Islamists creating lie at 9/11 Memorial, erasing themselves from the event in which all 19 perpetrators were Islamists!

Redacted from an article
By Steven Emerson, Executive Director
Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) News
May 7, 2014

Imam Pushing to Sanitize 9/11 Museum’s Al-Qaida Film
Slurs Jews

A Muslim religious leader who helped spearhead a push to get the National September 11 Memorial Museum to censor references to Islam in a short film about al-Qaida has said Jews “killed the Prophets and Messengers” and are a “cancer … in every generation as they get in power.”

Mustafa Elazabawy, imam at Masjid Manhattan, made the remarks in a December 2008 khutbah, or sermon, called “Children of Israel.” A recording of the sermon remains on the mosque’s website.

Elazabawy wrote a letter to museum leadership last month, complaining that the 6-minute film about al-Qaida’s rise “would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum,” if it is not changed. “Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between Al Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”

He also joined in a follow-up complaint sent to museum Director Alice Greenwald on behalf of New York Disaster Interfaith Services’ advisory group. Critics have taken issue with the film’s references to “jihad” and the hijackers’ Islamist ideology. “‘If generalized labels are needed, we suggest using specific terms such aAl Qaeda-inspired terrorism,’ the letter from the Interfaith Services group said.

Similar complaints were issued by Islamist groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

The museum is scheduled to open in two weeks. Thus far, officials have indicated they do not plan to make changes to the film.

Elazabawy’s demands for interfaith sensitivity were absent during the 2008 sermon, which came during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead incursion into Gaza aimed at curbing Hamas rocket-fire toward civilian communities in Israel. He emphasized a series of Quranic verses depicting Jews as mischievous and corrupt.

“And after the mischievement (sic), they will seem arrogant,” Elazabawy explained after reading one verse. “‘We are the powerful. We are the most powerful people. We could defeat whomever we need.’ Arrogance actually came from the shaytan [devil] all the time.”

Later, he seemed to blame Jews for the war in Afghanistan.

“What they did, if you remember my brothers, the war in Afghanistan, behind that, the war is exactly the state of violence. They went in that land after Allah give the victory for the people of Afghanistan against Russia, they came because they don’t want anybody to have power, except them … and they bring all their allies to Iraq to finish Iraq, return Iraq, 100 years back. Why? Because Iraq used to be number four in power. They don’t want anybody in power. And they use the hypocrites of the Muslims to help them, and the Muslim follow them, because they control the money, they control the weapons, they do everything.”

Jews were spreading mischief in Egypt, Sudan and Somalia, he said.

“They are cancer in everywhere, in every generation as they get in power. People turn their face, and they know they are tyrants, they know they are oppressors. They know that they kill the children of Muslim[s] all the time. But everybody permits it because they controlling the money and the position in the whole entire world.”

At another point, Elazabawy said it wasn’t Jews that he opposed, but “the state of violence … that will kill even the Yahud [Jew].”

The rare Jews Elazabawy embraces are radical orthodox Jews who see Zionism, the belief in a Jewish homeland, as sacrilegious. Two months after delivering this sermon, Elazabawy joined Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss at a City College panel discussion in New York. Weiss leads Neturei Karta, which opposes Israel’s existence. Zionism, Weiss said that night, “is rooted in blasphemy, in, in a rebellion against God. But the whole concept of having a piece of land happens to be, in the teachings of the Torah, forbidden.”

In his khutbah two months earlier, however, Elazabawy said Jews rejected the prophet “because he came from the Arab and he did not come from them, what they said? They declare a war from the first day and hatred against Islam.” And in a world in which baseless anti-Semitic conspiracy theories like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion continue to circulate, Elazabawy told worshipers a story so grotesque it cannot be found on Internet trash sites.

During the Six Day War, then-Israeli military leaders Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon would butcher pregnant Palestinian women for sport, Elazabawy said:

“They kill our children. It’s halal [kosher] for them. It is a hero. It is a victory … Begin and Sharon in 1967, they used to bring the Palestinian women, pregnant Palestinian women. They used to bet between both of them is it son or girl, boy or girl, between Sharon and Begin. And then after all what they did, they killed with a knife, and they opened the belly of the woman to find out if there is a boy or there is a girl. If they found it’s a boy, they killed the boy and they leave it exactly the same what Pharaoh did with them before.”

It is a disgusting canard. Had it any legitimacy, it would be widely reported and invoked incessantly. But Elazabawy wasn’t interested in facts that day. And this is the faith leader who is admonishing the National September 11 Memorial Museum about language in a film about al-Qaida that is accurate.

Twitter: @israelcomment

Obama pushes Discredited Climate Change scare to boost his hair-brain energy schemes and kill our economy

I Climate change affecting every region of US, new White House report finds

II – A previous issue of Israel Commentary from Weekly Standard 1/27/2014
Global warming, a Surplus of Hot Air and the farce of Chinese involvement

I By Laura Barron-Lopez
The Hill
05/06/14 09:08 AM

A new White House report released Tuesday concludes that human-generated climate change is having dramatic effects on every part of the nation. The National Climate Assessment, which the administration touted as the most comprehensive look yet at global warming in the U.S., concludes that climate change is raising temperatures, making water more scarce and wildfires more common.

It said climate change has “moved firmly into the present” for the U.S., underscoring the need for urgent action to combat threats.“Americans are noticing changes all around them,” the report states. “Summers are longer and hotter, and extended periods of unusual heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. Winters are generally shorter and warmer.” The report adds that coastal residents are seeing “more dramatic” changes with the increase of flooding. “Observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat trapping gases,” the report states.

(All the above statements, in a court of law or an honest scientific investigation, would not dare be presented. They are the most obvious of heresy evidence that would be discounted by the judge and any legitimate scientific investigator. They are not even attributed to anyone but the White House – hardly a reliable witness!) jsk

President Obama, who has made combatting climate change a central part of his second term, plans extensive outreach on Tuesday to spread the findings of the report.

Obama plans to conduct one-on-one interviews with national and local TV meteorologists Tuesday, in what some have called a new strategy for the administration to communicate his climate agenda.

Obama’s administration is pursuing new rules on carbon-emitting coal-powered plants as part of an effort to tackle climate change. The administration also recently punted a decision on building the Keystone XL pipeline, which environmental groups argue would significantly add to climate change.

Skeptics called the report another “scare tactic” by the administration. Many contend there is far from a consensus among U.S. scientists that the globe is in fact warming, arguing that the temperature changes have continually occurred throughout the last century.

“Facing a recovering, yet fragile, economy, with families across the country struggling to make ends meet, it is concerning that the Obama Administration is busy promoting its politically driven climate change agenda, instead of addressing the real issues plaguing our nation,” said Laura Sheehan, of the American Coalition for Clean Coal.

Critics of the Obama’s climate agenda argue that rather than pressing action on cutting emissions overseas, the administration should visit U.S. communities being impacted by the “costly regulations” on power plants it is working to finalize.

The highly publicized report comes on the heels of the United Nations global climate change report, which offered similar conclusions for the planet.

The new report includes research and evidence from 13 federal agencies. It found the average temperature in the U.S. has increased by 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, coming in at 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895.

