes, “face reality as it is, not as you wish it to be.”  In reality, UNRWA has a political agenda which casts a long shadow over its humanitarian agenda.

Make no mistake, since UNRWA was established 65 years ago, Israel has supported its important humanitarian mission, and continues to do so today. During this time, UNRWA and Israel have worked hand-in-hand to coordinate hundreds of projects that provide essential services for the Palestinian people. We also recognize UNRWA’s important contribution to the welfare of Palestinian refugees.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

When UNRWA (for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) was established, their mandate included hundreds of thousands of refugees. Today, UNRWA asserts responsibility for over 5 million refugees (via an inflated payroll made up 99% of Palestinians who will not give up their lucrative, grossly overpaid administrative jobs).

How did the number of refugees increase so dramatically when the purpose of a UN agency is to decrease it?

In 1950, the UN established the High Commissioner for Refugees to assist men, women, and children in dire situations around the world. That agency has helped tens of millions of people restart their lives and provide a brighter future for the next generation.

According to the UNHCR, you lose your refugee status if you become a citizen of another country. But in the Palestinian case, this restriction does not apply. UNRWA – and UNRWA alone – allows refugees to pass their refugee status to their children and now grandchildren.

If we were to apply UNHCR’s standards to count the number of Palestinian refugees worldwide, the figure drops significantly. But the Palestinian refugees aren’t counted using the UNHCR standards; they are counted using UNRWA’s double standards.

If this politicization of the refugee issue was not enough, recently, UNRWA left no doubt about how deep its “political mission” goes. UNRWA’s spokesperson clearly stated that one of UNRWA’s goals is to validate the Palestinian narrative. I repeat – to validate the Palestinian narrative. Is ‘validating’ the Palestinian narrative within UNRWA’s mandate? Is this what funding for humanitarian assistance is intended for?

It is no secret that the terrorist group Hamas, the de facto authority in the Gaza Strip, often obstructs humanitarian efforts. The fact that the Commissioner General did not mention today the responsibility Hamas bears for the situation in Gaza – does the Palestinians no favors.

UNRWA has often remained silent while Hamas endangers the lives of Palestinians, including refugees, and commits war crimes by using civilian areas to target Israeli citizens. UNRWA spokespeople are quick to make accusations against Israel, but go out of their way to avoid mentioning Hamas.

UNWRA had over 10,000 employees in Gaza – most of them Palestinian but also many internationals. Where were they when Hamas stockpiled thousands of rockets, many of them in close vicinity to UNWRA facilities. It seems that while they are quick to condemn Israel, when it comes to reporting on Hamas, UNWRA’s employees become blind, deaf, and mute.

While Hamas stockpiled rockets in UNRWA schools in order to launch them at Israel from nearby, the UNRWA press statement only managed to condemn, quote, “group or groups responsible”. Well, the group responsible has a name – Hamas. And it is an internationally recognized terrorist organization.

While Hamas is doing everything to obstruct reconstruction, Israel is doing everything it can to cooperate with UNRWA to help meet the humanitarian challenges in Gaza. Every day, hundreds of trucks carrying goods enter Gaza from Israel passing through Kerem Shalom crossing which is operating 24/7, at full capacity. In the past year, Israel has provided Gaza with millions of tons of equipment, materials and supplies to assist with reconstruction.

These are facts which we have not heard much of today.

UNRWA’s interference with the political process is beyond the scope of its legitimate activities, and endangers the fulfillment of its mandate. Throughout last summer we witnessed UNWRA officials act as judge, jury, and executioner. They reported facts as they saw fit, assigned guilt, and predetermined what the outcome of the process needs to be. Such interferences only deepens the conflicts and distances us from peace.

For instance, UNRWA’s recent massive media campaigns are fully in sync with the Palestinian political agenda, and serve no humanitarian purpose. Just listen to Hanan Ashrawi’sAnsari speech today and the usage of the word “justice”, which UNRWA is now doing. Take out UNWRA’s logo, it could well be an official Palestinian campaign.

UNRWA is also using its educational system to validate the Palestinian narrative, to fuel false promises, and to give credence to dangerous myths. From an early age, Palestinian children are taught that the only solution to their plight is the so-called “Claim of Return”. Many UNRWA facilities are decorated with keys, symbolizing this claim of return. Young children are taught that these keys will one day open doors for them – but in truth these keys have them locked in a distorted reality.

The “claim of return”, make no mistake, is a euphemism for the destruction of the State of Israel. This “claim” is the real obstacle to the two-state solution, to which Israel and so many of us in this room are fully committed. The only way to achieve peace is through direct negotiations.

The Middle East today is in a state of turmoil. Regimes are unstable, terrorist groups seize and hold territory, and the people suffer the consequences. Palestinian refugees in these countries are caught in the chaos.

In Syria, they face death and displacement from a bloody war. In Lebanon, refugee populations from Syria are denied a place to seek shelter from the ongoing violence. The existing Palestinian populations in Lebanon have for generations been segregated, and isolated from the rest of the Lebanese society.

In light of the real needs of the refugees, it is troubling that UNRWA would focus its resources on political campaigns, even as it cuts humanitarian assistance. Such campaigns only serve to support the Palestinian political agenda, and distance us from achieving peace.

Many of the Arab representatives expressed their so-called concern about situation of the Palestinian refugees. These Arab countries speak today about their suffering. However, when these governments had the opportunity to improve the lives of these refugees, they cynically exploited them for political purposes. Arab governments and the Arab League intentionally continue to sustain the problem of the Palestinian refugees by refusing to give them their basic rights.

Scan the list of UNRWA’s top donors, and you will discover that in 2014 nine out of ten of them are western countries. Apparently, when it comes to helping Palestinian refugees, Arab countries can’t find their wallets. Not only did the Arab states create and maintain the refugee problem, they expect others to pay for it.

An example of the hypocrisy by Arab states was evident today hearing the Saudi representative attack Israeli actions while Saudi forces are actively and indiscriminately attacking civilians, children’s schools and hospitals. Mr. Ambassador, you can’t buy your country out of this one so easily.

Even the good intentions are replaced by narrow political interests. In order to achieve the peaceful future we all hope for in the region, UNRWA must choose the right path. It must choose people over politics, neutrality over bias, and truth over propaganda. Only this path can solve the refugee problem rather than perpetuating it.

Thank you.


BY: Adam Kredo – May 24, 2012
The Washington Free Beacon

Subscribe: (see right hand column)


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Subject: “Courting Disaster”

By Marc Theissen

Let’s hope the next President of the United State does not resent America.

For the historical record… As President George W. Bush’s top speech writer, Marc Thiessen was provided unique access to the CIA program used in interrogating top Al Qaeda terrorists, including the mastermind of the 9/11 attack, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) Now, his riveting new book, “Courting Disaster”, How the CIA Kept America Safe (Regnery), has been published. Here is an excerpt from “Courting Disaster”:

“Just before dawn on March 1, 2003, two dozen heavily armed Pakistani tactical assault forces move in and surround a safe house in Rawalpindi. A few hours earlier they had received a text message from an informant inside the house. It read: “I am with KSM.”

Bursting in, they find the disheveled mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in his bedroom. He is taken into custody. In the safe house, they find a treasure trove of computers, documents, cell phones and other valuable “pocket litter.”

