As we fall perilously behind in the nuclear race …

Nuclear Modernization – A  fading commitment

The Weekly Standard
OCT 10, 2011
http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1948
The Obama administration’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review adopted the goals of reduced reliance on nuclear weapons, continued nuclear weapons reductions, and the ultimate, if controversial, goal of “nuclear zero”—the elimination of those weapons altogether. At the same time, it pledged to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent as long as other nations have nuclear arms. These goals are difficult to achieve simultaneously, and the Obama administration has stated explicitly that its priority “atop the U.S. nuclear agenda” is movement toward nuclear zero.

The commitment of the administration to sustaining an effective nuclear deterrent force became a contentious issue in 2010 during Senate debate on ratification of the New START Treaty. Senate critics of the treaty were concerned that it effectively demanded only U.S. force reductions and that the Obama administration lacked commitment to maintaining the U.S. nuclear triad (bombers, ICBMs, and missile submarines). Each element of the triad has attributes that support deterrence: ICBMs are the most secure, alert, and responsive, bombers the most flexible, and missile submarines the most likely to survive an attack.

The Obama administration argued that it would maintain a “robust” deterrent, claiming that it planned to “invest well over $100 billion to sustain existing strategic delivery systems capabilities,” modernize these aging U.S. systems, and replace decrepit facilities to fabricate uranium and plutonium parts with modern plants.

Under congressional pressure, in May 2010, the administration outlined its modernization plans in a report to Congress, the so-called Section 1251 report. In November 2010, an update to the report provided additional detail, presumably to calm critics of the administration’s New START Treaty. The November 2010 report promised “modernization” of “America’s nuclear arsenal,” but options were constrained by the administration’s simultaneous policy of no “new” U.S. nuclear weapons or weapon capabilities. The November report promised pursuit of a new heavy bomber and a new cruise missile to assure the continued effectiveness of the bomber part of the triad. The report also pointed towards a replacement ICBM by 2030.

These administration commitments succeeded in gaining Senate approval of the New START Treaty. Skeptics warned, however, that this commitment to modernizing the U.S. nuclear deterrent would prove temporary, given the Obama administration’s higher priority of movement toward nuclear zero. Unfortunately, the skeptics appear to have been correct.

The administration’s pledges to sustain and modernize U.S. nuclear forces now look short on substance and long on rhetoric. There has been minimal progress on the commitments to a new bomber, a replacement air-launched nuclear cruise missile, and possibly a new ICBM. Instead, budgetary pressures and further U.S. force reductions appear to threaten one or more of these programs.

The Obama administration has funded a replacement for the Trident missile submarine in 2029. But the number of submarines will be reduced as will the number of missiles per submarine, and a replacement for the Trident II missile is not scheduled until 2042. And judging by recent administration statements, the capabilities of the replacement submarine may be downgraded to reduce costs.

The administration’s approach to fixing problems with nuclear warheads and facilities for nuclear materials, which initially appeared to be robust, also may be flagging. The administration did submit the promised funding request for FY2012 to fix parts of our broken nuclear weapons complex. However, to date it has made no effort to sustain that funding in Congress. Both House and Senate appropriations committees have made cuts that will delay critical nuclear weapons life extension programs.

The House Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee has cut $500 million from the $7.1 billion budget request for nuclear weapon activities. The comparable Senate committee has cut $440 million. These cuts, if they stand, will put in jeopardy life extension programs for W78 warheads for ICBMs, B61 nuclear bombs deployed to Europe in support of NATO, and for completing the life extension of W76 warheads on our ballistic missile submarines.

In addition, cuts eliminate over $200 million for nuclear warhead infrastructure and over $130 million from science and technology at our national labs. Of specific concern is a cut of $100 million from funds to build the Chemistry and Metallurgy Replacement Facility, the nation’s only plutonium research and engineering facility, to support the nuclear stockpile and nonproliferation programs.

One reason the Obama administration came under pressure to modernize U.S. nuclear deterrent capabilities for the long term is the obvious fact that Russia, China, and others are engaged in extensive nuclear modernization programs. For example, Russian press reports state that Russia will triple its strategic missile production over the period 2011-2015. Russia is deploying new silo-based and mobile ICBMs and new ballistic missile submarines, which will carry a new type of ballistic missile. By 2018, Russia plans to deploy a new “heavy” ICBM, which reportedly can carry 10-15 nuclear warheads.

Russian plans call for developing a stealthy bomber and deploying a new nuclear cruise missile. New advanced nuclear warheads are being deployed, including low-yield warheads to make nuclear threats more credible. Additionally, Russia enjoys a 10-to-1 advantage over the United States in tactical nuclear weapons.

The Chinese nuclear buildup is slower but steady. China is deploying two new mobile ICBMs. Reportedly, China is developing multiple warhead ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. It is also building new missile submarines to carry these latter missiles. North Korea, Iran, and possibly India are also developing ICBMs. Apparently these nations have not been inspired by the “nuclear zero” slogan.

Recently, administration officials have made explicit statements revealing lukewarm support for their earlier commitment to nuclear modernization. For example, in early 2011, White House arms control coordinator Gary Samore said the U.S. government was considering further unilateral nuclear weapons cuts and eliminating a leg of the nuclear triad. When asked about this, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would not rule it out. In September, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that a decision will have to be made” in the future “of whether we keep the triad or drop it down to a dyad.

Reporting in the Washington Times, Bill Gertz wrote that the Obama White House is determined to “make deeper cuts on strategic nuclear forces.” In July 2011, according to AOL Defense, General James Cartwright, then-vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, opined that “America does not need a stealthy long-range bomber able to penetrate deep into remote, well-defended places.”

The $400 billion cut in defense spending announced by President Obama in April 2011 probably means that the prospect for the new bomber or a replacement ICBM is poor unless Congress takes the initiative. As the Pentagon is forced to consider huge budget cuts, the ICBM force may be on the chopping block or subject to large unilateral reductions. Either move would be a mistake. So much for the Obama administration’s expressed resolve to modernize the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

In 2009, the bipartisan U.S. Strategic Commission recommended “retention of the current Triad.” The large defense budget cuts being considered today are very risky. At a minimum, the long-term commitment to the U.S. nuclear deterrent as outlined in the administration’s November 2010 report needs to be protected. If the Obama administration does not give sustained attention to these issues, further erosion and atrophy of U.S. capabilities are inevitable along with serious risks of a weakened U.S. nuclear deterrent.

Mark Schneider was special assistant in the Office of the Secretary of Defense during the New START Treaty negotiations. He now serves as a senior analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy.

When will the Israelis awake to the reality of Gilad Shalit?

BIBI’S HISTORIC SURRENDER TO TERRORISM
(With the support of 79% of the Israeli electorate and a huge majority of the Knesset)
Redacted from a courageous, politically incorrect, article by Uri Kaufman
The Jewish Press, October 21, 2011
http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1975
In March 1978, at the conclusion of the Litani Operation in South Lebanon, five Israeli soldiers and a civilian jumped into a car and decided to go on an outing. The group took to the road in defiance of army regulations and somehow got waived through a forward checkpoint. Moments later they found themselves surrounded by heavily armed Palestinians. Four of the five soldiers were killed instantly, while the civilian miraculously made it back to Israeli lines the next day.

The fifth soldier was taken captive by the PFLP-GC, the Palestinian terror group headed by Ahmed Jibril. Up to that point, Israel had a firm policy of trading soldiers for soldiers. Terrorists sentenced to life in prison were expected to spend life in prison. Exchanges with terror groups sometimes occurred in hostage situations, but they were rare and always premised on trading one for one.

In 1970, an Israeli farmer in the northern village of Metulla was kidnapped by Palestinians and taken to Lebanon. The Palestinians demanded the release of dozens of jailed terrorists. The Israeli government held firm, and in the end the farmer’s release was secured for just one terrorist.

With this in mind, a team was assembled in Jerusalem in 1978 to negotiate the release of the soldier. A terrorism expert named Ariel Merari,  circulated a memo that concluded the captured Israeli had “no market value.” Accordingly, he advised the government to set a low value and stick to it. Above all, he urged political leaders not to meet with the soldier’s family. Both pieces of advice were ignored. The family of the soldier first met with Defense Minister Ezer Weizmann. Merari later remembered that “Weizmann had a hard time standing up to the pressure, he folded, he promised and he declared that they had an open line to him whenever they wanted.” The same thing happened when the family met with Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

The initial offer from the Jibril camp was to swap the soldier for 19 Palestinians captured during the Litani Operation plus another six or seven in Israeli jails. It was deemed a reasonable offer. The 19 captured in the field were combatants, not terrorists, and the six or seven were all low value prisoners that were either sick or wounded.