A majority of that increase took place since 1970, the report states. And the most recent decade was the nation’s hottest on record, with 2012 being the hottest year on record in the U.S.

The change in climate in the last 50 years, the report concludes, is a result of human activities, mainly from the burning of fossil-fuel energy sources.

The report breaks the U.S. into seven regions, detailing specific climate changes in each.

It said climate change is leading to drought in the Southwest, greater heat waves and precipitation in the Northeast, and lower crop yields as a result of rising carbon dioxide in the Midwest.


Global warming, a Surplus of Hot Air and the farce of Chinese involvement
Read More About: Global warming remains little more than a cudgel to advance a left-wing political program. Any cure for the problem will be worse than the disease.

President Obama just spent a whole lot of time in his speech addressing a problem described below that does not even exist and upon which he has already wasted billions of tax payer dollars in his rush to destroy this great country. That is his primary objective. Wake up America. jsk

A Surplus of Hot Air
THE Weekly Standard JAN 27, 2014
Redacted from editorial BY THE SCRAPBOOK

The political debate over what to do about global warming rages on, largely because liberals refuse to have an honest discussion about their plans to deal with it. The heart of their every proposed “solution” to climate change is a radical economic program that would threaten the livelihood and well-being of millions, based on computer models of dubious accuracy trying to project weather patterns decades into the future. Via Bloomberg News, last week we got an unsettling glimpse into just how extreme the economic plans of the climate commissars really are:

China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is also the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing global warming, the United Nations’ chief climate official said, “They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.” China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said.

In other words, if international bureaucrats could impose economic restrictions and reduce energy production by fiat, we’d be well on our way to healing the planet. Of course, the Communist party in China comprises only a small minority of the Chinese people, and the idea that they do anything because it’s in the “national interest” is laughable. China’s ruling party only cares about enriching themselves and holding on to power, which is why their exploitative and repressive economic program has resulted in environmental calamities on a colossal scale.

About half a billion Chinese lack access to safe drinking water and 99 percent of the country’s 560 million city dwellers breathe air that would be considered unsafe by EU pollution standards. But because the Communist party is paying lip service to a renewable energy program, U.N. officials are falling all over themselves to uphold the country as an environmental model.

So long as concern over global warming remains little more than a cudgel to advance a left-wing political program, any cure for the problem will be worse than the disease. Of course, there’s also ample evidence that the dangers of global warming have been overhyped — to the point where credulous people are increasingly willing to sacrifice anything precious on the altar of environmentalism.

Rolling Stone recently received widespread and well-deserved mockery for an idiotic article titled “5 Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For.” Said reforms were all essentially tenets of communism, including “guaranteed work” and the abolition of private property. When the writer, Jesse A. Myerson, was challenged about his retrograde views, his response on Twitter was curious: “If I have to answer for Soviet gulags, these market/capital twits have to answer for climate collapse, the greatest genocide in history.”

Well, so far the global warming death count is hypothetical, unlike the tens of millions actually killed by Mao and his henchmen and the Soviet terror. And not to forget, China is currently the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases. Whether you care about global warming or humanity, it’s pretty easy to conclude that communism is certainly not the answer.

Twitter: @israelcomment

2014 ≠ 2016 (Two different Elections with Hillary in the Mix)

The Weekly Standard
APR 28, 2014, VOL. 19, NO. 31

Polls are overrated, but they can be still instructive. So what’s to be learned from a Fox News survey of 1,012 registered voters conducted April 13-15?

Republicans are in pretty good shape for this fall. President Obama is unpopular. He’s got a 42 percent job approval rating, compared with 51 percent disapproval, and his personal favorable/unfavorable rating isn’t much better at 45/51. The Republican party has gained ground in recent months and is now as well regarded as the Democratic party, with both about even in approval/disapproval. What’s more, other polls show the generic ballot about even (and Republicans almost always outperform the generic ballot on Election Day), and state by state surveys confirm that the Republicans could well win control of the Senate and pick up some additional House seats.

So 2014 looks fine; 2016 doesn’t.

This is despite the fact that Hillary Clinton, the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination, has only a 49-45 favorable rating in the Fox poll, down from 56-38 last June. This result (and similar findings in other surveys) suggests she’s not an unbeatable candidate. When Barack Obama won the last open-seat presidential race in 2008, his favorable rating in the Fox poll on Election Day was 57-39. So 49-45 isn’t daunting.

But it’s good enough to beat any of the Republican candidates tested in the Fox News poll. In fact, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz all have net unfavorable ratings. And so Clinton beats them all by at least eight points. Other surveys also have Clinton defeating various possible Republican nominees quite easily.

At the moment, then, Republicans seem likely to win in 2014 and to lose in 2016. The good news is that the 2014 election comes first, and the Democrats don’t seem to have much chance to change this year’s dynamic. Republicans do have the time and opportunity to change the dynamic of 2016. The bad news is the most likely Republican presidential candidates seem to have little inkling of how to do so. An ever more intensive clobbering of Hillary Clinton will reach a point of diminishing returns. It’s quite possible, even likely, that a majority of Americans will be unenthusiastic by November 2016 about the prospect of a Clinton presidency. But it seems very unlikely that critics will succeed in disqualifying her, in the eyes of a majority of voters, as a potential president.

Which means a Republican is actually going to have to win the presidency in 2016.

It’s been a long time since a non-incumbent Republican has actually won a presidential election. In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote. In 1988, Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater succeeded in demolishing Michael Dukakis, and George H. W. Bush was able to secure what was in effect Ronald Reagan’s third term. In 1980, Ronald Reagan ran against a deeply unpopular incumbent, and in 1968 Richard Nixon defeated the incumbent vice president of a failed Democratic administration. In 1952, Americans liked Ike. But…

We don’t have another Ike. Probably the best model for 2016 is Reagan in 1980. In addition to benefiting from Jimmy Carter’s problems, Reagan did run on a big and bold governing agenda at a time the country sensed it needed one.

Do Republicans have such an agenda today? Not yet. Do they have candidates who are in search of such an agenda? Not clear. It’s not merely, as is often said, that the Republican presidential field lacks a Reagan. It’s that the Republican party seems to lack leaders who even want to be a Reagan. Reagan was a full-spectrum conservative. But even more important, he was a full-spectrum candidate.

Such a candidate would explain how he would stand up to Vladimir Putin, and he would stand up for Ayaan Hirsi Ali. He would not just offer a critique of Obamacare but would set forth an alternative to it, and he would also be championing alternatives to other features of nanny-state liberalism. He would embody the best impulses of the Tea Party while channeling the sentiments of Middle America. He would seek not to contain Obama-era liberalism but to transcend it, explaining why it should go down as some bizarre chapter in American history whose last pages are even now being written.

Every poll shows the American public, by about two to one, thinks the nation is on the wrong track. That’s the track of contemporary liberalism. It’s the track Hillary Clinton has diligently chugged along for her entire adult life. As president, she’d be a dutiful chaperone of further American decline. The American people deserve better. If given a real choice between an invigorated conservatism and a decadent liberalism, voters might well make the right decision. Will they be given that choice in 2016?

Twitter: @israelcomment

Congressman Allen West, astute political observer, takes a different look at the Donald Sterling Pile On.