Once in custody, KSM is defiant. He refuses to answer questions, informing his captors that he will tell them everything when he gets to America and sees his lawyer. But KSM is not taken to America to see a lawyer Instead he is taken to a secret CIA “black site” in an undisclosed location.

Upon arrival, KSM finds himself in the complete control of Americans. He does not know where he is, how long he will be there, or what his fate will be. Despite his circumstances, KSM still refuses to talk. He spews contempt at his interrogators, telling them Americans are weak, lack resilience, and are unable to do what is necessary to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals. He has trained to resist interrogation. When he is asked for information about future attacks, he tells his questioners scornfully: “Soon, you will know.”

It becomes clear he will not reveal the information using traditional interrogation techniques. So he undergoes a series of “enhanced interrogation techniques” approved for use only on the most high-value detainees. The techniques include waterboarding.

His resistance is described by one senior American official as “superhuman.” Eventually, however, the techniques work, and KSM becomes cooperative-for reasons that will be described later in this book.

He begins telling his CIA de-briefers about active al Qaeda plots to launch attacks against the United States and other Western targets. He holds classes for CIA officials, using a chalkboard to draw a picture of al Qaeda’s operating structure, financing, communications, and logistics. He identifies al Qaeda travel routes and safe havens, and helps intelligence officers make sense of documents and computer records seized in terrorist raids. He identifies voices in intercepted telephone calls, and helps officials understand the meaning of coded terrorist communications. He provides information that helps our intelligence community capture other high-ranking terrorists,

KSM’s questioning, and that of other captured terrorists, produces more than 6,000 intelligence reports, which are shared across the intelligence community, as well as with our allies across the world.

In one of these reports, KSM describes in detail the revisions he made to his failed 1994-1995 plan known as the “Bojinka plot” to blow up a dozen airplanes carrying some 4,000 passengers over the Pacific Ocean.

Years later, an observant CIA officer notices the activities of a cell being followed by British authorities appear to match KSM’s description of his plans for a Bojinka-style attack.

In an operation that involves unprecedented intelligence cooperation between our countries, British officials proceed to unravel the plot.

On the night of Aug. 9, 2006 they launch a series of raids in a northeast London suburb that lead to the arrest of two dozen al Qaeda terrorist suspects. They find a USB thumb-drive in the pocket of one of the men with security details for Heathrow airport, and information on seven trans-Atlantic flights that were scheduled to take off within hours of each other:

* United Airlines Flight 931 to San Francisco departing at 2:15 p.m.;

* Air Canada Flight 849 to Toronto departing at 3:00 p.m.;

* Air Canada Flight 865 to Montreal departing at 3:15 p.m.;

* United Airlines Flight 959 to Chicago departing at 3:40 p.m.;

* United Airlines Flight 925 to Washington departing at 4:20 p.m.;

* American Airlines Flight 131 to New York departing at 4:35 p.m.;

* American Airlines Flight 91 to Chicago departing at 4:50 p.m.

They seize bomb-making equipment and hydrogen peroxide to make liquid explosives. And they find the chilling martyrdom videos the suicide bombers had prepared.”

Today, if you asked an average person on the street what they know about the 2006 airlines plot, most would not be able to tell you much.

Few Americans are aware of the fact al Qaeda had planned to mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with an attack of similar scope and magnitude. And still fewer realize the terrorists’ true intentions in this plot were uncovered thanks to critical information obtained through the interrogation of the man who conceived it: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

This is only one of the many attacks stopped with the help of the CIA interrogation program established by the Bush Administration in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Editor’s Note: For other foiled terrorist plots, see page 9 of “Courting Disaster.”

In addition to helping break up these specific terrorist cells and plots, CIA questioning provided our intelligence community with an unparalleled body of information about al Qaeda Until the program was temporarily suspended in 2006, intelligence officials say, well over half of the information our government had about al Qaeda-how it operates, how it moves money, how it communicates, how it recruits operatives, how it picks targets, how it plans and carries out attacks-came from the interrogation of terrorists in CIA custody.

Former CIA Director George Tenet has declared: “I know this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than what the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.” Former CIA Director Mike Hayden has said: “The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.”

Even Barack Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, has acknowledged: “High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” Leon Panetta, Obama’s CIA Director, has said: “Important information was gathered from these detainees. It provided information that was acted upon.

John Brennan, Obama’s Homeland Security Advisor, when asked in an interview if enhanced-interrogation techniques were necessary to keep America safe, replied : “Would the U.S. be handicapped if the CIA was not, in fact, able to carry out these types of detention and debriefing activities? I would say yes.”

On Jan. 22, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13491, closing the CIA program and directing that, henceforth, all interrogations by U.S. personnel must follow the techniques contained in the Army Field Manual.

The morning of the announcement, Mike Hayden was still in his post as CIA Director, He called White House Counsel Greg Craig and told him bluntly: “You didn’t ask, but this is the CIA officially non-concurring”. The president went ahead anyway, over ruling the objections of the agency.

A few months later, on April 16, 2009, President Obama ordered the release of four Justice Department memos that described in detail the techniques used to interrogate KSM and other high-value terrorists. This time, not just Hayden (who was now retired) but five CIA directors -including Obama’s own director, Leon Panetta — objected. George Tenet called to urge against the memos’ release. So did Porter Goss. So did John Deutch. Hayden says: “You had CIA directors in a continuous unbroken stream to 1995 calling saying, ‘Don’t do this.'”

In addition to objections from the men who led the agency for a collective 14 years, the President also heard objections from the agency’s covert field operatives. A few weeks earlier, Panetta had arranged for the eight top officials of the Clandestine Service to meet with the President. It was highly unusual for these clandestine officers to visit the Oval Office, and they used the opportunity to warn the President that releasing the memos would put agency operatives at risk. The President reportedly listened respectfully-and then ignored their advice.

With these actions, Barack Obama arguably did more damage to America’s national security in his first 100 days of office than any President in American history.

But how many people know this? Perhaps more importantly; How many people care?

In Barack Obama’s own words: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” “Audacity of Hope” 2006

Marc Thiessen is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) where he studies and writes about US presidential leadership, counterterrorism, foreign and defense policy issues.

Subscribe: (see right hand column)


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

If you happen to see the Bill Clinton 5-minute TV ad for Hillary in which he introduces the commercial by saying he wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary’s background, beware. As I was there for most of their presidency and know them better than just about anyone, I offer a few corrections.

Bill says: “In law school, Hillary worked on legal services for the poor.”

The facts are: Hillary’s main extra-curricular activity in law school was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a federal agent. She went to court every day as part of a law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.

Bill says: ” Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a children’s rights project for poor kids.”

The facts are: Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft , the head of the California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.

Bill says: ” Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers.”

The facts are: She flunked the DC bar exam; yes, flunked. It is a matter of record, and only passed the Arkansas bar. She had no job offers in Arkansas – none – and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there. She did not join the prestigious Rose Law Firm until Bill became Arkansas Attorney General and was made a partner only after he was elected Arkansas Governor.

Bill says: “President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its chairman.”

The facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy . Hillary then became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter’s choice to be chairman.

Bill says: “She served on the board of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital.”

The facts are: Yes, she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Walmart board of directors for a substantial fee. She was silent about their labor and health care practices.

Bill says: ” Hillary didn’t succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994, but she kept working at it and helped to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance.”

The facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP. It was included in the budget deal between Clinton and Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott. I know; I helped negotiate the deal. The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals’ tobacco settlement. Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.

Bill says: ” Hillary was the face of America all over the world.”

The facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.

Bill says: ” Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for children’s and women’s issues.”

The facts are: Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she has passed only four substantive pieces of legislation. One set up a national park in Puerto Rico. A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer’s or other conditions. And two were routine bills to aid 911 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire NY delegation. Presently she is trying to have the US memorialize the Woodstock fiasco of 40 years ago.

Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton :

She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our country (that’s you and me!) when it comes to the war on terror.

1. She wants to close GITMO and move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.

2. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda phone calls to/from the USA .

3. She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

4. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qaeda cells and supporters in the USA.

5. She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists even though such tactics might save American lives.

One cannot think of a single bill Hillary has introduced or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our country in the War on Terror But, one can think of a lot of comments she has made that weaken our country and make it a more dangerous situation for all of us. Bottom line: She goes hand in hand with the ACLU on far too many issues where common sense is abandoned.

Share this with every democrat you know. Ask them to prove Dick Morris wrong. Think about it – Dick Morris has said all of this openly, thus if he were not truthful he’d be liable for defamation of character! And you better believe Hillary would sue him.

Is America ready for a woman president?

I believe we are— just NOT this one.

Subscribe: (see right hand column)


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Jerusalem: A city of tension and unity

By Nadav Shragai

May 20, 2015

Israel marks 48 years (Jerusalem regained from Jordan in the Six Day War of June 6-12, 1967) since the reunification of Jerusalem, and there is no going back. Despite the incidents of terrorism and violence depicted in the media, Jews and Arabs live and work together in cooperation and unity.

This intermingling, to which I have devoted a chapter in my new book, is first and foremost the result of Jerusalem’s demography. After 19 years of division and 48 years of Israeli unity, Jerusalem Day — which we mark today — is a good opportunity to reveal a number that might surprise many people: Most Jewish and even more Arab residents of Jerusalem have never even experienced the city when it was divided. Some 71 percent of the city’s Jews and 84 percent of its Arabs were born into the reality of one united city.

“Intermingling” is a new term being used in research into the Jewish-Arab conflict in Jerusalem, coined by yours truly a few years ago. Intermingling involves many types of normalcy and cooperation between Jews and Arabs in united Jerusalem — something the media does not tend to cover. It expresses the wisdom of the masses who for years have been telling their leaders that, alongside the violence and terrorism, there are also unity and cooperation that often overcome politics and differences.

This fact has ramifications. The city is united through common infrastructure, which it would be difficult and in many cases impossible, to split apart. Services are provided, at different levels, to all parts of the city: from streets to shared water, electrical, sewerage, and telephone systems. In Jerusalem’s hospitals, Jewish and Arab doctors and nurses work night and day to serve both populations.

Many of the Egged bus drivers, as well as passengers, are Arabs. The Arab population has integrated into the city’s pharmacology and trade sectors. Shopping centers, supermarkets, chain stores, and leisure spots are bustling with Jewish and Arab customers and employees.

A reality of “intermingling” exists in the playgrounds on the border between east and west Jerusalem, too. Arabs visit the Jerusalem Zoo and Ein Yael, and their children attend summer camps at those sites. More Jerusalem Arabs are asking for Israeli identity cards today than in the past, are signing up for Israeli high school matriculation exams, and are volunteering to perform national service and earn academic degrees in Israel.

(In other words, their Arab leaders are stupid but the Arab residents and oftimes citizens of Israel, by choice, are not)

Fewer Jews visit east Jerusalem, but intermingling exists there, too. In recent years, all quarters of the Old City have been crowded with tourists and Jews, and inside the walls there is cooperation in the trade and tourism sectors.

Intermingling like this is a thorn in the side of Palestinian terrorist operatives, who this past year have initiated a second “mini-Intifada” — which we got another taste of on Thursday — and tried unsuccessfully to pull a large Palestinian population into the circle of hatred. It’s not surprising that the attempted attacks on the city’s light rail continue unabated, because the train has become both a symbol of and litmus test for coexistence in the city.

Anyone who talks to the residents of east Jerusalem, rather than the leaders who presume to speak for them, quickly discovers that many of them prefer to remain under Israeli sovereignty rather than becoming part of the Palestinian Authority.

As documented residents, they enjoy a host of financial benefits they would not find under the PA. Many are also unwilling to forgo the advantages of Israeli democracy. In-depth surveys conducted among the population of east Jerusalem in recent years show that most east Jerusalem Arabs would choose Israel over the PA. This is what the polls showed, despite the fact that Israel had made little investment in municipal services and infrastructure in the Arab neighborhoods, and many Jerusalem Arabs feel closer to Israeli Arabs than they do to Arabs in the West Bank.

In contrast to the question of “united or divided,” it’s easier to spot and document the more than a few scraps of normalcy and cooperation on one hand, and separation and alienation on the other. The fact that they exist simultaneously does not invalidate either one. The picture of cooperation and normalization that is not infrequently blotted out by the media was created by a reality of living next door to each other for almost 50 years. This is a new situation. Going back (for any number of reasons) is no longer possible.

Nadav Shragai is an Israeli author and journalist. He worked as a reporter for Israeli newspaper Haaretz starting in 1983 and retired in 2009. Today he continues to write as an author and academic, publishing a number of books on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In 1995 his book Temple of Dispute about the Temple Mount was published by Keter Publishing House.

Subscribe: (see right hand column)


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

I The Climate Change Religion


The Wall Street Journal

‘Today, our planet faces new challenges, but none pose a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” President Obama wrote in his proclamation for Earth. “As a Nation, we must act before it is too late.”

Secretary of State John Kerry, in an Earth Day op-ed for USA Today, declared that climate change has put America “on a dangerous path—along with the rest of the world.”

Both the president and Mr. Kerry cited rapidly warming global temperatures and ever-more-severe storms caused by climate change as reasons for urgent action.

Given that for the past decade and a half global-temperature increases have been negligible, and that the worsening-storms scenario has been widely debunked, the pronouncements from the Obama administration sound more like scare tactics than fact-based declarations.

At least the United Nations’ then-top climate scientist, Rajendra Pachauri, acknowledged—however inadvertently—the faith-based nature of climate-change rhetoric when he resigned amid scandal in February. In a farewell letter, he said that “the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

Instead of letting political ideology or climate “religion” guide government policy, we should focus on good science. The facts alone should determine what climate policy options the U.S. considers. That is what the scientific method calls for: inquiry based on measurable evidence. Unfortunately this administration’s climate plans ignore good science and seek only to advance a political agenda.

Climate reports from the U.N.—which the Obama administration consistently embraces—are designed to provide scientific cover for a preordained policy. This is not good science. Christiana Figueres, the official leading the U.N.’s effort to forge a new international climate treaty later this year in Paris, told reporters in February that the real goal is “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years.” In other words, a central objective of these negotiations is the redistribution of wealth among nations. It is apparent that President Obama shares this vision.

The Obama administration recently submitted its pledge to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The commitment would lock the U.S. into reducing greenhouse-gas emissions more than 25% by 2025 and “economy-wide emission reductions of 80% or more by 2050.” The president’s pledge lacks details about how to achieve such goals without burdening the economy, and it doesn’t quantify the specific climate benefits tied to his pledge.