Merari advised going slow. This was, after all, the way it worked in the Arab souk (market place). You showed little interest for what the other side was offering and then slowly negotiated your way to the finish line. Were Israel to accept the first offer, it would send the message that it would pay more. The general placed in charge of the negotiations wanted to wrap up the talks quickly and ignored this advice as well. With that, Merari tendered his resignation.

A year later, Merari was asked to return. Every dark prophecy of his had come true. The price from Jibril had climbed to the original 19 Palestinians captured in the field plus 76 terrorists held in Israeli jails, many of whom were murderers. Merari couldn’t believe his ears. He advised walking from the negotiating table, breaking off all contact. His advice was ignored once again. In the end, Jerusalem released the 19 combatants together with the 76 terrorists. Merari later calculated that the freed Palestinians had combined sentences remaining of over 2,800 years.

Ahmed Jibril had learned a valuable lesson. You didn’t need to hijack an airplane to free jailed terrorists. In fact, not only was it unnecessary, it was undesirable. When the Palestinians held large numbers of hostages, the Israelis sent in commandos to free them. When they held a single soldier, the Israelis refrained from any heroics because of the inevitable loss of life. The Israelis took four killed to free 106 hostages in Entebbe. But they wouldn’t take four killed to free just one soldier. Instead they gave in.

This logic, if one could call it that, was carried to a further extreme just a few years later. At the conclusion of the First Lebanon War in 1982, eight Israeli soldiers were captured by a smaller number of Palestinians. There was clear dereliction of duty on the part of the soldiers.  A little over a year later they were traded for 4,700 Fatah fighters who had surrendered during the war plus 63 terrorists in Israeli jails.

The remaining two Israeli soldiers had the misfortune of falling into the hands of Ahmed Jibril. He already held a third soldier named Hezi Shai who had been captured after fighting with great valor in an unrelated battle. Jibril knew from his previous experience that Israel would pay dearly to win the release of three soldiers so he held out for more.

For the freedom of just three soldiers, Ahmed Jibril received 1,150 convicted terrorists including some 400 murderers, many of whom were among the most notorious in Israeli history. One of those freed was Kozo Akimoto, who together with two others carried out the 1972 Lod Airport massacre in which 26 people were killed. The victims in that attack included Aharon Katzir, one of Israel’s most prominent scientists and brother of Israeli President Ephraim Katzir.

The Gemara (commentary on the Oral Laws furthering the Hebrew Torah) states in Gittin [45A] that “it is forbidden to redeem hostages for more than their value because of the common good.” After Rabbi Meir from Rottenberg was kidnapped by a medieval king, he commanded the local Jewish community not to pay any ransom on his behalf. Instead, he spent the last seven years of his life in captivity, dying in prison in 1293.

Professor Merari summed it up as well as anyone in a newspaper interview. “The moral obligation of the government,” he said, “is to act so that the fewest possible number of Israelis get attacked. The defense minister is charged with protecting the entire country, not any particular family. If you free 500 terrorists, you do so knowing that you are sentencing dozens of Israelis to death.”

The Israelis of an earlier generation that had actually experienced the Holocaust never caved in to similar pressure. Ben-Gurion, Dayan and Eshkol had plenty of opportunities to engage in similar arrangements, but they never did. They only traded soldiers for soldiers and they always kept the price within reason.

That Israel invariably pays a terrible price in blood when it lets terrorists go is a fact acknowledged by all. SHABAK, the Israeli equivalent of the FBI, performed a study and found that fully two thirds of those freed go right back to terrorism. Some 6,912 terrorists were freed between the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993 and the outbreak of the al-Aksa Intifada in September 2000 – mostly as good will gestures to the Palestinian Authority, though some had served out their term. A victims group called Almagor released a study that found that in the first five years of the al-Aksa Intifada the freed terrorists killed at least 177 Israelis.

In January 2004, Israel turned 435 terrorists over to Hizbullah to win the freedom of a kidnapped drug dealer named Elchanan Tenenbaum. So far, those freed terrorists have killed 27 Israelis.

And those were just the direct costs. The indirect costs were incalculably higher. And yet, time and again the Israeli public supported lopsided exchanges, even as the price climbed ever higher. Somehow, the Israeli public internalized nothing but the pain of the families in a hostage predicament.

Other democracies learned the futility of negotiating with terrorists and ceased the practice. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration swapped hostages for arms, only to see more Americans snatched off the streets of Beirut. Washington no longer negotiates with terrorists, and so Americans are no longer kidnapped.

All of which brings us to the sad story of Gilad Shalit.

Since his kidnapping by Hamas in June 2006, the floodgates of Israel’s emotion have burst open, submerging and overwhelming any attempt at a rational response. The mainstream Israeli media have abandoned any pretense of objectivity, condemning any refusal to free terrorists as cowardice and praising every concession as courageous. One popular news show ends each daily broadcast with an update of how many days Gilad has spent in captivity.

And so last week over 500 Israeli families received notices from the Defense Ministry: those who had murdered their loved ones were about to be freed. The final tally in this latest exchange dwarfs every deal that came before it. In return for a single soldier, the State of Israel has agreed to free 1,027 convicted terrorists.

One woman, Ahlem Tamimi, drove the suicide bomber who killed 15 in the Sbarro Pizzeria in Jerusalem. She has already been seen on Israeli television smiling and saying she has no regrets. And why should she? She has served only ten years in prison and she will soon be free to plan the deaths of more innocent people.

Don’t believe a word of the fashionable nonsense pulsating through the Israeli media in praise of Netanyahu. The likely price yet to be paid for this historic blunder is too painful to contemplate. Either way, we are witnessing a complete victory for Hamas and the forces of terror.

Uri Kaufman is the author of  “Low Level Victory,” to be released shortly by Harmony Books

A budget cut we cannot afford – “Sequestration”, an ugly word.

BY GARY SCHMITT AND THOMAS DONNELLY

Weekly Standard, OCT 10, 2011
http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1912
Among the many shortcomings of the Budget Control Act and its spawn, the “Super Committee,” is that the threat of a sequestration “nuclear option”—in which some $600 billion would be cut automatically from national security accounts (to my mind, the brain child of a president who has never had our national security as a consideration – jsk) if congressmen do not find savings elsewhere—diverts attention from the damage the law has done already to America’s military.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey have been quick off the mark in pointing out that sequestration would be “unacceptable” and “very high risk.” Various military service leaders have said that, if sequestration does come to pass, the country would have to “rethink” its entire military strategy. But the corollary to such criticism has been that the cuts already in law, though painful, can be “managed.” The Air Force’s second-ranking general told the House Armed Services Committee that “we will not go hollow” despite the $400 billion cut provided in the Budget Control Act.

But there’s good reason to wonder whether this is right. To begin with, the size of the current cut has grown. Last week Reuters reported that the level of defense reductions has increased to $489 billion, after the Obama administration decided to exempt veterans’ benefits from any cuts whatsoever. The White House is making a rather predictable political judgment that cutting Veterans budgets would cause them more pain than gutting defense budgets.

A better understanding of how the military is already being weakened can be found in a memo prepared for House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon. Although most news reports about the memo focused on the deep, indeed shocking, cuts in force structure that may result from sequestration, no less important was the memo’s accounting of the long-term effect on the military of current funding under the Budget Control Act.

Consider the personnel strength of the Army and Marine Corps. Even with 771,400 soldiers and Marines on active duty, both services remain stretched well beyond their limits. Based on current funding, the committee estimates that end-strength will fall to 654,000—smaller than pre-9/11 levels. Similarly, the Navy could slip to something on the order of 260 vessels—more than 50 ships below what the Navy consistently has argued it needs to carry out the country’s national security strategy. As for the Air Force, in 2000, it was flying more than 3,600 fighters; with cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act, that number may drop to less than 1,740.

The McKeon memo does not specify with equal precision the budget’s effects on future weapons programs, but there’s no reason to think such effects won’t be commensurate to the service cuts. The committee is correct to point out that every modernization program is “at risk”; the only real question is the level of risk. We are told that sequestration will create “unacceptable” risk, but because the Pentagon has yet to fully reckon the consequences of the current cuts, or even to reckon their overall size, there’s no way of knowing how much damage has already been done. So the service chiefs’ assurances that all is well should be treated with a heavy dose of skepticism.