“Folks, you’re missing the point about Donald Sterling”

By former Congressman Allen West
April 30, 2014

“Upon further review, the ruling on the field (court …” These are the words stated by referees after they’ve gone to the reply booth (monitor) in order to clarify a controversial call. Often, the reason for the review is because of a coach’s challenge. Therefore, in the same light, let us review the case of LA Clippers owner, Donald Sterling.

There can be no debate that the words of Mr. Sterling were reprehensible and disgusting. But how and why did these words come to light now, when his points of view were apparently well-known for many years?

It seems his “girlfriend,” Ms. Stiviano, decided to tape a private conversation between the two. Apparently, Ms. Stiviano had recently been sued by the estranged wife of Mr. Sterling, so there is some potential nefarious motive involved. Furthermore, the taping of a conversation without consent of the other party is illegal under California statute. There is some question as to whether he knew he was being recorded. Let’s assume for the moment he didn’t.

The national outrage against Mr. Sterling has come from an act that could be illegal and inadmissible in a court of law. Nevertheless, the court of public opinion has tried and convicted Mr. Sterling of being a jerk.

But have we come to a point in America where being a jerk is grounds for confiscation of a private property? It was Englishman John Locke who first proposed that individual rights as granted under natural law were life, liberty, and property. It was Thomas Jefferson who in the American Declaration of Independence used that paradigm to propose our unalienable rights from our Creator being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sterling’s comments were repulsive, but they were stated in the privacy of his own home — at least he thought it was private.

So where do we go from here?

Have we come to the point that private conversations can be taped and released in the public domain in order to ruin the livelihood — pursuit of happiness — of private citizens? Ms. Stiviano, or whomever, knew exactly what they wanted the end result to be as they released this tape to TMZ.

Is this the “new normal?” Is this a violation of our privacy rights? Ok, so what types of conversations occur in the privacy of the NBA locker rooms, or the homes of the players? Yes, this is indeed a slippery slope as Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban asserted.

Fox News host and commentator Greg Gutfeld applauded this moment because of the consensus outrage being displayed. But I believe this outrage misplaced, or more accurately, mis-prioritized. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said Sterling’s behavior was “dangerous to the NBA.”

Where is the cultural, public outrage over a behind closed door comment such as referring to the State of Israel as an “apartheid state?” Probably most of America doesn’t know who said it or even what “apartheid” means.

Or how about the outrage that should have come when our own president leaned over to then-Russian President Medvedev saying, “Tell Putin that after my re-election I will have more flexibility” and of course Medvedev said, “I will tell Vladimir.” And now we know what that “flexibility” has allowed.

Aren’t those “private” chats reflective of behavior that is dangerous for the United States?

Or how about the lies and deceit of President Obama on healthcare and of course Benghazi, which we now know a video had nothing to do with.

Has our culture devolved to the point that the private statements of an NBA owner draws more outrage than the lies and deceit of the President of the United States?

Donald Sterling’s behavior is despicable, but so is that of President Barack Hussein Obama — and whose abhorrent behavior has more impact on our country?

The difference is that the media lead us along like sheep to the slaughter, turning us into reactionary, shallow thinking, low information voters along the way. We know more about Sterling than Benghazi — or the IRS scandal.

Sterling is a jerk, an unlikeable fella, but is he guilty of a crime that demands his property be confiscated? Uh, no.

We’re told however that Obama is a likable fella — regardless of the incessant lies, deceit and abject failures. What is happening to American culture and values?

I don’t like jerks, but I really don’t like jerks who are liars, do you?

Allen West

Jsk personal aside: Thank you Congressman Allen West for your enlightening perspective. Please allow me to look at yet another angle. How is it that the media and the whole liberal self righteous proud world including the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the rest of the race hustlers and the many hypocritical owners of the NBA franchises and its new commissioner pile on to the obvious AH, Donald Sterling, with such zeal?

I can’t help but wonder if the whole world would get so upset if someone were caught telling someone, “Those fuckin’ Jews have all the money, they smell, they are dirty and I despise them and I don’t want you bringing them around to my golf club, my house, my restaurant, my hotels and as far as I am personally concerned you can f–k them any time you want.

What would the world, the media, the Jewish organizations do except make a lot of noise? Not a damn thing! And how jealous am I? It is politically incorrect to publicly say anything nasty about “African-Americans” but the Jews have always been fair game for unabashed declared malignant hatred. And no one closes the perpetrator’s business, their property is not confiscated and exorbitant punishment fees are not levied against them.

Of course, that is all not to say that Stirling is anything but an AH but, how are his remarks different from those of every committed Jew hater in the world? I think not. Hurray to the Blacks for making awful remarks about them politically incorrect and punishable by social ostracism for starters.

How about the Jews taking a lesson from the Blacks and shed the shtetl mentalities they garnered in the ghettos of Europe? Make their enemies pay the price for their mindless expressed hatred. Jewish blood is no longer cheap. Ask the enemies of the Israelis.

Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: @israelcomment

The Truth about the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement against Israel

Does it stand for Middle East peace or does it seek Israel’s destruction? (Guess!)

Leaders of the effort to boycott, divest from and apply sanctions against Israel — the so-called BDS movement — say they stand for an “end to the occupation of the Palestinian territories,” “justice in Palestine” and “freedom for the Palestinian people.” But what are the real motives of BDS leaders — do they really want peace between Israel and the Palestinian people?

What are the facts?

While the BDS movement uses highly emotive language in their appeals for support—such as “ending repression” and “Israeli war crimes”—a closer look at the real motives of the movement reveals a more sinister goal.

First, note that the BDS movement focuses only on alleged war crimes and repression by Israel—and ignores real war crimes and tyrannical repression by other Middle Eastern nations and terrorist organizations. When Hamas and Hezbollah target thousands of rockets at Israeli civilian populations in violation of international law, BDS utters not a word of criticism, let alone a call for boycotts or sanctions. When Iran’s government violently crushes peaceful protests and Egypt stifles its press and political opposition with a dictatorial hand, BDS is likewise silent. Why?

By singling out Israel for criticism and economic pressure, BDS employs a double standard—a hypocritical and dishonest tactic frequently used by anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate groups.

The reason, as we’ll see, is that the BDS movement is not really interested in alleged war crimes or repression. Rather its purpose is to delegitimize and then destroy Israel.

The second critical fact about the BDS movement is that while it masquerades behind words like “freedom” and “occupation,” one need only listen closely to its rhetoric to realize that these are code words for the elimination of Israel.

BDS leaders oppose a two-state solution — why? While the United States, Western European powers, Israel and the U.N. Security Council have embraced a “two-state solution” as the basis for peace in the Middle East, BDS leaders, such as Ali Abunimah and Omar Barghouti, are clear: They openly and outspokenly oppose a two-state solution. Why?

Because when BDS supporters talk about “the occupation of Palestine,” they refer not to disputed West Bank territories, but to all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — including all of Israel. When they talk about “freedom,” they don’t mean freedom from security roadblocks, they mean freedom from Jews in their midst. When they talk about “occupation,” they mean not just Israeli security forces in the West Bank, they also mean Israelis “occupying” the state of Israel.