America will never meet the president’s arbitrary targets without the country being subjected to costly regulations, energy rationing and reduced economic growth. These policies won’t make America stronger. And these measures will have no significant impact on global temperatures. In a hearing last week before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, of which I am chairman, climate scientist Judith Curry testified that the president’s U.N pledge is estimated to prevent only a 0.03 Celsius temperature rise. That is three-hundredths of one degree.

In June 2014 testimony before my committee, former Assistant Secretary for Energy Charles McConnell noted that the president’s Clean Power Plan—requiring every state to meet federal carbon-emission-reduction targets—would reduce a sea-level increase by less than half the thickness of a dime. Policies like these will only make the government bigger and Americans poorer, with no environmental benefit.

The White House’s Climate Assessment implies that extreme weather is getting worse due to human-caused climate change. The president regularly makes this unsubstantiated claim—most recently in his Earth Day proclamation, citing “more severe weather disasters.”

Even the U.N. doesn’t agree with him on that one: In its 2012 Special Report on Extreme Events, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there is “high agreement” among leading experts that long-term trends in weather disasters are not attributable to human-caused climate change. Why do the president and others in his administration keep repeating this untrue claim?

Climate alarmists have failed to explain the lack of global warming over the past 15 years. They simply keep adjusting their malfunctioning climate models to push the supposedly looming disaster further into the future. Following the U.N.’s 2008 report, its claims about the melting of Himalayan glaciers, the decline of crop yields and the effects of sea-level rise were found to be invalid. The InterAcademy Council, a multinational scientific organization, reviewed the report in 2010 and identified “significant shortcomings in each major step of [the U.N.] assessment process.”

The U.N. process is designed to generate alarmist results. Many people don’t realize that the most-publicized documents of the U.N. reports are not written by scientists. In fact, the scientists who work on the underlying science are forced to step aside to allow partisan political representatives to develop the “Summary for Policy Makers.” It is scrubbed to minimize any suggestion of scientific uncertainty and is publicized before the actual science is released. The Summary for Policy Makers is designed to give newspapers and headline writers around the world only one side of the debate.

Yet those who raise valid questions about the very real uncertainties surrounding the understanding of climate change have their motives attacked, reputations savaged and livelihoods threatened. This happens even though challenging prevailing beliefs through open debate and critical thinking is fundamental to the scientific process.

The intellectual dishonesty of senior administration officials who are unwilling to admit when they are wrong is astounding. When assessing climate change, we should focus on good science, not politically correct science.

Mr. Smith, a Republican from Texas, is chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

II  How Can So Many World Leaders Be So Wrong?

Excerpt from an article by Alan Caruba

SUNDAY, MAY 10, 2015

In a recent Daily Caller article, Michael Bastach took note of “25 Years of predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’.” This is the message that the Earth is warming rapidly and, if we don’t abandon the use of fossil fuels for power, it will arrive to wreak destruction on the human race and all life on the planet.

It is astounding how many past and present world leaders are telling everyone this despite the total lack of any real science, nor any actual warming—the Earth has been in a natural cooling cycle since 1997!

At the heart of the global warming—now called climate change—“crisis” has been the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that has been issuing apocalyptic predictions since its inception in 1988. None of its predictions have come true. How could they, based as they are on the false science of computer models, not that based on observable climate events and trends?

To this day our own government through its meteorological agencies has been caught manipulating the data gathered over the years to conform with the “warming” scenario. The worst has been the Environmental Protection Agency which is engaged in an effort to shut down coal-fired utilities and access to every other energy source on which we depend to power the nation.

Despite this national and international effort, mostly likely based on the liberal ideology that there are too many humans on the plant and dramatic ways must be found to reduce that number. In the past these anti-humanity advocates could depend on famine, disease and wars to kill off millions, but in the modern world that has become less of a threat.

… It doesn’t matter if it is the Pope, the President of the United States, or the UN Secretary General if the assertion that the Earth is warming when it is not or that coal, oil and natural gas must be abandoned to “save the Earth.” Whether from ignorance or a dark hidden agenda, the whole of the global warming/climate change is aimed at harming billions, many of whom need the power that this hoax would deny to everyone.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

Subscribe: (see right hand column)


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Following is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the 5th Global Forum for Combatting Anti-Semitism, this evening (Tuesday, 12 May 2015).

Click here for a YouTube link.

“Thank you. I’ve been called many things, but never ‘Your Honor’. That’s a good honor.

Well, I’m very pleased to welcome you all to Jerusalem. There are senior government ministers here from Germany, from Romania, from Bulgaria, from Canada.

Our own Minister of Diaspora Affairs, Naftali Bennett,

The Mayor of Paris,

The UN Coordinator for the Peace Process,

Religious leaders from across the face, many from the Muslim community. I had an excellent discussion just now with the Imam of Paris.

There are ambassadors here and distinguished guests from so many walks of life, from so many lands, including great actors.

So I’m delighted to see all of you here, even though the subject of our deliberations is not a source of delight.

Seventy years ago, with the end of World War II and the revelation of the horrors of the Holocaust, some believed that humanity would discard one of history’s oldest hatreds – anti-Semitism.

And it’s true that in the years immediately following World War II, blatant expressions of hatred for the Jews appeared to take a respite, at least in the liberal West.

Yet today there is no doubt that we are living in an age of resurgent anti-Semitism.

Jews everywhere are once again being slandered and vilified.

This is taking place in the intolerant parts of the Middle East but it’s also taking place in what otherwise would be expected to be the tolerant parts of the West.

It’s taking place in Beirut, in Damascus, in Tehran. But it’s also taking place, violently so, in Toulouse, in Paris, in Brussels. Because along with vilification come the inevitable violent attacks.

And Jews are now being targeted for being Jews.

Now, Jews have the right to live freely and safely wherever they choose.

And governments everywhere are responsible for guaranteeing this right.

And I want to take this opportunity to praise all the governments that have been witnessing this resurgent anti-Semitism, their commitment to protect the rights of the Jews, the rights of individuals, the rights of their citizens. Their representatives are here, and I praise you for it.

But Jews also have the right to join us here in Israel, and if they make that choice, we will welcome them with open arms.

Now, contemporary anti-Semitism doesn’t just slander, vilify and target the Jewish people. It first and foremost today targets the Jewish state. That’s the nexus, that’s the core, that’s the focus of anti-Semitism.

I want to give you an example of this from today, this morning. I went down to Ben-Gurion airport to welcome home the IDF’s humanitarian mission to Nepal.

The UN filed a report. Actually, this is a good UN report about Israel. It said that of all the countries in the world, and Israel is one of the smallest countries in the world, Israel fielded the second largest rescue and relief team in Nepal. Of all the nations in the earth.

Our people did a magnificent job. They saved lives. They took people out of the rubble. They treated 1,600 wounded people and sick people. They delivered life, several births.

Yet yesterday state television in both Iran and Venezuela accused our humanitarian team of trafficking in babies.

Now, did any of you see an Iranian rescue team in Nepal?

This is the quintessential example of the Big Lie technique.

The aggressor accuses his victim.

And this big lie of anti-Semitism is propagated most enthusiastically by those who trample on the human rights of their own people.