The real problem is not the mechanism of sequestration, brutal though it may be. The fact is that the United States has been in an extended “defense drawdown” since the end of the Cold War, reaping substantial “peace dividends” throughout the Clinton years, during the Obama years, and now under the Budget Control Act. Indeed, more than $800 billion has been cut from planned spending in just the past three years. It’s time to say “enough” and to refuse not only sequestration but also a deal that avoids automatic reductions by substituting “just” a couple of hundred billion more in defense cuts. These are “savings” the nation cannot afford.

A pact signed in Jewish blood

BY THE GREAT CAROLYN GLICK
October 13, 2011
No one denies the long suffering of the Schalit family. Noam and Aviva Schalit and their relatives have endured five years and four months of uninterrupted anguish since their son St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit was abducted from his army post by Palestinian terrorists and spirited to Gaza in June 2006. Since then, aside from one letter and one videotaped message, they have received no signs of life from their soldier son.
There is not a Jewish household in Israel that doesn’t empathize with their suffering. It isn’t simply that most Israelis serve in the IDF and expect their children to serve in the IDF. It isn’t just that it could happen to any of our families. As Jews, the concept of mutual responsibility, that we are all a big family and share a common fate, is ingrained in our collective consciousness. And so, at a deep level, the Schalit family’s suffering is our collective suffering.victims of Arab terror.jpg
And yet, and yet, freedom exacts its price. The cause of freedom for the Jewish people as a whole exacts a greater sacrifice from some families than from others. Sometimes, that sacrifice is made willingly, as in the case of the Netanyahu family. Prof. Benzion and Tzilla Netanyahu raised their three sons to be warriors in the fight for Jewish liberty. And all three of their sons served in an elite commando unit.
Their eldest son Yonatan had the privilege of commanding the unit and of leading Israeli commandos in the heroic raid to free Jewish hostages held by the PLO in Entebbe.There, on July 4, 1976, Yonatan and his family made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people. Yonatan was killed in action. His parents and brothers were left to mourn and miss him for the rest of their lives. And yet, the Netanyahu family’s sacrifice was a product of a previous decision to fight on the front lines of the war to preserve Jewish freedom.
Sometimes, the sacrifice is made less willingly. Since Israel allowed the PLO and its terror armies to move their (useless, ineffective and defeated)  bases from Tunis to Judea, Samaria and Gaza in 1994, nearly 2,000 Israeli families have involuntarily paid the ultimate price for the freedom of the Jewish people. Our freedom angers our Palestinian neighbors so much that they have decided that all Israelis should die.
For instance Ruth Peled, 56, and her 14-month-old granddaughter, Sinai Keinan, did not volunteer to make the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of the Jewish people when they were murdered by a Palestinian suicide bomber as they sat in an ice cream parlor in Petah Tikva in May 2002. And five-year-old Gal Eisenman and her grandmother Noa Alon, 60, weren’t planning on giving their lives for the greater good when they, together with five others, were blown to smithereens by Palestinian terrorists in June 2002 while they were waiting for a bus in Jerusalem. Their mothers and daughters, Chen Keinan and Pnina Eisenman, had not signed up for the prospect of watching their mothers and daughters incinerated before their eyes. They did not volunteer to become bereaved mothers and orphaned daughters simultaneously.
The lives of the victims of Arab terror were stolen from their families simply because they lived and were Jews in Israel. And in the cases of the Keinan, Peled, Alon and Eisenman families, as in thousands of others, the murderers were the direct and indirect beneficiaries of terrorists-for-hostages swaps like the deal that Yonatan Netanyahu’s brother, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, made this week with Hamas to secure the release of Gilad Schalit.
The deal that Netanyahu has agreed to is signed with the blood of the past victims and future victims of the terrorists he is letting go. No amount of rationalization by Netanyahu, his cheerleaders in the demented mass media, and by the defeatist, apparently incompetent heads of the Shin Bet, Mossad and IDF can dent the facts. IT IS a statistical certainty that the release of 1,027 terrorists for Schalit will lead to the murder of untold numbers of Israelis. It has happened every single time that these blood ransoms have been paid. It will happen now.
Untold numbers of Israelis who are now sitting in their succas and celebrating Jewish freedom, who are driving in their cars, who are standing on line at the bank, who are sitting in their nursery school classrooms painting pictures of Torah scrolls for Simhat Torah will be killed for being Jewish while in Israel because Netanyahu has made this deal. The unrelenting pain of their families, left to cope with their absence, will be unimaginable.This is a simple fact and it is beyond dispute.
It is also beyond dispute that untold numbers of IDF soldiers and officers will be abducted and held hostage. Soldiers now training for war or scrubbing the floors of their barracks, or sitting at a pub with their friends on holiday leave will one day find themselves in a dungeon in Gaza or Sinai or Lebanon undergoing unspeakable mental and physical torture for years. Their families will suffer inhuman agony. The only thing we don’t know about these future victims is their names. But we know what will become of them as surely as we know that night follows day.
Netanyahu has proven once again that taking IDF soldiers hostage is a sure bet for our Palestinian neighbors. They can murder the next batch of Sinais and Gals, Noas and Ruths. They can kill thousands of them. And they can do so knowing all along that all they need to do to win immunity for their killers is kidnap a single IDF soldier.
There is no downside to this situation for those who believe all Jews should die. In his public statement on the Schalit deal Tuesday night, Netanyahu, like his newfound groupies in the media, invoked the Jewish tradition of pidyon shevuim, or the redemption of captives. But the Talmudic writ is not unconditional. The rabbinic sages were very clear. The ransom to be paid cannot involve the murder of other Jews. This deal – like its predecessors – is not in line with Jewish tradition. It stands in opposition to Jewish tradition. Even in our darkest hours of powerlessness in the ghettos and the pales of exile, our leaders did not agree to pay for a life with other life. Judaism has always rejected human sacrifice.
The real question here is after five years and four months in which Schalit has been held hostage and two-and-a-half years into Netanyahu’s current tenure as prime minister, why has the deal been concluded now? What has changed? The answer is that very little has changed on Netanyahu’s part. After assuming office, Netanyahu essentially accepted the contours of the abysmal agreement he has now signed in Jewish blood.
Initially, there was a political rationale for his morally and strategically perverse position. He had Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Labor Party to consider. Supporting this deal was one of the many abject prices that Netanyahu was expected to pay to keep Labor and Barak in his coalition. But this rationale ended with Barak’s resignation from the Labor Party in January. Since then, Barak and his colleagues who joined him in leaving Labor have had no political leverage over Netanyahu. They have nowhere to go. Their political life is wholly dependent on their membership in Netanyahu’s government. He doesn’t need to pay any price for their loyalty.
So Netanyahu’s decision to sign the deal with Hamas lacks any political rationale. (as if such a position would ever have a moral rationale) WHAT HAS really changed since the deal was first put on the table two years ago is Hamas’s position. Since the Syrian people began to rise up against the regime of Hamas’s patron and protector President Bashar Assad, Hamas’s leaders, who have been headquartered in Syria since 1998, have been looking for a way to leave. Their Muslim Brotherhood brethren are leading forces in the Western-backed Syrian opposition.
Hamas’s leaders do not want to be identified with the Brotherhood’s oppressor. With the Egyptian military junta now openly massacring Christians, and with the Muslim Brotherhood rapidly becoming the dominant political force in the country, Egypt has become a far more suitable home for Hamas. But for the past several months, Hamas leaders in Damascus have faced a dilemma. If they stay in Syria, they lose credibility. If they leave, they expose themselves to Israel.
According to Channel 2, in exchange for Schalit, beyond releasing a thousand murderers, Netanyahu agreed to give safe passage to Hamas’s leaders decamping to Egypt. What this means is that this deal is even worse for Israel than it looks on the surface. Not only is Israel guaranteeing a reinvigoration of the Palestinian terror war against its civilians by freeing the most experienced terrorists in Palestinian society, and doing so at a time when the terror war itself is gradually escalating. Israel is squandering the opportunity to either decapitate Hamas by killing its leaders in transit, or to weaken the group by forcing its leaders to go down with Assad in Syria.
At best, Netanyahu comes out of this deal looking like a weak leader who is manipulated by and beholden to Israel’s radical, surrender-crazed media. To their eternal shame, the media have been waging a five-year campaign to force Israel’s leaders to capitulate to Hamas. At worst, this deal exposes Netanyahu as a morally challenged, strategically irresponsible and foolish, opportunistic politician.
What Israel needs is a leader with the courage of one writer’s convictions. Back in 1995, that writer wrote: “The release of convicted terrorists before they have served their full sentences seems like an easy and tempting way of defusing blackmail situations in which innocent people may lose their lives, but its utility is momentary at best. “Prisoner releases only embolden terrorists by giving them the feeling that even if they are caught, their punishment will be brief. Worse, by leading terrorists to think such demands are likely to be met, they encourage precisely the terrorist blackmail they are supposed to defuse.”
The writer of those lines was then-opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu wrote those lines in his book, Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists. Israel needs that Netanyahu to lead it. But in the face of the current Netanyahu’s abject surrender to terrorism, apparently he is gone.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 

Herman Cain not Black enough for Al Sharpton

 

By Conservative Byte

October 9, 2011

Rev. Al Sharpton said Friday that no matter how “black” presidential candidate Herman Cain is, his conservative views are fundamentally at odds with the rest of the black community — and white people only like him because he says what they want to hear. Speaking on his radio program with Professor Karen Hunter — the same person who accused the Associated Press of racism for dropping the g’s in its reporting of a President Barack Obama speech — Sharpton essentially accused Cain of forgetting his roots when it comes to his politics.