The third telling fact about the BDS movement is that it consistently and vehemently opposes any efforts to bring Israelis and Palestinians together to work in peace and on peace. For example, BDS leaders advocate boycotting cultural exchanges between Israelis and Palestinian artists. They condemn educational cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian universities. Most revealingly, they oppose peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian leadership, calling them “collaborationist.”

BDS is not about “occupation.” In short, BDS is not about peaceful coexistence or ending the “occupation” of the West Bank. Indeed, Omar Barghouti, a graduate student at Tel Aviv University and BDS founder, admits, “If the occupation ends . . . would that end support for BDS? No, it would not.

Not only do BDS leaders admit this, but they implacably support the “return” of nearly five million descendants of Arab refugees who left during Israel’s war of independence in 1947. In fact, most of these Palestinians are not truly refugees — fully 95 percent of them have never set foot in Israel.

Most importantly, the immigration of millions of Arab refugees’ descendants to Israel would make Jews a minority in their own state. As President Obama has correctly noted, “The ‘right of return’ would extinguish Israel as a Jewish State, and that’s not an option.” Yet destroying Israel by flooding it with millions of Palestinians is precisely what BDS leader Barghouti insists upon: “This (the right of return) is something we cannot compromise on.”

BDS’s goal: “Extinguish Israel as a Jewish State.” BDS unequivocally rejects Israel’s many peace offers—including numerous land-for-peace proposals supported by the United States—and rejects Israel’s willingness to sit down to direct peace talks without preconditions.

Thus, the facts make BDS’s intentions clear: Rather than being a movement that seeks peace and freedom, it is a movement motivated by an obsessive hate of Zionism and Jews and opposition to the Jewish State—one bent on fomenting strife, conflict and enmity until Israel is utterly defeated.

If you support peace between Israel and the Palestinians, if you support two states for two peoples—living side by side in cultural, social and economic harmony—please oppose the ill-intentioned BDS movement in your community. Speak out against hateful, one-sided campaigns to boycott Israeli goods, to divest from companies that do business with Israel and to enact sanctions against the state of Israel. This is not the path to peace!

Facts and Logic About the Middle East
P.O. Box 590359
San Francisco, CA 94159
Gerardo Joffe, President

Twitter: @israelcomment

Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian President, choses Hamas Terror Organization over Israel

I Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Newsletter
April 24, 2014

II Zionist Org. of America Statement on PA/Hamas Agreement

Israel Government Security Cabinet statement

PM Netanyahu: “Whoever chooses the terrorism of Hamas does not want peace.”

(Communicated by the Prime Minister’s Media Adviser)

The Cabinet today (April 24, 2014), unanimously decided that Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by Hamas, a terrorist organization that calls for Israel’s destruction.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said:

“Instead of choosing peace, Abu Mazen formed an alliance with a murderous terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of Israel. Abu Mazen has formed an alliance with an organization whose covenant calls for Muslims to fight and kill Jews. Hamas has fired more than 10,000 missiles and rockets at Israeli territory and has not halted terrorist actions against Israel even for a minute.”

The agreement between Abu Mazen and Hamas was signed even as Israel is making efforts to advance the negotiations with the Palestinians. It is the direct continuation of the Palestinians’ refusal to advance the negotiations. Only last month Abu Mazen rejected the framework principles proposed by the United States. Abu Mazen has refused to even discuss recognizing Israel as the national state of the Jewish People. He violated existing agreements by unilaterally applying to accede to international treaties and then formed an alliance with Hamas.

U.S. State Dept. –– “Now Israel Can’t Be Expected To Negotiate”

II Zionist Org. of American: U.S. & Israel Must Terminate Relations With Abbas Following Fatah/P.A./Hamas Reconciliation Agreement.

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has urged the Obama Administration and the Israeli government to terminate relations with Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah/Palestinian Authority (PA), following its conclusion of a reconciliation agreement with the Islamist terrorist organization Hamas, which controls Gaza. The State Department designates Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Top Hamas official Hassan Yousef announced that the terror group would not renounce its commitment to violence and the destruction of Israel, will not recognize Israel and “will not give up the resistance” [i.e. terrorism against Israelis] Washington Free Beacon, April 23, 2014).

Fatah calls in its Constitution for the destruction of Israel (Article 12) and the use of terrorism as an indispensable element in the struggle to achieve that goal (Article 19). Fatah terrorists have murdered over 500 Israelis since Yasser Arafat launched his terrorist wave against Israel in September 2000. Hamas calls in its Charter for the destruction of Israel (Article 15) and the worldwide murder of Jews (Article 7), while Hamas terrorists have also murdered over 500 Israelis since September 2000.

Palestinian media outlets are already reporting that Hamas members are set to fill the PA’s ranks, and may even head the new government. Following the announcement of the reconciliation deal, Israel said it would not attend a negotiation session planned for Wednesday evening. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier said Mr. Abbas would have to choose between peace with Israel and peace with Hamas, saying, “Does [Abbas] want peace with Hamas or peace with Israel? You can have one but not the other” (‘Hamas and Fatah unveil Palestinian reconciliation deal,’ BBC, April 23, 2014).

In a press briefing, the State Department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, responded to the news of the reconciliation deal, saying, “it’s hard to see how Israel can be expected to negotiate with a government that does not believe in its right to exist.” Asked if U.S. financial aid to the PA would be a casualty of this move, Psaki replied, “Well, obviously, there would be implications.”

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said,

“By concluding a reconciliation agreement with Hamas, a movement intent on a genocide of the Jews, Abbas’ Fatah/PA has shown conclusively that it is not only not a peace partner, but an avowed enemy of Jews and the Jewish State. As we have argued for many years now, we know from long, bitter experience that the PA is unlikely to accept even the most generous Israeli peace proposals, even ones that would endanger Israel, such as Ehud Barak’s 2000 peace offer or Ehud Olmert’s 2008 offer. Indeed, they have frustrated American attempts to bring about peace negotiations in recent months by adding new demands and also refused even to talk to Israel for almost the whole of the past five years.”

“Abbas’s PA has not fulfilled its commitments under the Oslo agreements to arrest terrorists, outlaw terrorist groups and end the incitement to hatred and murder in the PA-controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps that helps fuel the conflict. It has repeatedly and explicitly refused to accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish State. Even without the Fatah/Hamas deal, talks with the Fatah/PA are devoid of purpose.”

“We therefore urge both the Obama Administration and the Israeli government to terminate relations with the Fatah/PA forthwith.”

Additional Israeli reactions to the Fatah/Hamas reconciliation deal:

The secular left-of-center party Yesh Atid’s leader, Finance Minister, Yair Lapid, said that Hamas is “a jihadi terror organization that is proud of killing civilians — women, children, the elderly — just because they’re Jewish. If the Palestinians really want a treaty with Israel … how did they not demand from Hamas to say it is abandoning terror, to commit to not hurting innocent people and to follow international law?”

The Jewish Home party leader, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said, “We don’t talk to murderers … The agreement between Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad brings the Middle East to a new diplomatic era. The Palestinian Authority turned into the largest terrorist organization in the world, 20 minutes from Tel Aviv.”