Iran will speak of human rights? I don’t want to talk about Venezuela. I’ll leave that to you. I’m the Foreign Minister, for God’s sake.

They lecture us on human rights, on the rule of law, on safeguarding human decency? They string people in cranes, innocent people in cranes in the squares of Tehran and Iran’s other cities. They send their goons to Lebanon, to Syria, to Yemen, slaughtering people by the thousands. They slaughter Muslims, they target Muslims who do not share their violent creed.

Today, a lot of the extreme anti-Semitism that we see today is coming from old quarters, intolerant quarters, xenophobic ones in parts of Europe, in a peculiar marriage with the militants who seek to overtake the world of Islam, and they have integrated the most extreme anti-Semitism into this murderous theology.

I want to give you an example. First, recognize that their first and greatest number of victims are their fellow Muslims. But they also target us, and I give you the Hamas Charter.

It repeats the ancient libels against the Jews. It openly calls for the murder of Jews wherever they are and for the destruction of their state.

And the same can be said of Hezbollah and for the common patron of both Hezbollah and Hamas, which is of course Iran.

And of course they have competition. The militant Shi’ites have competition from the militant Sunnis of al-Qaida, of ISIS and al-Nusra who echo their murderous creed not only about Israel. You’ve seen the horrors they commit on their fellow slims.

Today’s anti-Semitism, as I said, is not limited to the various sects of militant Islam, nor is it limited just to the xenophobic elements on the fringes of European society. Because today it often wears the mask of so-called progressive thinking in the West.

Some of those who consider themselves champions of tolerance are remarkably intolerant when it comes to Jews and the Jewish state.

The classic anti-Semite portrayed the Jews as the embodiment of all evil in the world.

Modern anti-Semites portray the Jewish state as the embodiment of all evil in the world.

When Hamas and Hezbollah rocketed our cities, thousands and thousands and thousands of rockets, fired directly at our cities – that’s a war crime, hiding behind their civilians – that’s a second war crime – when they committed these dual war crimes, tens of thousands demonstrated on the streets of European capitals, not against Hamas, not against Hezbollah, but against Israel.

Now, thousands are being killed in the brutal conflict in Yemen.

You see any demonstrations in London or Paris?

A quarter of a million people have been savagely butchered in Syria.

You hear any word of academic boycotts on the Assad regime?

And in Iran now under the Rouhani government, executions have gone up, innocent people are taken to death.

You hear any UN resolutions condemning these violations of basic human rights?

And the answer regrettably is no. The demonstrations, the boycotts, the resolutions are all reserved for the Middle East’s one true democracy, in fact it’s the most beleaguered democracy on earth – Israel.

This is a travesty.

You can try to explain it away in many ways and it’s true that the internet has a multiplier effect, but you can have a multiplier effect on many, many lies, on many slanders, and yet this has a global multiplying effect, and there is something fundamentally wrong that this slander is reserved for the one country in the region where the death penalty is not even used against the most gruesome terrorist murderers, the one country that holds human rights sacrosanct, where equality is protected under the law – for women, for Christians, for minorities, for all.

You can ask yourself how is that possible, how could it be that the Jewish state is treated like that. There’s got to be fire if there’s smoke.

How do think the Jews were treated for generations? The things that peoples said about the Jews for generations were believed across so many lands. They believed that we poisoned the wells, that we drank the blood of Christian children, that we were spreading disease deliberately. By the way, these are all repeated as we speak.

You see, how could it be that they believed it? But they did. Not only did they believe it, you say, well, that’s because of ignorance. Yeah, that’s true. Except that some of the most educated people in history believed it – Voltaire, Dostoyevsky, and the list is a lot longer, by the way.

So education and knowledge may be a partial protector against this slander, but there’s something deeper here because these are such patent falsehoods. It is the willingness to submit to slander, the willingness to believe this. This is what creates the ground, and it starts not from the bottom. It starts with the elites. And that’s where it has to be challenged.

And today the treatment of Israel is no different from the treatment of our forbearers. The Jewish state is being treated among the nations the way the Jewish people were treated for generations.

And we’re not perfect, by the way. We have a lot of things that we can improve.

We have a very boisterous and robust democracy. You should come to the Knesset. I invite all of you. What fun. But it is. It’s alive. It’s free. Everything is debated, everything is open, and there is a system of justice, a system of laws and true tolerance. With all the imperfections of any society, we’ve built here a tremendous society. Beleaguered? Yes, but with great success.

And our best allies actually these days are some of our Arab neighbors because they know we face a common threat.

So we see this country. How can it be that this country is slandered like no other country? Well, probably because old habits die hard.

But the sad truth is that some of them don’t die. The sad truth is that no rational examination can justify the obsession with the Jewish state, and this obsession with the Jewish state and the Jewish people has a name.

It’s called anti-Semitism.

I know you understand all this.

I know that the people in this room have learned the painful lessons of 70 years ago.

I appreciate your commitment to fighting anti-Semitism because the battle starts from the top. Anti-Semitism, contrary to what people think, does not just bubble up from below. It percolates also from the top. And that’s why it’s so important that there are leaders here, across lands, across faiths, across professions, from the public and the private domain, who are gearing up to fight this old obsession.

You have learned from history, but regrettably, many around the world have yet to do so.

I want to assure you that we have.

We are no longer a stateless people searching for a safe haven.

We are no longer a powerless people begging others to protect us.

Today we have an independent and sovereign state.

Today we can protect ourselves and defend our freedoms, our lives.

What has changed in the history of the world for the Jewish people is not the hatred of the Jews, but with the founding of the Jewish state, the rediscovery by the Jews of the capacity to defend ourselves against slander and against attack.

Today we can speak up against our vilification – as I am doing right now and as you have been doing, and I know you will continue to do.

Because there is a simple fact – a lie that is left unchallenged and endlessly repeated assumes the cachet of self-evident truth.

Our biggest job – our biggest job – is to go and light a candle of truth.

When I came to the United Nations many years ago to serve as Israel’s ambassador, I met a famous Jewish religious leader, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and he said to me: You know, you’ll be going into a house where many, many lies will be leveled at Israel and at our people, and he said, ‘Remember that in the darkest halls, if you light one candle, then people will see the light of truth for a very long distance. They’ll see it from afar, and your job’, he said to me, ‘is to light a candle of truth in a dark hall.’ Well, I’ll tell you, we need a lot of candles, a lot of lighters of candles, and that’s how I see you.

Because nowhere is this calumny that is leveled against our people more systematically propagated than in Iran.

The ayatollah regime is conducting as we speak a competition. The competition is an international competition. It parallels our conference, except it’s the very reverse. It’s a competition of Holocaust deniers from around the globe, who can better deny the Holocaust. And while they are denying the Holocaust, they’re planning another genocide against our people.

They openly threaten to annihilate the State of Israel.

Just a few weeks ago, a few days before the Lausanne agreement was signed, an Iranian general said, “The destruction of Israel is non-negotiable.” Openly.

And of course they seek to build nuclear weapons to implement this mad design.

And I have to tell you honestly that the Lausanne framework won’t stop them.

Israel wants to see a peaceful solution, a better deal that will actually block Iran’s path to the bomb.

But I want to be absolutely clear.

The Jewish state will defend itself by itself against any threat.

That’s what we’ve learned from history.

That’s what the Jewish state is all about.