“How could anyone in their right mind — they grew up in the south and saw what they saw — and act like everyone that is unemployed and that is not rich did it to themselves?” Sharpton said. “So I would assume he is either socially ignorant or playing games to get votes, that he couldn’t possibly have grown up and come to that conclusion unless he was one or the other.”

Video of Al Sharpton explaining Cain’s lack of Blackness

 

Democratic Party running scared – Are Florida Jews finally escaping?

Joe Biden stepped forward as a guest and featured speaker at the Boca Raton mansion of former Democrat congressman Ron Klein. The Democratic Party came out in force to the closed door, no press invited event.  Included with Biden were:

Ron Klein, former Democratic Congressman, roundly defeated November, 2010, against all odds, in a predominantly Jewish district, by upcoming Congressional star, Republican Alan West. One voter wrote at the time, “I’m a blue-dog Democrat who expected to vote for Klein. But, his immediate and then relentless negative campaigning turned me off. West  campaigned with dignity and addressed the issues. Klein underestimated the intelligence of voters.

Robert Wexler, former seven term Congressman who “curiously” resigned from the Congress, October 14, 2009 to accept a lucrative job with a far left multi-millionaire as his President of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Peace. The institute he’s joining is, as the Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted at the time, kind of “moribund.” It was founded by Slim Fast magnate, S. Daniel Abraham but hasn’t really done much over the past eight years.

The Center has evidently become more active with Wexler’s arrival, honoring at a dinner, September 10, 2010, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas,  the present leader of the PLO and protege of Yasir Arafat; and mastermind of the Munich Massacre which murdered Jewish athletes at the Olympic games; and author of a thesis to prove that the Holocaust never happened!

Also, of interest, found on the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Peace web site, were maps and diagrams describing the numbers of Israeli settlers that would need to be evacuated in each “peace” land giveaway scenario, varies between roughly 70,000 (under the 7% alternative) and 165,000 (under the  1.8% alternative).  

(This is just what the Israelis need for “Peace” – Shades of the Gaza forced withdrawal. From under what rock do these “Peace” advocates crawl?)

The organizer of the event was Debbie Wasserman Schultz – Chair of the Democratic National Committee and outspoken, frequently factually incorrect and super partisan mouthpiece for Barack Obama,  who recently, on TV September 25, 2011, claimed:

“We’re (our economy) is no longer dropping like a rock. Now we are moving forward. We’ve had 18 straight months of job growth, added 2.4 million jobs to the private sector, month after month, passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, saved the American automobile industry, which every Republican candidate for president would have let go down the tubes.”

The facts are considerably different, as stated by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis: “ During Obama’s presidency the annualized growth in the real Gross Domestic Product peaked at 3.9 percent in the first quarter of 2010. By the first two quarters of this year, it had dropped to 0.4 percent and 1.0 percent, respectively. Republican National Chairman, Priebus, in addition, cited the 9.1 percent national unemployment rate (2.4 million people unemployed) and the huge increase in the national debt.

Wasserman Schultz is also a founder and  supporter, along with Robert Wexler, of notoriously anti-Israel Washington based lobbying group called JStreet.

Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, blasted J Street, saying the organization was “fooling around with the lives of 7 million people (Israelis).” According to an article in The Jewish Daily Forward, Oren described the left-wing group as “a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israel government, it opposes all positions of all Israeli governments. It’s significantly out of the mainstream.”

The visiting fireman for the Democratic Party, VP Joe Biden, is known for his recent vicious, orchestrated attack on Israel when he visited there earlier this year. The  recent event at Ron Klein’s mansion was a closed one (why?),  during which he met with at least 15 local rabbis chosen, we must assume, for their political leanings. Strange, that only two among them, had their names   revealed  to the press to this date – Rabbis Scheiner and Kurtz.

We’d all like to know just who those other invisible rabbis were and why they did not come out and identify themselves as part of what appears to have been a  political brainwashing meeting on their home turf? Aren’t the dues paying members of their synagogues entitled to know of their political activities while on the payroll of 501c3 institutions? After all, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who also heads the Democrat National Committee, as well as being a J Street heavy, was the coordinator for the event.

What other Democrat big-wigs were in attendance? Any Republicans? This was not a “Getting to know you” event. Were they given crib sheets to use during their Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur  services to their captive audiences? Were they all supportive of Obama’s open dislike for Israel? This report below, and others do not mention any rebuke of the VP for his administration’s hostility toward Israel.

Why did none of these “leaders” stand up and speak out in support of their people? What opposition was there to having our country abandon Israel? There are no reports of Biden having curve ball questions thrown at him. Did all of these rabbis have stars in their eyes having the honor of meeting the guy who was sent to sell them a dangerous bill of goods? With so many questions going unanswered it’s logical for us to speculate and draw our own conclusions.

From: Petfa4@aol.com and other Internet sources.

Compiled by Jerome S. Kaufman

Reader Comments:

I am not Jewish, but all my adult life I’ve identified with Jews and Israel.
   Your “Running Scared” commentary gives me hope that Jews (not just in Florida, but across the country) will wake up and realize that Obama is NOT their friend.  From the very beginning, he has telegraphed his intent to fray the alliance the U.S. has always had with Israel.  He worshipped at the feet of Rev. Wright, a vicious anti-Semite.  Are we to believe that none of the vitriol rubbed off on him?  And his first major address (given in Cairo, not exactly a friend of the U.S.) and announced his primary foreign relations mission would be to “reach out to the Muslim community”.  He had to know he couldn’t do that and still maintain the close ties to Israel.  He can’t have it both ways.  Islam will not permit that.
  I know that the Jewish community has traditionally identified themselves with Democrats.  But Obama is not a traditional Democrat.  In spite of his denials, he leans toward Socialism.  If he is re-elected, with nothing to lose, he will be much more open in his Socialist leanings, both idealogical and policies.  And, also with nothing to lose, he will throw Israel under the bus.  I sincerely hope the Jews of America can see that.
Frances Haase
Tucson, AZ
Hi Jerome,

Great article…I am going to a dinner for Allan West in a week or so in LA, but no doubt he is on your mailing list to receive this piece.  I will get it to him also.

My best
Georgette

Obama’s Favorite Menagerie of Malcontents

(Anything that will break down the basic fabric of American society and turn us into the Third World nation – The Dreams of his malcontent father and now, the dreams of the malcontent son) jsk

Can’t wait for Occupy Detroit

Obama’s Favorite Menagerie of Malcontents

By Nolan Finley

I can’t wait for the menagerie of malcontents who call themselves Occupy Wall Street to arrive in Detroit and other mainstream American cities. It will be good for real Americans to get a look at the folks President Barack Obama says represent their frustration with the condition of the country.

(Of  course, Herman Cain had the best line, “If they are so discontented, why don’t they go occupy the White House where the main perpetrator lives?”)

The protest movement that started in New York’s financial district several weeks ago with a couple hundred enthusiastic and unfocused shouters has grown to a few thousand, and now is vowing to take its show on the road. They’re expected in Detroit near month’s end.

Occupy Wall Street’s main objective, from what I can make out from the inchoate signage, is the destruction of capitalism (a goal to which Obama can relate), although on a whim they can switch to global warming, medical marijuana or any number of other pet causes dear to the disaffected Left.