Twitter: @israelcomment

The Israeli Biblical Slave Mentality that Tragically Exists to this very Day

The Slave Mentality’s Long Shadow
By Sara Lehmann
The Jewish Press
April 11, 2014

Aside from the clichéd quip about Pesach (Passover) preparations mirroring Jewish labor in Egypt, a concept I can well relate to, Pesach is universally regarded as the Jewish holiday of emancipation. The precept of Zeman Cheiruseinu (Season of our Liberation) is so fundamental to our Jewish identity that it is not consecrated solely on Pesach but is repeated throughout the year in much of our davening, berachos (prayer and blessings) and practices.

This idea of Jewish independence from other nations and dependence on Hashem (G-d) alone has guided Jewish thinking and influenced humanity as to the innate worth of the individual. And it is a reason so many Jews have found themselves at the forefront of liberation movements over the years.

Which is why the abandonment of this course by many Jews nowadays is so baffling. Despite the enormous accomplishments of their people, in Israel and elsewhere, some Jews seemingly find it difficult to recognize their own sovereignty, frequently bowing to foreign gods rather than to God.

In his renowned 19th century commentary on the Haggadah, Rabbi Dr Marcus Lehmann offers a description of this phenomenon that eerily portends present-day realities. “It is a historical fact,” he writes, “that slavery produces a slave mentality…. The slave still remains a slave when his shackles are finally sundered. Even if the Israelites had been freed from the servile yoke of Pharaoh and Egypt by some political upheaval, they would have long since lost the capability of becoming a free and noble nation. Therefore the Haggadah rightly says that if God had not freed us, then we and our children and our children’s children would still have to bear the servile yoke of Pharaoh, even when Pharaoh and Egypt had long ceased to exist.”

Despite the exodus thousands of years ago and our break from the ghettos hundreds of years ago, the slave mentality follows us like a long shadow.

Israeli leaders since 1967 have exhibited that mentality in their continuous pandering to contemporary taskmasters at the expense of their Jewish brethren and homeland. Oslo, the Gaza Disengagement, “Peace” negotiations and prisoner releases all point to a deteriorating pride in Jewish heritage and identity.

And the mentality is not limited to Israeli leaders. (Think AIPAC, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, in particular) How else can one explain the subservient attitude of Jewish leaders in America who year after year kowtow to whatever administration happens to be in power? During one of Obama’s humiliating foreign policy faux pas this year, he succeeded in rustling up high-profile U.S. rabbis and Jewish leaders to petition Congress to authorize American military intervention in Syria. (This against the better wishes of the American public and at a time when the Israeli government was trying its best to maintain silence and neutrality.)

More recently, American Jewish leaders did an about-face on the Iranian threat. At Obama’s behest, they ceased lobbying Congress for support of the Iran Sanctions Bill after America’s disastrous November capitulation to Iran. They furthered this ignominy by using every creative way possible to avoid discussion of the topic at the recent AIPAC convention.

Perhaps the most egregious aspect of Israel’s prisoner releases is that they constitute an elemental affront to Jewish decency. No other government prides itself on such intense loyalty to its citizens on and off the battlefield yet simultaneously mocks that fidelity in a warped political farce aimed at placating world leaders. And Netanyahu’s latest refusal to release the last batch of Palestinian prisoners was less a defiant unburdening of American shackles than a grudging recognition of the binding shackles of his own political coalition. One member of that coalition, Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon, has been the government’s Jiminy Cricket, condemning further prisoner releases and threatening to resign if a release goes through.

I spoke with Danon last week, and even with John Kerry scrambling to clinch a deal by throwing in the sweetener of a Jonathan Pollard release, Danon was not budging. “I have been fighting for Pollard for the last twenty years,” he said, “and I continue to fight for him to come back to Israel. But I don’t think we should make a linkage. Even if Pollard will be released I will still resign as deputy minister of defense. This is a moral decision. We should not allow murderers to walk freely.”

Danon condemned Kerry’s shuttle diplomacy as “unacceptable” and lamented how “in the past Netanyahu said there will be no pre-conditions and then we saw that a settlement freeze and releasing murderers became pre-conditions. Even now we are negotiating about the price to continue to talk. We need tell our friends in the U.S. that there are red lines that we are not willing to cross.”

Is it mere coincidence that these negotiations, which serve only as a vehicle for Jewish self-immolation, are unraveling at a fast and furious pace as the holiday of our redemption approaches?

The lessons of Hashem’s deliverance of the Jewish people became all the more crystallized when I heard Danon admit he was “very concerned” about Kerry. “He is adopting the Palestinian ideology and talking about two states and two capitals in Jerusalem, meaning that we have to go back to the 1967 lines.”

Danon’s solution? “We should count only on ourselves, despite our friends in the Jewish community and in both houses of Congress. Israel is preparing itself for all options, even the option of dealing with the threat of Iran by ourselves.” (And … let us say, Amen)

Welcome words from a politician whose ascent in Israeli politics is not accompanied by selling out the citizens he represents. Coupled with reliance on Hashem, this should be a wake-up call to other policy makers who suffer from an affliction of Jewish insecurity that threatens the security of us all.

About the Author: Sara Lehmann, a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, was formerly an editor at a major New York publishing house.

Jsk Addendum: This painful but brave and factual article brings to my mind a beautifully descriptive, newly coined Hebrew word — “Mamlachtiyut”

Mamlachtiyut, a neologism (The invention of new words regarded as a symptom of certain psychotic disorders which eludes English equivalents but which, in this case, roughly translates as “ The ability to act in a sovereign-like manner,” thus employing and preserving a nation’s power).  

By mamlachtiyut, Ben-Gurion meant the Jews’ ability to handle power — military power as well as democratic and political power — effectively, justly, responsibly.  The Jews of Israel, Ben-Gurion knew, might succeed in repelling Arab armies, in absorbing many times their number of new immigrants, and in creating world-class governmental and cultural institutions, but without mamlachtiyut, without the ability to deal with power and take responsibility for its ramifications, they could not ultimately survive.

The above Ben Gurion quote is from former Israeli ambassador to the US, Michael Oren 2006, who himself suffers from a lack of mamlachtiyut, as he continually recommends that Israel give up Judea and Samaria to the Arabs – a virtually guaranteed step toward Israel’s ultimate self-destruction, Hashem forbid.

Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: @israelcomment

Yes, The Vatican was complicit with Mussolini and Hitler in the killing of the Jews.

How the Vatican Aided Mussolini

A new account of a grievous historical record

Redacted from a much more detailed, must-read publication

By Kevin J. Madigan

NATIONAL MEMORIES, like personal ones, tend to be self-flattering, soothing, and often glorious. So it comes as a shock when historical research shows those memories to be false. It is even more shocking when research unearths new historical narratives that are awkward, shameful, or even intolerable. Since the end of the Second World War, both the Catholic Church and Italy have treasured heroic memories of their supposedly contentious relations with Benito Mussolini, his Fascist regime, and the anti-Semitic racial laws of 1938.