But we’ve also learned something else.

I don’t know if we’ll be able to eradicate the scourge of anti-Semitism. I know we have to fight it. We have learned that if you don’t fight it, if unstopped, these fires of anti-Semitism eventually spread and they consume everyone. That is I think the central lesson of the 20th century, in many ways the central lesson of modern times.

So for the sake of decency, for the sake of our common humanity, for the sake of our common future, we must all continue to stand up and fight anti-Semitism.

The Jewish people and decent people everywhere will salute you for doing just that.

Thank you, thank you for coming to Jerusalem, thank you.” ________________________________________

IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis

Subscribe: (see right hand column)
Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share This Post

Two of my favorite panel programs are:

1. The Fox News Special Report Panel hosted by Bret Baier who serves as FOX News Channel’s chief political anchor (weeknights 6-7PM/ET). It is far and  away the top-rated cable news program in its time slot and consistently one of the top four shows in cable news. The show is based in Washington, DC and frequently features as guest panelists:  Chas. Krauthammer, Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, AB Stoddard and George Will.

2. The Wall Street Journal editorial board that represents the newspaper and its editorial page publicly. Every Saturday at 11:00 PM EST, three editorial page writers and host Paul Gigot, editor of the Editorial Page, appear on Fox News Channel’s Journal Editorial Report to discuss current issues with a variety of guests. Bret Stephens, Daniel Henninger, Kimberly Strassel and Jason Riley are the board members who appear most frequently. Toward the end of each show each panel member on Fox is asked his Winner and Loser in the news that week.

At the Wall Street Editorial Board discussion the panelists are asked the same thing only they call them Hits and Misses.

All of the above just charged me to pick my very own hit and miss or winner and loser from the current week’s news items.

My winner without any equivocation is Marine Le Pen, the rapidly ascending French political leader and daughter of arch anti-Semite and irrational, obnoxious, Nazi-like nationalist, Jean-Marie Le Pen. What was her hit or winner?

She told her very own Daddy, in no uncertain terms, to take a hike!

The details of this magnificent gesture were in the Wall Street Journal of May 5, 2015

By Noemie Bisserbe

PARIS—The National Front suspended Jean-Marie Le Pen, the man who put the far-right party on France’s political map, as a member and left open the door to possible expulsion after he repeated comments belittling the Holocaust.

The move Monday deepens the elderly firebrand’s rift with a new generation of National Front members led by his daughter, Marine Le Pen.

She has become one of the country’s most prominent politicians in large part by blaming its economic woes on mainstream parties and the European Union.

On Monday, Ms. Le Pen convened a special committee of party officials to consider disciplinary action against her 86-year-old father after he gave interviews to French media expounding on his positions on the Holocaust and the Nazi occupation of France.

The committee stopped short of immediately ejecting Mr. Le Pen—a step some of Ms. Le Pen’s allies were seeking. Instead, his future membership will be decided at the National Front’s next general assembly, which is expected within three months, a party spokesman said.

Asked on Monday whether he would consider retiring from politics, Mr. Le Pen responded: “You’d have to kill me.”

Ms. Le Pen has long been trying to steer National Front away from the extreme rhetoric her father deployed to fuel the movement’s rise in earlier decades.

Her strategy has helped the party attract new supporters across France—chalking up a string of victories in local elections and positioning Ms. Le Pen as a presidential contender in 2017.

But it has also made it harder for her to avoid publicly clashing with her father, who retains a loyal following among National Front hard-liners.

Last month, Mr. Le Pen repeated comments he made more than 25 years ago, describing Nazi gas chambers as a “detail” of World War II history.

Mr. Le Pen then told far-right publication Rivarol that he never regarded Marshal Philippe Pétain—a French military leader who was convicted of treason after he collaborated with the Germans in occupied France—as a traitor.

The comments left Ms. Le Pen in a political bind as key lieutenants began to demand his dismissal. National Front’s vice president Florian Philippot said the remarks showed Mr. Le Pen’s break with party ranks was “definitive.”

On Sunday, Ms. Le Pen delivered her strongest rebuke of her father yet, accusing him on French television of trying to harm her directly.

“His recent actions are unacceptable. I perceive them as a malicious act against the National Front and me,” Ms. Le Pen said. “I feel like he just can’t bear the fact that the National Front continues to exist without him at its helm.”



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

Rubio has a shrewd poison pill for the Iran deal

By Eli Lake

Chicago Tribune

April 30, 2015

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida and aspirant for his party’s presidential nomination, has a very poisonous pill he is seeking to add to Iran legislation this week before the Senate.

No, it’s not his much discussed amendment saying Congress would not lift its sanctions on Iran unless Iran recognized Israel. Rather Rubio just wants the Iran deal to conform to the president’s own description of a nuclear framework agreement. As Rubio said Wednesday, “It requires this final deal be the deal the president says it is.”

On the surface, this seems like small ball. On April 2, the White House released a fact sheet that spelled out Iran’s obligations to modify some of its nuclear facilities and limit its enrichment. The fact sheet said sanctions would be phased out over time as Iran complied with the terms of the framework.

Rubio’s amendment simply quotes that fact sheet verbatim and says the president may not waive or lift any Congressional sanctions until he certifies Iran has met the White House conditions.

“For the life of me, I don’t understand why that would be controversial,” Rubio said Wednesday. “Yet somehow, I was told this would box the White House in.”

But Rubio knows very well why the amendment is controversial. Almost immediately after the White House announced the terms of what it thought was a framework agreement, the Iranians balked. The foreign minister, Javad Zarif, tweeted that the White House fact sheet was spin. The head of Iran’s revolutionary guard corps said international inspectors would never gain access to military sites. And Iran’s supreme leader says all sanctions must be lifted up front when Iran signs an agreement.

In the face of Iran’s new red lines, Obama wobbled. On April 17, Obama said he was instructing his negotiators to “find formulas that get to our main concerns while allowing the other side to make a presentation to their body politic that is more acceptable.”

In the Senate it’s not clear whether Rubio will get a vote on his fact-sheet amendment. On Wednesday Rubio said leaders of his party promised that he would be able to get a fair hearing for his amendments during the floor debate, but that this week he said he was being told there may not be enough time to vote on all the amendments Republicans have offered.

So far, Democrats and a few Republicans have voted down two amendments to the Iran bill. An amendment to treat an Iran deal as a treaty, and thus require an affirmative two-thirds majority to approve it in the Senate, was voted down Tuesday 57 to 39. Another amendment that would require Obama to certify Iran was not supporting acts of terrorism against Americans as a condition for lifting Congressional sanctions was voted down 54 to 45 on Wednesday.

Among the Republicans voting with Democrats on the amendments are Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and co-author of the legislation; Arizona Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee; and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, an Iran hawk who has hinted he will be running for president.

But Rubio’s fact-sheet amendment is different. It doesn’t challenge the presidential authority to sign an executive agreement. Republicans supported that power when their party controlled the White House. Rubio’s fact-sheet amendment is also germane to the Iran legislation before the Senate. An argument used against other amendments–like Rubio’s one on recognizing Israel–is that it asks Iran to meet conditions not related to the nuclear negotiations.