Clearly, they’re angry with America, resent its founding values and would like to see the fat cats who run the place boiled in oil. Or at least that’s what they’re Twittering. Obama, asked about the budding movement last week, said he “sympathized” with Occupy Wall Street — not surprising, since they share a donor base.

And he opined that they are speaking for the great body of Americans who resent that some people have nice stuff and others don’t, and are counting on him to play Robin Hood. It’s odd that such a small and predictable group could grab the president’s attention.

He didn’t seem to hear anything of value when tens of thousands of tea partiers were pouring into the streets to protest exploding deficits and Washington’s fiscal recklessness. He certainly didn’t sympathize with those Americans. Nor did he accept that they represented the country’s broader discontent.

And while the president and his media horde heard every whisper from a tea party rally that sounded like a threat or suggested racist undertones, they seem blissfully ignorant of the vicious and hateful side of Occupy Wall Street. This is far from a peaceful protest. Cops in New York are arresting the increasingly violent activists by the hundreds.

Videos have caught incidents of Jewish passers-by being taunted by the protesters — of course, it’s a quick step from attacking financial institutions to indulging anti-Semitism. State lawmakers in New York have received emails reportedly connected to Occupy Wall Street containing this cheery call to action: “It’s time to kill the wealthy.”

I haven’t taken a poll, but my hunch is more Americans relate to “cut the spending” than to “kill the wealthy.” That’s why I’m eager to see this freak show arrive in Detroit. It’ll be informative for voters to compare the American protesters Barack Obama sympathizes with to those he despises.

nfinley@detnews.com

Nolan Finley is editorial page editor of The Detroit News. 

 

Dying as a result of destructive misconceptions

STRIVING FOR MERE EXISTENCE

Dying as a result of destructive misconceptions

By Moshe Feiglin
The Jewish Press
Posted Sep 14 2011

The frustration that grasped me over Shabbat reminded me of the man who told me how, at his bar mitzvah, ghosts suddenly entered the synagogue in Budapest. It was scary, with a stench of smoke and death. The ghost ascended to the stage of the synagogue and began to shout, ‘Jews, I have escaped Auschwitz to warn you that they will burn you. Run away now!’ “

“The synagogue managers,” the man continued, “dragged him off the stage and threw him out of the synagogue. I was sitting next to my father, in an aisle seat, and the man touched me. Until this very day, I can remember his smell. One month later, I was in Auschwitz.”

That is what happens when the public is not willing to deal with the significance of what it hears. That is what happens when leadership is captive to the existing pre-conceptions. No facts, proofs or evidence will help. They will not listen to you. They will throw you out of the synagogue, they will say that you are an extremist and are crazy. They will do anything to save themselves from dealing with the significance of what you are saying.

I didn’t really want to write about what is happening in Israel’s south as a direct result of the Gaza withdrawal and an ongoing horrendous government misconceptions. What can I say, “I told you so?” There is nothing taking place now that I have not warned about in tens of columns. What good will come out of writing the same things again? Why should anybody listen now?

What can I write? Blame Begin, who surrendered the Sinai desert? Blame Rabin and Peres, who surrendered Gaza and injected Arafat’s army of terrorists into its streets and alleys? Or blame Sharon, who destroyed Gush Katif?

I hear the “experts” on the radio. The broadcasters are not interviewing those who tried to warn us. Instead, they interview the “synagogue managers,” those people who held senior positions and those who cooperated with the liars. They will go to great lengths to preserve the lie and the mentality that defends it.

“Feiglin, tell me what we can do,” a senior worker in the Ashkelon municipality shouted to me after a Grad missile landed in her yard. “First of all, change all the names of the streets, plazas and boulevards here back from ‘Rabin’ to their original names,” I answered her. She, totally shocked, turned around and walked away, not comprehending what I had just said to her.

Remember Rabin. It is impossible to get through to a public that is captive to a misconception. From at least the time of Oslo, (Infamous handshake on White House lawn with Clinton, Rabin, Peres and Arafat and may this incident live in the infamy it deserves – jsk)

Israel has been captive. Instead of freeing itself from the Oslo mentality and the name Rabin that symbolizes it, they changed the names of the Katyusha missiles. Rabin promised they wouldn’t fly from Gaza into Israel. They do, but never fear. In the north, where Rabin never promised we would not be hit by Katyushas, we are still attacked by Katyushas. But in the south, where he scoffed at the thought, we are attacked by Grads.

Just a short while after the recent murderous rampage (a.k.a. terror attack) in the south, Israel’s Air Force eliminated five senior terrorists in Gaza. The news broadcasts also mentioned that they were behind Gilad Shalit’s abduction. Why didn’t they kill them earlier and prevent the murders? Because Israel has no goal other than to survive.

Its leadership cannot initiate anything because there is no national goal for which it is legitimate to fight – other than simple existence. If Israel had killed the terrorists before their rampage, tensions here would have escalated and the media that continues to pump Oslo into our bloodstream would have blamed our leaders. In other words, when there is no destiny beyond mere existence, we cannot initiate. All we can do is react. So now we have more murdered Jews – and an escalation of tensions, as well.

All that we wanted was to realize the Zionist goal of “being a normal nation like all other nations.” We tried to create an artificial reality that would replace the heavy burden of destiny that the Jewish nation carries on its back. But reality, of course, cannot be changed. We have lost eye contact with our destiny and now, even though we are stronger than ever, we cannot defend ourselves. Without destiny, all we can do is react. And he who only reacts will ultimately fall.

I am a great believer in the nation of Israel. I believe that ultimately, we will return to our destiny. When that happens, our enemies will evaporate. I just pray that the process of reclaiming our destiny will not be too painful.

Religious Conversion Islamic Style

Islam’s History of Forced Conversions

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1754

By Raymond Ibrahim

Middle East Forum: Pajamas Media

September 29, 2011

Finding and connecting similar patterns of behavior throughout Islamic history is one of the most objective ways of determining whether something is or is not part of Muslim civilization. Consider the issue of forced conversion in Islam, a phenomenon that has a long history with ample precedents.

Indeed, from its inception, most of those who embraced Islam did so under duress, beginning with the Ridda wars and during the age of conquests, and to escape dhimmi status. This is a simple fact. Yet, when one examines today’s cases of forced conversions with those from centuries past, identical patterns emerge, demonstrating great continuity.

Consider: Days ago in Pakistan, two Christian men were severely beaten with iron rods and left for dead by a group of Muslims, simply because they refused to convert to Islam. According to Compass Direct News, they were returning from a church service when they were accosted by six Muslims. After they discovered they were Christian, the Muslims then started questioning them about their faith and later tried to force them to recite the Kalma [Islamic conversion creed, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger”] and become Muslims, telling them that this was the only way they could live peacefully in the city.

They also offered monetary incentives and “protection” to Ishfaq and Naeem [the Christians], but the two refused to renounce Christianity. “After cajoling the two Christians for some time,” the Muslims pretended to go away, only to ram their car into the Christians: “The Muslims [then] got out of the car armed with iron rods and attacked Ishfaq and Naeem, shouting that they should either recite the Kalma or be prepared to die…severely beating[ing] the two Christians, fracturing Ishfaq Munawar’s jaw and breaking five teeth, and seriously injuring Masih…. [T]he two Christians fell unconscious, and the young Muslim men left assuming they had killed them.”

Contrast this contemporary account with the following anecdote from some 500 years past (excerpted from Witnesses for Christ, pgs.62-64): In the year 1522, two Christian brothers in Ottoman Egypt were denounced by local Muslims “mostly out of jealousy and envy”; so the emir arrested them and “began flattering them and asking questions about their faith.” The brothers made it clear that they were firm adherents of Christianity. “The Muslims in the audience became enraged with the brothers when they heard their answers, and they began screaming and demanding they must become Muslims.”

The brothers responded by refusing to “deny the faith we received from our forefathers, but we will remain unshaken and very firm in it until the end.” The Muslim judge deciding their case told the Christian brothers that if they simply said the Kalma and embraced Islam, they “would be given many honors and much glory”; otherwise, they would die.

At that point, the brothers’ mother came to support them, but “when the Muslims in court noticed her, they fell upon her, tore her clothing, and gave her a thorough beating.” After rebuking them for their savagery, the brothers reaffirmed that they would never deny Christianity for Islam, adding “behold our necks, do what you wish, but do it quickly.”