The traditional, self-consoling narrative goes something like this:

The good people of Italy opposed Mussolini’s Fascist regime and the racial laws it produced. The Catholic Church in Italy resisted Italian Fascism. Its cantankerous pope, Pius XI, fought Mussolini and his dictatorship, as did other high-ranking Vatican churchmen. When Italy’s racial laws were published in 1938, church leaders protested them vigorously. They were appalled that Jews would be disenfranchised, marginalized professionally and educationally, ostracized socially, defined by race, and declared ethnically and culturally inferior to their European neighbors. Only semi-heathen and politically illiberal Germany could possibly have championed this sort of pre-Christian tribalism and discrimination.

David Kertzer, the distinguished historian of modern Italy at Brown University and author of the brilliant, The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara, (Vintage, 1998), tells a much different story in his latest, meticulously researched, and captivating book.

The Pope and Mussolini: The Secret History of Pius XI and the Rise of Fascism in Europe (Random House, 529 pages) is based in large part on tens of thousands of documents made available only in 2006 in the Vatican Archives, covering the pontificate of Pius XI (1922-1939), as well as a treasure trove of newly available sources for the same period in the Jesuit archives, along with the rich Fascist archives for these years.

Among Kertzer’s conclusions are that the Vatican bureaucracy, far from resisting Mussolini, enabled and sustained led the Mussolini dictatorship. Several important Jesuits, including the order’s Superior General, helped support the Fascist regime and tried to muzzle papal criticism of Hitler. These Jesuits also did much to sustain the notion that there was a worldwide conspiracy of Judea-Bolsheviks intent on subverting healthy Christian society and establishing a Communist empire in the West. Not only did the Church fail to resist the 1938 racial laws; church-approved writings provided much of the rationale for discriminating Italy’s tiny Jewish population.

Among those who suppressed criticism of the Italian racial laws and sought to ease tensions between the pope, Mussolini and Hitler was the Vatican secretary of state, Pacelli, who would succeed Pius XI in 1939!

Most of all, Pius XI and the dictator, who both came to power in 1922, depended on each other for support and for achieving mutual goals. They shared many political ideas; both loathed democracy and Communism.

Pius gave sacred legitimacy and removed obstacles to Mussolini’s Fascist regime. Mussolini restored many ecclesiastical prerogatives that had been lost over the previous decades. Only near the end of Pius Xl’s pontificate, when the aging pope grew enraged with Mussolini and his friend and ally Hitler, did the unholy union begin to unravel. But the unraveling was knit up after Pacelli became Pius XII.

… Eventually, Pope Pius XI concluded that it would be best to throw his support to the Fascist Party. In 1922, he had his secretary of state send a letter to bishops forbidding priests from joining any party, and in 1926 the Popular Party was disbanded altogether. Pius XI had done a critically important favor for Mussolini, and upon Il Duce’s assumption of power in 1922, the new leader was eager to communicate his gratitude to the new pope. He ordered his men to kneel in prayer for a moment.

As Kertzer observes, Mussolini was well aware that the support he had received from the church was “priceless.” Pius XI made sure that never again would the Vatican-vetted Jesuit journal, Civilta Cattolica, denounce Fascism. Indeed it would legitimatize it. Just before the first election held under Mussolini, in 1924, the journal reminded readers of all the benefits provided by the Fascists and of how tirelessly Mussolini had already worked to improve church-government relations.

…When Pacelli was elected Pius Xl’s successor,”Kertzer reports, “Mussolini and the other Fascist leaders felt as if they had woken up to find an irritating sore that had long plagued them was miraculously gone” Within 48 hours of his election, Pius XII summoned the German ambassador, Diego von Bergen and said he was eager to assure the Nazi government that he sought a new era of understanding. After telling Bergen how close he felt to the German people as a result of his many years in Munich and Berlin, the new Pope came to his main point. He understood, he said, that different countries adopted different forms of government. Amazingly, he concluded that “it was not the pope’s role to judge what system other countries chose”

While much attention has been paid to Pius XII’s relations with the genocidal Nazi regime, until now very little has been written on the same man’s earlier role in quelling criticism of the Nazi and Fascist regimes and in preserving the Vatican’s good relations with Mussolini. Indeed, there is a serious movement within the Catholic Church to make Pius XII a saint!

Will the new material Kertzer has uncovered and expertly analyzed make it into his canonization dossier? Not very likely. More likely, Pacelli’s apologists, ever alert to protect Pius XII no matter what the evidence suggests, will (if recent history is any guide) accuse Kertzer of all manner of scholarly dereliction.

On the other hand, intellectually honest historians who have the requisite philological and historical expertise will credit Kertzer with a remarkable achievement in bringing to light, through researches wide in scope and profound in depth, a previously hidden history.

And Roman Catholics eager to purge their church of all vestiges of anti-Semitism will welcome his expose of this unhappy and deliberately ignored history. Perhaps Francis I — Pope, Jesuit, and philo-Semite — will finally enable historians to uncover this history in all its fullness.

KEVIN J. MADIGAN is Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard Divinity School and the author, with Jon D. Levenson, of Resurrection: The Power of God for Christians and Jews (Yale University Press, 2008).

PS (It never ceases to amaze me how these evil Church and Lay leaders, these perpetrators of awful deeds against their own people, conveniently find a way to blame the Jews —  no matter what their number or total lack of power. The Jews of Italy happen to constitute 1/10 of 1% of the entire Italian population!) jsk

Twitter: @israelcomment

The Origin of the New York Times’ Long History of Anti-Semitism

The NY Times column on anti-Zionism is a reminder of its own publisher’s past

By Rafael Medoff/

(Dr. Rafael Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, in Washington, D.C., and author of 15 books about Jewish history and the Holocaust. The latest is “FDR and the Holocaust: A Breach of Faith.”)

The New York Times raised some eyebrows in the Jewish community with a lengthy feature about four self-described religious Jews who oppose Israel. In an apparent attempt to legitimize Jewish anti-Zionism, the article stressed that Zionism “was not always the norm among American Jews” and that it was only “the persecution of European Jews [which] turned many American Jews into Zionists.”

Interestingly, one of the most famous “religious Jews” who opposed Zionism did not change his mind even after the Holocaust. That was the Times’s own publisher from 1935 to 1961, Arthur Hays Sulzberger.

Sulzberger was a devout adherent of classical Reform Judaism. In his view, Jewish identity should consist only of religious beliefs, not any sense of peoplehood, nationalism, or ethnic affiliation. He even rejected the existence of Jewish war veterans organizations on the grounds that they were examples of “Ghetto living.”

As Prof. Laurel Leff explains in her critically acclaimed book, “Buried by The Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper,” Sulzberger instructed Times editors to bury news of the Nazi genocide on the back pages, and to tone down or eliminate references to the fact that the victims were Jews. Sulzberger worried that if the Times reported what was happening to the Jews in Europe, someone might accuse it of being a “Jewish newspaper.”

As news of the Nazi atrocities moved many formerly anti-Zionist Reform rabbis and leaders to recognize the need for a Jewish State, Sulzberger pushed back. He was one of the earliest and most enthusiastic supporters of the American Council for Judaism, a group created by a handful of Reform rabbis in 1942 to oppose Zionism. The Times gave frequent and generous coverage to the activities of the tiny Council.