Rubio’s fact sheet amendment only asks Democrats to vote on whether a final Iran deal should meet the conditions as described by the leader of their own party. If Democrats vote that it should, then Obama may be forced to issue a veto over his own fact sheet as he seeks to make a final agreement more palatable to Iran. If the Democrats vote that it shouldn’t, then they will appear to be conceding the White House either misled the public or bungled the negotiations earlier this month.

An irony here is that Rubio himself has said that the deal outlined in the White House fact sheet was too weak. But bad policy in this case makes for very good politics.

Eli Lake is a Bloomberg View columnist who writes about politics and foreign affairs.

II  But today,  US Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Bill Giving Congress Oversight of Iran Deal

MAY 7, 2015

Author: avatar

The United States Senate rejected a bid to consider the Iran nuclear deal as an international treaty. – The U.S. Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which would give Congress a 30-day period to review a final nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, in a 98-1 vote.

The only senator to vote against the bill was U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who objected on the grounds that the legislation does not require a final nuclear agreement to be submitted as a treaty requiring Senate approval. U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer was absent for the vote.

Subscribe: (see right hand column)


Twitter: @israelcomment




Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

(In this era of progressing socially acceptable moral depravity, perhaps it is a good time, to address this topic? It is likely no coincidence that it is presented in the weeks prior to Yom Kippur when the observant Jew stands before his God and begs to be included in the coming year’s roster and he must answer to his sins in the year that just passed.)

Jerome S. Kaufman

LAWS OF FORBIDDEN RELATIONS From the Hebrew Bible (The Five Books of Moses)

Book Three – Vayikra (Leviticus), Parshas Acharei, 18:1

“Do not follow the practices of the land of Egypt where you lived. And do not follow the practices of the land of Cana’an, where I am bringing you (for these two nations are the most depraved of all). Do not (even) follow their customs.”

“You should fulfill My rational laws, and guard My supra-rational commands and (always) their (wisdom, and not secular wisdom).

I am God, your God.

“You should guard My commands and My rational laws which a man should do, and you will live by them (in the next world for) I am God (who is faithful to pay reward).”

“No man (or woman) may come near to any of his (or her) close relatives, to uncover their nakedness (and co-habit with them). I am God (who is faithful to pay reward).”

“You must not uncover the nakedness of your fathers wife or the nakedness of your mother ( if she is not your father’s wife. Since she is your mother, you must not uncover her nakedness.”

“You must not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife (even after death, since) it is your father’s (wife’s) nakedness.”

“You must not uncover your sister’s nakedness, (whether) she is your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, (and regardless of whether) she is born to a woman who may remain in the home or (if she is) born to a woman who must be expelled.”

“You must not uncover the nakedness of the daughter of your son or daughter (who was born from a forbidden relationship), for they are (like) your own nakedness.”

“You must not uncover the nakedness of your father’s (Jewish) wife’s daughter, born to your father (because) she is your sister.” “You must not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister (because she is the close relative of your father.”

“You must not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, because she is the close relative of your mother.”

“You must not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, (namely) you must not come near his wife, (because) she is your aunt.”

“You must not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife so must not uncover her nakedness.”

“You must not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife (for she) is your brother’s nakedness.”

“You must not uncover the nakedness of a woman (to whom you are married) and her daughter.”

“You must not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter (in marriage) to uncover her nakedness. It is the advice (of the evil inclination since) they are close relatives.”

“You must not take a woman (in marriage) in addition to her sister, to make them rivals by uncovering one’s nakedness in addition to the other’s. (Even if you divorce one sister, you not marry the other one) in her lifetime.”

“You must not come near a woman during the ritual impurity of her menstruation, to uncover her nakedness.”

“You must not lie carnally with your fellowman’s wife, to make yourself impure with her.”

“You must not give any of your offspring (to pagan priests) to pass through between two bonfires, in worship of the pagan deity) Molech. You must not profane the Name of your God. I am God.”

“You must not lie down with a man, as one lies with a woman. This is an abomination”

“You must not cohabit with any animal, to become impure from it. A woman must not stand in front of an animal to cohabit with it. This is depravity.”

“You must not defile yourselves by any of these things, for the nations whom I am sending away from you have defiled themselves with all these things. The land became defiled. I remembered its sin (bringing punishment) upon it, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.”

“But you will observe My supra-rational commands and My rational commands, and you will not do any of these abominations — neither the native, nor the convert who lives among you.”

“The people of the land who preceeded you, did all of these abominations and the land became defiled. Let the land not vomit you out for having defiled it, as it vomited out the nation that preceded you. “

“For if anyone commits any of these abominations, (both) the people (the man and the woman who committed (the act) will be cut off from the midst of their people.”

“(The courts should) enforce My restrictions, not to commit any of the abominable practices that were done before you, and you will not become defiled by them.”

“(If you keep My laws then) I am God your God.”

Subscribe: (see right hand column


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post


Wall Street Journal

April 24, 2015

I’m always chasing rainbows, watching clouds drifting by / My schemes are just like all my dreams, ending in the sky. The vaudeville song by Harry Carroll and Joseph McCarthy, popularized by Judy Garland and Barbra Streisand, is all too appropriate to this moment, as we consider the implications of a nuclear Iran and the prospect of mushroom clouds over the Middle East.

President Obama has been chasing a rainbow in his negotiations with Iran. He has forsaken decades of pledges to the civilized world from presidents of both parties. He has misled the American people in repeatedly affirming that the U.S. would never allow revolutionary Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, which would guarantee a new arms race. In fact, one has already started. Credible reports suggest Pakistan is ready to ship an atomic package to Saudi Arabia, the Sunni nation that stands opposed to Shiite Iran’s subversion throughout the region.

How far Mr. Obama is prepared to chase the negotiation dream is illustrated by the recent candor of his energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist who has been party to the negotiations. In 2013 the president answered questions about Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons with these words: “Our assessment continues to be a year or more away, and in fact, actually our estimate is probably more conservative than the estimates of Israeli intelligence services.”

Yet on Monday Mr. Moniz told reporters at Bloomberg a different story: “They are right now spinning. I mean enriching with 9,400 centrifuges out of their roughly 19,000,” he said. “It’s very little time to go forward. That’s two to three months.” How long has the administration held this view? “Oh, quite some time,” Mr. Moniz replied. The Bloomberg report suggests “several years.”

This stunningly casual remark was based on information apparently declassified on April 1. What is Mr. Obama up to? Why was he reassuring in 2013 when he knew it was misleading? Is the declassification intended to create a false sense of urgency?

Compare where we are today with the conditions Mr. Obama laid down two years ago. Referring to Iran’s smiling new president, Hasan Rouhani, Mr. Obama said: “If in fact he is able to present a credible plan that says Iran is pursuing peaceful nuclear energy but we’re not pursuing nuclear weapons, and we are willing to be part of an internationally verified structure so that all other countries in the world know they are not pursuing nuclear weapons, then, in fact, they can improve relations, improve their economy. And we should test that.”

Sure—let’s test it:

Enrichment: Before the talks began, the Obama administration and U.N. Security Council insisted that Iran stop all uranium enrichment. So did the 2013 framework agreement. Now the deal enshrines Iran’s right to enrich.

Stockpile: In February, Iran had 10,000 kilograms of enriched uranium, which the deal says will be reduced to 300 kilograms. The remainder is to be exported to Russia and returned to Iran as fuel rods for use in a power plant. But Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, told state media at the end of March that “there is no question of sending the stocks abroad.”