Hearing this, one of the Muslims in the audience became so angry that he took out a knife and stabbed Kyrmidoles [one brother] in the chest, while someone else kicked him as hard as possible, and another dropped a large stone on his head. Finally, they plucked out his eyes. Thus Kyrmidoles died. As for Gabriel [his brother] they threw him to the ground and one of the soldiers severed his right shoulder and then proceeded and cut off his head.

Now, consider the near identical patterns in the two accounts, separated by half a millennium: The Muslims first begin by talking to the Christians about their religion, suggesting they convert to Islam. Failing to persuade the Christians, the Muslims proceed to “cajole” and offer “monetary incentives and protection” (in the modern case) and “flatter” and offer “many honors and much glory” (in the historic case). All that the Christians need do is speak some words, the Kalma, and become Muslim. When the Christians still refuse, the Muslims fly into a savage rage, beating and torturing their victims to death (in the modern case, the Muslims assumed they had killed their victims).

Considering the Ottoman Empire and contemporary Pakistan are separated by culture, language, and some 500 years, how does one explain these identical patterns? What binds them together? Only Islam—Islam empowered, Islam in charge; Muslim majorities governing, and thus abusing their non-Muslim minority. A fact of life, past and present.

Raymond Ibrahim, an Islam specialist and author of The Al Qaeda Reader, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Obama uses Biden to cover his tracks

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1756

Redacted from article by  JPost.com Staff

The Jerusalem Post –  October 2, 2011

‘NY Times’ reports US vice president told rabbis in Florida “over my dead body are we going to let him out before his time”; Obama is yet to decide. US Vice President Joe Biden opposed offering clemency to jailed Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard, the New York Times quoted Biden as saying in an article published on Saturday. US President Barack Obama has yet to respond to a request from President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to grant clemency to Pollard.

“President Obama was considering clemency, but I told him, ‘Over my dead body are we going to let him out before his time,’” Biden said. “If it were up to me, he would stay in jail for life.”

In a press release circulated by the Justice For Jonathan organization, it is stated that the vice president gave “absolutely no clue as to the reason for his flip-flop,” which contradicts a video interview he gave in 2007 in which he expressed support for Pollard’s release via commutation of his sentence to time served:

Biden also did not offer any explanation, the statement said, to contradict the professional opinions expressed by the former head of the CIA, the former- attorney- general, several former secretaries of state, the former head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the former White House legal counsel and “a host of others intimately familiar with the case, who all think freedom for Pollard is long overdue.”

The group stated that Biden’s change of heart on Pollard supported the New York Times contention that Biden’s recent declaration that Pollard should never be released was a “stunt to take the hit for his boss, Obama.” The president has been repeatedly criticized for his silence in response to requests by high ranking American official requests for Pollard’s release, according to the group.

The New York Times reported that Obama is relying on Biden to help him retain the Jewish vote, seen by many to be slipping to the Republicans. Next month Pollard will complete his 26th year of a life sentence. Despite some warning signs, Democratic officials maintain that they do not think that Mr. Obama is in danger of losing the Jewish vote — particularly given the president’s muscular defense of Israel at the United Nations General Assembly last week.

But a Republican victory in the race for a Congressional seat in a heavily Orthodox Jewish district in New York three weeks ago clearly has some Democratic officials unsettled. So the White House has unleashed a barrage of officials — including Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations — to soothe relations with American Jewish leaders.

 

I Obama coerces weak Netanyahu II Magnificent Netanyahu Response at UN on Video

I Fellow MK (Member of Knesset) blasts Obama and Netanyahu

II PM Netanyahu responds in his usual magnificent manner before UN General Assembly, Sept.23, 2011 – Video below

JewishJournal.com
September 20, 2011

A Knesset member visiting Los Angeles has accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of buckling under intense pressure from President Barack Obama, who wants to prevent any Israeli retaliation against the Palestinian Authority in its bid to win recognition as a state from the United Nations.

Dr. Aryeh Eldad, a member of the self-described “right-wing” Hatikvah faction of the National Union party, charged that Obama was holding Netanyahu “at gunpoint” – the gun being the U.S. threat to go back on its promise to veto the Palestinian statehood bid in the UN Security Council.

Specifically, Obama has demanded that Netanyahu and Israel’s supporters in the United States pressure Congress to abort two pending resolutions to penalize the Palestinian Authority (PA) if it pursues its bid, Eldad claimed.

One would shut off U.S. aid funds to the Palestinians and a second would support Israel’s right to annex the West Bank. The legal justification for such actions, cited by many Israeli officials, would be that the unilateral statehood request would be a direct violation of the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Eldad said he was certain of the accuracy of his information, but declined to name his sources.

“Netanyahu is the first Israeli prime minister who hasn’t threatened sanctions if the PA seeks unilateral statehood,” Eldad said during a phone interview.

Asked what he would do if he were prime minister, Eldad replied, “I would immediately annex Judea and Samaria (West Bank). There will be some riots, as in the two intifadas, but this will happen in any case, because the expectations of the Palestinians can never be met. They think the sun will rise in the west the day after independence.”

Eldad’s National Union has four Knesset seats and is in the opposition, but he asserts that a total of 42 members, many belonging to the government coalition, share his viewpoint.

As to his stand on an eventual negotiated two-state solution, Eldad, a prominent physician before he turned to politics, said he was enthusiastically in favor – as long as the Palestinian state was Jordan. He predicted that when the Arab Spring uprisings reached Jordan, Palestinians, who make up the majority of the population, would take over and turn the country into their own state. If this happens, Eldad said, he would oppose a forcible transfer of Palestinians from the West Bank to Jordan.

Eldad is nearing the end of his 15-day stay in the United States, during which he lobbied Congress members in Washington, D.C., met with Jewish organizations in New York, and on Sunday addressed some 2,000 evangelical Christians at the Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa.

Based on his various meetings, he described the American Jewish community as largely confused, with even strong lobbies such as AIPAC sidelined “as long as Netanyahu is not strong enough to lead.”

Will there ever be peace? “Maybe in four generations,” Eldad responded, Israel and its neighbors will find equilibrium “like Europe after its religious wars.”

II PM Netanyahu’s magnificent response before UN General Assembly Sept. 23, 2011

I Obama deliberately beclouds Muslim Identity of 9/11 Terrorists. II PM Netanyahu Israeli Cabinet Communique

II PM Netanyahu Israeli Cabinet Communique September 11, 2011

I Helen Freedman, Executive Director
Americans For a Safe Israel
September 12, 2011

It was my privilege to participate in the outpouring of pain, memory, and truth at the profoundly moving Freedom Rally, organized by AFDI leader Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. As we recalled the agony of that horrific day, Sept. 11, 2001, we stressed that it is important not to forgive or forget and to outspokenly name the enemy – radical Islam – which declared war on America and the world on that fateful day.

The following report is from Fern Sidman, NY correspondent for ARUTZ SHEVA.
12/09/11 12:05

Over 500 at Defiant Freedom Rally Near Ground Zero

On Sunday afternoon, September 11th, over 500 people gathered at Park Place and West Broadway in lower Manhattan to mark the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that left close to 3000 Americans dead.

Organized by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), a human rights organization headed by author and activist Pamela Geller, (who achieved notoriety for spearheading the campaign against the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero), the 9/11 Freedom Rally featured members of the clergy, New York City fire fighters and police, 9/11 first responders, and 9/11 family members who were barred and/or not invited to the official ceremonies that took place earlier in the day.

The decision to exclude religious leaders, rescue workers, police officers and other key first responders as program participants was defended by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who said,:”We just don’t have room for them”, claiming space and security are the issues.

In a tone of defiance AFDI Executive Director Pamela Geller declared, “While White House guidelines forbid official 9/11 ceremonies from mentioning who attacked the U.S. on that day or why, our 9/11 Freedom Rally features more honest speakers. We are here today to honor our war dead and stand for freedom and against the deception and lies being used to subdue us. We must show the jihadists we are unbowed in the defense of freedom.”

Joined by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, Ms. Geller introduced such speakers as George Demos, New York Congressional candidate, Anders Gravers of Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE); Sudanese ex-slave and freedom fighter Simon Deng; war hero and North Carolina Congressional candidate Ilario Pantano; popular radio host Joyce Kaufman; and Helen Freedman, Executive Director of Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI), among many others.