Even a visit to former Nazi concentration camps in 1945 did not alter Sulzberger’s anti-Zionist convictions. In a speech the following year, Sulzberger said that while he felt sorry for the Jewish survivors living in Displaced Persons camps in Europe, they were “but a minor percentage of the total of displaced persons” and therefore should not be receiving so much attention.

The Times publisher even went so far as to claim that Zionism was to blame for some of the Jewish deaths in the Holocaust. He alleged, in that 1946 speech, that the refugee crisis during the war had been “a manageable, social and economic problem” until “the clamor for statehood introduced an insolvable political element” into the issue. “It is my judgment that thousands dead might now be alive” if “the Zionists” had put “less emphasis on statehood,” Sulzberger asserted.

One of the Jewish anti-Zionists profiled in last week’s New York Times article described himself as a fan of the late Judah Magnes, who advocated a binational Arab-Jewish Palestine instead of a Jewish State. Sulzberger, too, thought highly of Magnes. In June 1946, Sulzberger tried to organize a dinner at Manhattan’s Hotel Pierre to raise funds for Magnes’s work. The Times publisher invited 23 of his associates. Only three accepted. The dinner was canceled.

The increasingly isolated Sulzberger grew more and more frustrated. A pro-Zionist statement by the formerly anti-Zionist president of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) in early 1947 prompted Sulzberger to write to a friend, “Apparently if you are a Jew you have to contribute Jewishly, eat Jewishly, think Jewishly, part your hair Jewishly… Gosh I’m sick!”

On another occasion, Sulzberger was horrified to see the AJC and other Jewish groups listed as affiliates of the United Jewish Appeal in an advertisement in the Times. “The only thing I miss is the Jewish Chiropractors’ Society,” he complained. “In other words, J E W is to be the common denominator for everything we do. God help us!”

In his final years, Sulzberger’s anti-Zionism never eased. He resigned from one of the Reform synagogues to which he belonged after it introduced the singing of Hatikvah along with the Star-Spangled Banner. He apparently considered visiting Israel on one occasion, but changed his mind after Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion made a speech that he disliked. Ironically, however, after Sulzberger passed away in 1961, his widow established a scholarship in his name at Hebrew University. It seems unlikely he would have approved.

(A personal aside: For those not familiar with the Hebrew term, aliyah, it literally means rising up spiritually as one is called to read Torah or physically referring to one’s emigration to the Biblical land of Israel. During the synagogue service, individual congregants are sometimes asked to rise up to participate in the Torah service when they are honored for some achievement or in memory of one of their deceased love ones).

(On occasion it is sometimes my habit to snidely claim, when addressing the politics of the Sulzberger family, that they finally made the ultimate aliyah, at least to their minds. They became Episcopalians — thus solving many of their own personal problems and those of the world itself via their New York Times — that is, Hashem forbid, until another Hitler finds out that they were Jews after all and deals with them accordingly)

Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: @israelcomment

The Shame of Brandeis University – A “Jewish” Institution?

April 10, 2014

The Shame of Brandeis University
By John Podhoretz
Commentary Magazine

If you have not yet heard, Brandeis University has rescinded its offer of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali is the Somali-born activist whose work has focused on the barbaric misogyny rampant in Islamic societies like the one in which she was raised and whose efforts to call attention to them as a legislator in the Netherlands led to a political crisis there and her eventual flight to the United States.

Given that it only takes a Google search to find out everything one would need to know about her, including the controversial aspects of her views, it is disgustingly laughable for Brandeis President Fred Lawrence to claim he had to withdraw the degree because of information he had only lately discovered. Ayaan Hirsi Ali said this afternoon that she was not surprised she came under attack from demagogic apologists like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR): She has come to expect such things.

“What did surprise me was the behavior of Brandeis. Having spent many months planning for me to speak to its students at Commencement, the university yesterday announced that it could not overlook certain of my past statements, which it had not previously been aware of. Yet my critics have long specialized in selective quotation–lines from interviews taken out of context–designed to misrepresent me and my work. It is scarcely credible that Brandeis did not know this when they initially offered me the degree.”

What Lawrence has done here is the nothing less than the act of a gutless, spineless, simpering coward.

Women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali appeared on The Megan Kelly File, Fox News TV program, to discuss her response to the “regrettable” decision by Brandeis University to cow to Islamic pressures and not give her an honorary degree and speaking platform at the graduation ceremony.

The Somali-born Ali has spoken out against such atrocities as honor killings and genital mutilation and been the subject of intense criticism by Muslims. She called the idea that Brandeis was suddenly made aware this week of some of her past controversial statements “a feeble excuse.”

Video of Ayaan Hirsi Ali being interviewed by Megan Kelly on Fox News, April 9, 2014

Twitter: @israelcomment

As to Kerry’s wishful thinking threat to isolate Israel if it does not self-destruct as he demands!

Is Israel Isolated?

By Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
“Israel Hayom,” (Israel’s most read daily newspaper and to the Right!)
April 4, 2014,

According to Secretary John Kerry, “If we do not resolve the issues between Palestinians and Israelis; if we do not find a way to find peace; there will be an increasing isolation of Israel.” However, a thorough examination of Israel’s international standing reveals an increasingly splendid global integration of the Jewish State – economically, technologically and scientifically — irrespective of the Palestinian issue.

Contrary to the Kerry school of thought — and based on a reality check — the Palestinian issue has never been a core cause shaping the Middle East, a crown-jewel of Arab policymakers or the crux of Israel’s relations with Arab countries and the international community. While diplomatic talk highlights the Palestinian issue, the diplomatic, commercial and industrial walk reveals that policy-makers and the international business community do not embrace Kerry’s “Palestine First” assessment and his “Isolation Warning/Threat.”

Thus, the Turkish Statistics Institute documented an expansion of the Turkey-Israel trade balance, despite the brutal anti-Israel ideology of President Erdogan. The Institute reports a 56% export increase, to Israel, during the first five months of 2013, compared with January-May, 2012, while the imports from Israel were increased by 22% during the same period. The Israel-Turkey trade balance was $3.4BN in 2008 and exceeded $4BN in 2012.

Turkey’s requirements in the areas of industry, medicine, health, agriculture, irrigation, education, science, technology and defense — and Israel’s unique innovations in these areas — have prevailed over Erdogan’s anti-Western, anti-Israel and pro-Hamas Islamist orientation.

The London Financial Times reported: “in six hours of [Prime Minister Netanyahu’s] talks with the Chinese leadership, they spent roughly ten seconds on the Palestinian issue, while revealing an unquenchable thirst for Israeli technology.” Highlighting Israel’s intensified and diversified global integration, the China-Israel 2013 trade balance exceeded $10BN, providing a tailwind to the currently negotiated free trade agreement, and enhanced by Chinese investments in some fifty Israeli high tech companies.

The Japan Times reported the growing Japanese interest in Israeli business opportunities, tripling the number of reviews of Israeli companies. Moreover, fforeign investments in Israel catapulted in 2013, achieving a seven year high of $12BN, including $4BN in acquisition of Israeli companies by global giants such as Google, IBM, Cisco, AOL, Facebook, Apple and EMC. Furthermore, since January 2014, Israeli companies have risen over $500MN on Wall Street. Deloitte Touche – one of the top CPA firms in the world — crowned Israel as the fourth most attractive site for foreign investors, trailing only the USA, China and Brazil.