Centrifuges: Iran has about 19,000 centrifuges, and the U.S. initially called for cutting that to between 500 and 1,500. The agreement now allows 6,104. Not only that, Iran’s foreign minister has said that advanced IR-8 centrifuges, which enrich uranium 20 times faster than the current IR-1 models, will be put into operation as soon as the nuclear deal takes effect—contrary to what the U.S. has asserted.

• Infrastructure: The closure of nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Arak has been an American goal for a decade. Under the deal, the 40-megawatt heavy-water nuclear plant at Arak, which produces plutonium, will remain, albeit with reduced plutonium production. The deal allows the Fordow facility, which is buried in a mountain fortress designed to withstand aerial attack, to be converted into a “peaceful research” center. Iran will be allowed to keep 1,000 centrifuges there. Natanz will remain open as well.

• Missiles: Iran stonewalled on concerns about the military dimensions of its nuclear program. U.S. negotiators dropped demands that Tehran restrict development of intercontinental ballistic missiles that could be used to deliver warheads.

• Duration: Initially the U.S. wanted the deal to last 20 years. Now the key terms sunset in 10 to 15 years. Rather than enabling American disengagement from the Middle East, the framework is likely to necessitate deepening involvement under complex new terms, as former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz wrote in this newspaper earlier this month.

• Enforcement: President Obama promises: “If Iran cheats, the world will know it. If we see something suspicious, we will inspect it.” This is incredibly unrealistic. Over the past year alone, Iran has violated its international agreements at least three times. In November the International Atomic Energy Agency caught Iran operating a new advanced IR-5 centrifuge. Disagreement about inspections under the deal persists. Secretary Moniz has said that inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency must be allowed access to any place at any time. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his military say no way.

• Sanctions: The deal gives Iran exactly what it wanted: permanent relief from economic sanctions in exchange for temporary restraints. Mr. Obama talks about being able to “snap back” sanctions. But consider the attitudes of two of the big players in the six-power talks. China’s press refers to “peaceful” Iran as if it were Switzerland. Russia says the deal has freed it to sell S-300 air-defense missiles to Tehran. Assuming that the West discovers a nuclear violation, it will be nearly impossible to reimpose today’s sanctions.

• Good behavior: Meanwhile, Ayatollah Khamenei continues to denounce the U.S. as the Great Satan, making clear that Iran doesn’t expect to normalize relations. His speeches indicate that Iran still sees itself in a holy war with the West.

So here we are at the end of the rainbow, seemingly willing to concede nuclear capacity to Iran, a country we consider a principal threat. No wonder Saudi Arabia and Egypt are insisting on developing equivalent nuclear capabilities. America’s traditional allies have concluded that the U.S. has traded temporary cooperation from Iran for acquiescence to its ultimate hegemony.

The sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table took years to put in place. They have impaired Iran’s ability to conduct trade in the global market. The banking freeze in particular has had a crippling effect, since international businesses will not risk being blacklisted by the U.S. and European Union to make a few dollars in Iran. Many of those who have studied the problem believe that if the sanctions were to remain, they would squeeze Tehran and force greater concessions.

President Obama seems to be willfully ignoring Iran’s belligerent behavior and its growing influence over Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Yemen’s capital, San’a. Free of sanctions, Iran may become even more assertive.

There are no rainbows ahead, only menacing clouds.

Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report.

Subscribe: (see right hand column)


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share This Post

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel has been operating on emergency standing since receiving the first reports of the earthquake that hit Nepal on Saturday, 25 April 2015, providing assistance to Israelis, Nepalese and others.

The Director General has been conducting situation assessments several times a day with Ministry staff and other officials with the goal of providing an immediate and appropriate response to the situation. The Ministry’s Emergency and Crisis Management Center is working with an increased staff around the clock.

The Ministry efforts are directed at providing assistance simultaneously to Israelis, Nepalese and others who were caught up in the disaster:

Israelis: The Ministry, via the embassy in Kathmandu, is aiding Israelis in the stricken area and is in touch with the families of Israeli travelers who have not yet established contact. The Ministry is helping to organize emergency  Nepalese humanitarian aid, flights to bring rescue and medical teams to the area, and the establishment of a field hospital.

The Israeli embassy in Kathmandu opened its gates to Israelis seeking shelter. Since Saturday, more than 150 Israelis have been staying in the embassy grounds. The embassy is attempting to locate, rescue and aid other Israelis currently in Nepal. It is not known of any Israelis among the injured (aside from a few with very minor injuries). The first Israeli rescue plane, from the Home Front Command, landed in Kathmandu on Sunday (26 April) and brought back to Israel the first group of Israelis, including newborn babies.

A Magen David Adom plane landed in Nepal, also on Sunday, and delivered a delegation of doctors and paramedics who settled in at the Chabad House. The plane returned to Israel with another group of Israelis.

Two El Al planes – one cargo and one passenger – will depart in the course of the day (Monday, 27 April) for Nepal. These planes will carry a team from the Israeli Ministry of Health and a large delegation of Home Front Command staff – more than two hundred doctors, sanitation engineers, machinery technicians and others – as well as medical equipment (portable monitor, oxygen tanks, medical ventilators, medicines, X-ray machines, resuscitation kit) and engineering equipment. After unloading their cargo, the planes will return to Israel carrying more Israeli travelers.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is expending great effort to hire helicopters in order to rescue those trapped in the area.

The Israel Embassy in Delhi is providing considerable support to the aid and rescue efforts. Staff members from the Ministry in Jerusalem as well as from nearby missions were sent to reinforce the forces in the field – among them the Deputy DG for Asia and the Pacific, the regional administrative officer for Asia, the New Delhi consul, a security officer, two representatives from the Spokesperson’s Bureau and a communications specialist.

The Division for Asia and the Pacific is in contact with more than 500 Nepalese residing in Israel and is responding to their requests.

This morning (27 April) a meeting, chaired by the MFA Deputy Director General who heads Israel’s National Agency for International Cooperation (MASHAV) was held to discuss the second stage of Israeli aid to Nepal, which will focus on long-term assistance.

II  Israel’s Phenomenal Relief Effort… And The World’s Reaction?
Monday, April 27, 2015

Israel reacted to the devastating earthquake in Nepal as it usually does when natural disaster strikes – by sending a relief team par excellence to the disaster site. The current team includes an IDF field hospital and approximately 250 rescue and medical staff.

The field hospital includes operating rooms, X-ray equipment and pediatric care to provide emergency medical services to the wounded. Additional members of the relief team are tasked with conducting search-and-rescue missions in collapsed buildings.

This relief effort is just another confirmation of Israel as a “Light Unto the Nations.”

However, the world media, including major press in the U.S., are reacting as they usually do – by ignoring and not reporting on the Israeli effort. And predictably, the usual anti-Israel bigots and racists have come out of the woodwork to react in their typical fashion – by inverting the truth and proclaiming that Israel’s actions are a ruse – a smokescreen and deflection from the horrors of “The Occupation.”

III CNN Reports:Table: Israel sent largest team to Nepal

Israel 260
UK 68
China 62
US 54
South Korea 40
Taiwan 20
Italy 15
France 11
Switzerland 6

Subscribe: (see right hand column)


Twitter: @israelcomment



Powered by Facebook Comments