Speaking on behalf of the 9/11 family members were Rosaleen Tallon, sister of hero firefighter and reservist in the United States Marine Corps, Sean Tallon, who was killed in the 9/11 attacks; Nelly Braginskaya, who lost her son Alex; Sally Regenhard, mother of hero firefighter Christian Regenhard, killed in the 9/11 attacks (Regenhard is an American activist who has become one of the leading voices for the families of the victims of September 11); Maureen and Al Santora, who lost their hero fightfighter son 9/11 and Alan DeVona, 911 first responder.

Reflecting on political realities that have been engendered over the last 10 years and taking aim at the current administration in Washington for its directives to whitewash the true motives of the 9/11 attackers, Helen Freedman of Americans For a Safe Israel said, “The Obama leadership today would still like us to be asleep. We are lulled with the myths of mindless multi-culturalism. Interfaith dialogues are encouraged to promote inter-denominational understanding. In today’s modern world, there has been no lack of understanding amongst Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and so forth.

What the Obama world is promoting is engagement and understanding of Islam as a peaceful religion, deserving of having its mosques built throughout the United States; its chaplains preaching in our prisons, everyone respecting the sanctity of the Koran, while all along the war is being waged under our noses.

II PM Netanyahu – Redacted from Israeli Cabinet communique on September 11, 2011

“Today, we mark exactly one decade since that monumental terrorist attack in which almost 3,000 innocent civilians of various nationalities were murdered in New York and Washington. That Al-Qaeda attack on the US marked the peak of a wave of terrorist attacks, which nevertheless continued in Madrid, London, Bali and Mumbai.

We are in this struggle, the struggle against terrorism, and while there is no doubt that this is terrorism, it is a tool of war. This is not a conventional war. This is a war of terrorism – by the forces and regimes of radical Islam. Radical Islam threatens moderate Islamic and Arab regimes. It threatens the very existence of the State of Israel and in its linking up with radical regimes, it brings the tools of terrorism – rockets and missiles – to Israeli civilians.

This network, which has several heads composed of two basic movements, denies the principles of progress and peace, and the principles of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. They seek to make a historic change, a historic regression, through the use of violence that knows no borders. Terrorism is their tool and therefore, we must know that we are in a decade of terrorism, of that same radical Islam that is implanted deep in the expanse between east and west, and – most of all – runs amok in the heart of our region. But, today it hangs over all of us, over the regimes and the stability of the
Middle East, over the security of Israel, over the security of Europe and the US and, in my opinion, over the security and stability of Russia and many other countries.

I would also like to say several words about Egypt. We had a difficult, very challenging weekend. I would like to thank my colleagues, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as well as the heads of the ISA and the Mossad, the IDF Chief-of-Staff and their people. I think that with very accelerated work we succeeded in preventing a very near disaster. The rioters broke into the embassy building, entered the embassy area itself, and were only one door away from our people, who were besieged in there.

Our people acted exceptionally. I commend Yonatan and his friends. They acted with equanimity and, at a certain stage, in very close coordination with the command center, the Foreign Ministry security personnel and with the commander on the ground in Egypt, after we established this connection. I must also note the actions of US President Barack Obama, who became involved at a critical time in order to use America’s influence on the issue.

… I am pleased that there are other forces in Egypt, beginning with the Egyptian government. There are also other voices that want to continue advancing the peace. We are in contact with the Egyptian government regarding the necessary procedures for returning our ambassador so that he and his staff will be properly secured, so that they might continue to maintain Israel’s representation in Cairo.

——————————————–
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

Is President Obama a friend of the Jews and Israel?

By: Morton Klein, Nat’l President Zionist Org. of America
Dr. Daniel Mandel, Director, Center for Middle East Policy

Let’s look at the evidence:

Last week, the Obama Administration issued talking points for the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, where it referred to those struck by terrorism whether in New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or London. Conspicuously absent was the name of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem or Sderot, which have been hit by terrorists, not once, but hundreds of times!

As a single instance, this omission might be unremarkable. In fact, however, omitting mention of Israel fits a pattern.

When running for President, then-Senator Obama referred in his July 2008 Berlin speech to the need to dismantle the [terrorist] networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. Again, no Israel.

It seems hard to believe that these omissions could be anything other than intentional. After all, Israel has been a primary target of terrorists throughout the past decade. Almost 2,000 Israelis have been murdered by terrorists in this period and over 10,000 maimed or disfigured. In per capita terms, far more Israelis have been murdered by terrorists than Americans were murdered in 9/11.

Obama also omits Israel in other contexts. Thus, when Haiti was struck by a calamitous earthquake in January 2010, Israel’s relief efforts were exceptional, only matched by those of the United States, and were singled out for praise by former President Clinton. However, in praising these relief efforts, Obama omitted any mention of Israel, saying only that help continues to flow in, not just from the United States but from Brazil, Mexico, Canada, France, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, among others.

While Obama has more or less consistently failed to hold accountable or penalize the PA for incitement to violence against Israel, he has been emphatic and repetitive attacking Jewish housing projects in eastern Jerusalem as an obstacle to peace. His Administration has used the terms condemn, an insult and an affront when expressing disagreement with Israel on this issue, terms never used about other allies.

That Obama blames Israel, not the Palestinians, for the absence of peace is obvious. In a January 2010 interview, despite Israel’s acceptance in-principle of a Palestinian state, readiness to negotiate and instituting an unprecedented 10-month Jewish construction freeze in Judea and Samaria, Obama said Israel had made no bold gestures.

In a March 2011 meeting with Jewish leaders (attended by Mort Klein), Obama contended that Israel’s [Palestinian] partner is sincere in wanting a peaceful settlement, while asking his Jewish interlocutors to speak to your Israeli friends and relatives and search your souls to determine how badly do you really want peace. Israelis think this peace process is overrated.

Note also the contrast between his holiday messages to Jews and to Muslims. In his Rosh Hashanah message last year, Obama only once referred to Jews, not once to Judaism,‚ promoted a Palestinian state, and never mentioned the extraordinary contributions of Jews to the U.S.

In contrast, in his August 2010 Ramadan Message, Obama referred to Muslims‚ six times and to Islam‚ twice, stated that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country and praised Islam‚s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings and a faith known for great diversity and racial equality. (Huh?) Here, Obama, made no reference to what Muslims must do to achieve peace with Israel.

There are many other indicators of Obama evincing discomfort around Jewish matters. When, in May 2010, Obama signed the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act, he did not mention that Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter, was beheaded by Islamist terrorists because he was a Jew and that he was forced to state in the video recorded of his gruesome murder that he was an American Jew. Instead, Obama merely referred to Pearl’s loss.

And let’s not forget Obama’s June 2009 Cairo speech, in which he compared the circumstances of Palestinians under Israeli rule to Jews under the Nazis and blacks under Apartheid. Nor his September 2009 UN speech, in which Obama coupled unwavering commitment to Israel with Israel respecting the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.

These incidents, some important, some less so, have assumed a troubling pattern. They suggest that President Obama has a distaste or even hostility towards Jews and Israel. But should we be surprised? He spent twenty years absorbing the anti-Israel sermons of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, whom Obama has called a great man, his friend and mentor.

Morton A. Klein is National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Dr. Daniel Mandel is Director of the ZOA’s Center for Middle East Policy.

Glenn Beck, Jon Voight and Rev. John Hagee in video visiting Israel

WALKING BEHIND THE ‘PILLARS OF FIRE’ WITH GLENN BECK
Redacted from article By Helen Freedman

II Video with Reverend John Hagee at the Glenn Beck event in Israel
(view below)

I The inspirational gatherings that were part of the Glenn Beck mission to Israel occurred against a very grim backdrop. It was ironic that the subject of ‘Restoring Courage’, the theme of Glenn Beck’s mission in Israel, was so starkly presented by the events that unfolded as I arrived in Israel on Thursday afternoon, August 18.

A series of terror attacks on buses and private cars had just occurred on the road from Be’er Sheva to Eilat that left many Israeli civilians and soldiers dead and wounded. Israel “retaliated,” followed by Kassam rockets and Grads falling all over Israel’s south.

Again, the Israeli government “retaliated.” Israel also apologized to the Egyptians for shooting back at terrorists dressed in Egyptian soldier uniforms. As of this writing, the Egyptians are violating the peace agreement with Israel as they proceed with the demilitarization of the Sinai, bringing forces and weapons into the area, (with the permission of Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak and PM Netanyahu. Can you believe that? – Jsk),

How long will it be before these same Egyptian troops march on Israel? What will Israel’s response be if that happens? Will Israel’s leaders have the courage to protect Israel’s citizens?

Glenn Beck would answer these questions by urging Israel’s leaders not to fear world condemnation – to use the shields of courage and truth to banish fear – and not follow the path to surrender. He would encourage Israel to follow G-d’s ‘Pillars of Fire’ to which he referred in his powerful address at the DavidsonCenter outside the southern wall of the Old City in Jerusalem on Wednesday afternoon, August 24.

John Voight, who had joined us on Sunday night, was greeted enthusiastically by the crowd. He spoke of the new type of holocaust, where terror is used for political ends. Beck confirmed this by declaring, “If you stare evil in the eye, it backs down; it is a coward!” Beck declared, “This will be the generation that will say “Never Again” to the repeated holocausts against the Jews.

Beck charged everyone with the Responsibility to alter the course of history by being willing to speak the truth. When the “human rights” organizations exercise their double standard, we must declare, “Not in My Name!!” He called for truth seekers to link arms with him – to stand with courage – and to walk behind G-d’s ‘Pillars of Fire’ – to choose life – with no more lies.

The dynamic gathering was closed by Beck asking us to remember – and to teach these lessons to our children – and to obey G-d’s word. When we are asked, “Where were you when the world was on the edge again, when the West, Israel and the Jews were blamed again, we can say that “We stood with Israel.”

II Video with Reverend John Hagee and Glenn Beck

Maybe you forgot who’s Al Sharpton?

MSNBC Gives a Violent Racist a TV Show
FrontPage Magazine
Posted by Daniel Greenfield
Aug 18th, 2011

Imagine if MSNBC gave a TV show to a violent racist who led angry mobs against Jewish and Asian communities and businesses – Mobs that gathered outside a Jewish synagogue chanting “Heil Hitler” and “Death to the Jews.”

Unimaginable, right? Wrong. After years of accusing FOX News of racism, MSNBC gave a violent racist his own show. Of course MSNBC would never give a white racist like David Duke his own show. But they have no problem giving one to Al Sharpton.

Sharpton is many things—a cunning gutter clown, a hate-filled agitator and a savvy trader in political favors. Those qualities have taken him from street riots to a kingmaker role in the Democratic Party to the White House, where he has become its link to the black community.

Sharpton has eclipsed Jesse Jackson as the national agitator with the highest profile, adopting Jackson’s old role of middleman between the Democratic Party and the black community, and his business model of blackmailing corporations with boycott threats to fund his organization. The National Action Network, Sharpton’s organization, commands appearances by Obama and Biden, and true to his usual financial dealings remains deep in debt while paying him a six figure salary.

But there can be no talk of Sharpton without discussing the trail of debris behind him. Yankel Rosenbaum, the University of Melbourne student, stabbed and beaten to death on President Street among the stately manors of what was once known as Doctor’s Row, was the most famous victim of Sharpton’s Crown Height Pogrom, but not the only one.

There was Anthony Graziosi, a white, bearded Italian electronics salesman wearing a dark suit, who was mistaken for a Jew, and died for it. Bracha Estrin, a Holocaust survivor, who saw the mobs chanting “Heil Hitler” and “Death to the Jews” and believing that history was about to repeat itself, jumped rather than fall into their hands.Twenty years ago this August, a line of bodies was lowered into the ground. And Sharpton walked away with a higher national profile than ever.

Three years later, another round of racist protests at Freddy’s Fashion Mart with protesters screaming, “Burn down this Jew store!” led to an attack that killed seven minority employees. The Freddy’s protests were led by Morris Powell, head of the Buy Black Committee at Sharpton’s National Action Network. Powell had been previously put on trial for breaking the head of a Korean woman during one of his pickets.

Sharpton’s modus operandi was to create chaos, and then represent himself as the man who could stop it. The uglier the confrontations got, the more people died, the more credibility he gained. In 2001, he went from terrorizing entire neighborhoods to claiming control over the outcome of the mayoral election. Shortly thereafter the New York State Democratic Party made it clear that attacks on Sharpton were no longer acceptable. Senate candidates were expected to court the hate monger and did.

And then it was presidential candidates. Sharpton’s presidential run utilized the same tactics at the national level that had worked for him at the city and state level. He wasn’t out to win, just to cause enough chaos and uncertainty that the party would buy him off. And it worked.

It was a surprisingly short journey from a racist agitator who intimidated city authorities, to a state leader who intimidated the New York State Democratic Party, to a national leader who intimidated the entire Democratic Party.

Less than 10 years after the Freddy’s fire, Sharpton was addressing a national audience from the stage of the Democratic National Convention. Twenty years after the Crown Heights Pogrom, he is Obama’s unofficial outreach man to the black community and on the verge of getting his own full-time MSNBC show. A long career of bigotry, blood on his hands and a video of him discussing a drug deal are not a barrier.

Sharpton cuts a ridiculous figure at MSNBC. It isn’t every man who can make Ed Schultz look like a class act, but Sharpton manages that. His on air flubs have gone viral and what’s worse is that when he isn’t stumbling over words, he has nothing to say.

MSNBC got rid of Olbermann, but replaced him with an even bigger diva with a long history of racist blackmail. Sharpton is more controversial than Olbermann, but far less articulate. If Olbermann was trying to be Cronkite in drag, Sharpton doesn’t know what to do without a microphone and a mob. Sharpton’s name has attracted attention, where Cenk Uygur’s only brought bafflement, and as a reliable Obama toady he won’t cause any grief for the White House.

But the MSNBC gig exposes what a hollow man the Reverend Al is. He is the son of a Cadillac driving slumlord and a spectacularly implausible choice as a civil rights leader. His ridiculous hairstyle, jumpsuits and jewelry, and his over the top delivery were the tricks of a carnival showman.

The MSNBC gig allows Sharpton to deliver White House talking points to a national audience, but what happens in 2013 without a Democratic administration in need of messaging? Sharpton has gotten this far by presenting himself as the intermediary between the Ivy League liberal and the black street. In Obama’s words, “the voice of the voiceless.”

But what happens if the turnout isn’t there? Sharpton has been able to drive racist mobs to target defenseless minorities, but if he can’t drive voters to the polls, then he will suddenly be much less useful to MSNBC and the party it serves. The future of the “limousine racist” is closely tied to black turnout in 2012. And if he doesn’t deliver, Sharpton will be back screaming at hate filled crowds in Brooklyn. Back to the minor leagues of the party of hate.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

And. let us not forget Sharpton history as related in a recent Jewish Press article redacted below:

THE SCHNEIER/SHARPTON SHOW
By Jewish Press Editorial Board
Aug 24 2011

… The idea of Al Sharpton sitting around a table soberly discussing relations between blacks and Jews borders on the bizarre. Who can forget that in Crown Heights it was Rev. Sharpton who loudly harangued blacks and encouraged a racial interpretation of the death of 7-year old Gavin Cato?

… Rev. Sharpton at the time also talked about “apartheid” in Crown Heights and challenged local Jews, whom he referred to as “diamond merchants,” to “pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house” if they wanted to duke it out.

… Of course, no recap of Rev. Sharpton’s career would be complete without mention of the ugly controversy that gave him his first taste of notoriety – the Tawana Brawley hoax.

As John Perazzo summed it up for FrontPageMag.com in a 2007 article,

… [Sharpton] injected himself into the case of 16-year-old Tawana Brawley, who in November 1987 claimed that she had been repeatedly raped [and brutalized] for four days by six white kidnappers, at least one of whom was wearing a police badge . It was among the most disturbing tales in living memory.

Al Sharpton quickly assumed the role of special adviser to Miss Brawley and thereafter worked closely with the girl’s attorneys, C. Vernon Mason (who, later in his career, would be convicted of 66 counts of professional misconduct and disbarred from the legal profession) and Alton Maddox (who has publicly expressed his profound hatred for white people).

Sharpton and the Brawley lawyers demanded that New York Governor Mario Cuomo appoint a special prosecutor to the case and publicly charged that “high-level” local law enforcement officials were involved in the crime – an allegation that led to numerous death threats against members of the Dutchess County police department.

In the autumn of 1988, after conducting an exhaustive review of the facts, a grand jury released its report showing beyond any doubt that the entire Tawana Brawley story had been fabricated, and that at least $1 million of New York taxpayers’ money had been spent to investigate a colossal hoax.

Rev. Sharpton, some twenty tears later, still denies his negative role in Crown Heights and also maintains that he made no substantive mistakes. All he will express is remorse for perhaps having used language that “at times has been over the line.”

(The current question is rather: When is MSNBC “over the line”?) jsk