According to the British Economist Intelligence Unit, “Israel’s cluster of high tech companies, investors and incubators is enjoying a boom which has not been witnessed since the global tech bubble burst more than a decade ago.” Neither Kazakhstan’s billionaire Kenges Rakishev, nor Mexico’s billionaire, Carlos Slim allowed the “Isolation Warning/Threat” to stop their flow of investments in Israel’s high tech sector.

In fact, Israel, the Startup Nation, has become a critical Pipeline Nation that transfers to the American high tech industry a plethora of cutting edge technologies and applications, developed by Israel’s brain power. This provides some 200 US high tech giants an edge over their global competitors, thereby contributing to US employment, research, development and exports. As stated by Microsoft’s new CEO, Satya Nadella, “The two Microsoft research and development centers in Israel constitute a strategic factor, enhancing Microsoft’s capabilities in many areas.”

This was echoed by Google’s Chairman, Eric Schmidt, who also invests in Israel through his private venture capital fund, Innovation Endeavors: “Israel will have an oversized impact on the evolution of the next stage of technology. Israel has become a high tech hub. Israel is the most important high tech center in the world after the US.”

Unlike Secretary Kerry, Warren Buffett does have confidence in Israel’s long term viability, realizing that Israel’s economic and technological capabilities are the derivatives of Israel’s brainpower and fiscal responsibility (since 1985), independent of the Palestinian issue. Hence, on the eve of Israel’s 2006 war against Lebanon’s Hizballah, Buffett invested $4BN in an Israeli company — located next to the Lebanese border — recently expanding that investment by $2BN. Buffett followed in the footsteps of Intel, which has invested $11BN in its four research and development centers and two manufacturing plants in Israel; IBM, which just acquired its 13th Israeli company; Motorola, which established in Israel a research center second only to its Houston center; Hewlett-Packard, which owes 55% of its 2012/3 development to its seven Israeli research and development centers; and the leading Silicon Valley venture capital funds, Sequoia, Benchmark, Greylock and Accel, which operate successful Israel-dedicated funds.

Astute observers of the Middle East – who do not subordinate reality to wishful thinking — are aware that the Arab Tsunami is not an Arab Spring; that the Arab Street in general, and Egypt in particular, are not transitioning towards democracy; that Iran is committed to the pursuit of military nuclear capabilities; that Assad has not been forsaken by Russia and Iran; and that Arab leaders are apprehensive of Palestinian subversion and terrorism.

Likewise, astute investors have realized that the ongoing wars and terrorism, challenging Israel since 1948, have been but bumps on the road of Israel’s unprecedented surge and integration into the global economy and technology, now bolstered by Israel’s Leviathan-size offshore natural gas explorations.

Yoram Ettinger, Jerusalem, Israel
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis
Twitter: @israelcomment

Iran’s Nuclear Weapons and the “Interim Agreement”

By FLAME (Facts and Logic About the Middle East)

Is this the time to relax or rather increase sanctions on the Islamic Republic?

Despite evasions, denials and equivocations, it is clear that Iran continues to pursue the holy grail of nuclear weapons. A temporary agreement recently struck between Iran and Western powers does nothing to disable Iran’s nuclear weapons development, yet it does loosen hard-won economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic. In fact, Iranian diplomats brag that the agreement fails to inhibit them in the least and that their nuclear program will not be stopped. Does it really make sense to relax pressure on Iran, or should the U.S. and Western powers line up additional sanctions should Iran fail to discontinue nuclear weapons development?

What are the facts?

The P5 + 1 group of world powers—the U.S., China, Russia, France, Great Britain and Germany—celebrated when Iran recently agreed to a six-month interim agreement calling for the Islamic Republic to suspend enrichment of 20% uranium. In return, the P5 + 1 agreed to allow Iran to access $4.2 billion in previously blocked funds, and the U.S. agreed to apply no new economic sanctions for six months. Yet Iranian foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif says, “We did not agree to dismantle anything,” and its president Hassan Rouhani promises Iran will absolutely retain its enrichment capability.

U.S. President Barack Obama has pledged that if Iran fails to abide by the interim agreement or to dismantle its nuclear weapons development, he would seek additional economic sanctions and possibly resort to military action. A bill currently before Congress—the Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act—would impose just such additional sanctions on Iran if it breaks the interim agreement or does not cease its nuclear weapons program following expiration of this agreement. In other words, the bill formalizes exactly the diplomatic consequences the President has threatened. No wonder the Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act is currently supported by at least 59 U.S. Senators, a clear majority.

Distressingly, the President has threatened to veto this act if passed by the Senate. The White House fears that the threat of new sanctions—even though they would not go into effect unless Iran fails to comply—could derail current nuclear disarmament talks.

What are the stakes? The primary targets of the Iranian ayatollahs’ fanatical zeal are the U.S. (the “great Satan”) and Israel (the “little Satan”), perceived as being America’s agent in the Middle East. Since Iran now possesses long-range ballistic missiles, the United States, Europe and many Arab nations are in mortal danger of attack by that country. Indeed, as Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Sen. Richard Durbin notes, “If these [current] negotiations fail, there are two grim alternatives—a nuclear Iran, or war, or perhaps both.”

Even short of such a war, a nuclear-armed Iran would be in unquestioned dominance of the Middle East and of its oil supply, the energy life blood of the entire world. It would surely cause intolerable disruption of the U.S. and international economies.

Israel, however, is the most immediate target of Iran’s fury. Iran’s unquenchable hatred of Israel is based on the conviction that “nonbelievers” have no legitimate place in the Middle East. Iran’s leaders have repeatedly threatened Israel with destruction once they come into possession of nuclear weapons.

Israel is such a small country that one or two nuclear weapons strategically dropped on its narrow coastal territory would destroy it. Indeed, the effects of a nuclear attack on Israel are too horrible to consider. There can be little doubt, for example, that such an attack would turn the entire Middle East into a war zone, leaving wide-spread destruction and a worldwide economic disaster in its wake. Clearly this outcome must be prevented at all cost, and no effort should be spared to keep the hands of the ayatollahs off the nuclear trigger.

What is the solution? Of course, most Americans share the President’s hopes that Iran can be persuaded to set aside its nuclear ambitions—and its vendetta against Israel—through diplomacy and other peaceful means. But one thing is certain: It is crippling Western economic sanctions, backed by the threat of force, that have recently driven Iran to the negotiating table.

Above all, Iran must decommission its nuclear weapons infrastructure. Yet with Iran’s nuclear capability still intact and moving forward and its leaders vigorously asserting that the Islamic Republic will never reduce its 20,000 centrifuges or shut down its Arak heavy-water nuclear reactor or its Fordow enrichment facility, does it make sense to reduce the pressure of economic sanctions now? Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee believes it’s a mistake to relax sanctions: “I am convinced that we should only relieve pressure on Iran in return for verifiable concessions that will fundamentally dismantle Iran’s nuclear program.”

Since sanctions brought the Iranians to the table, sanctions are clearly the most powerful, peaceful means at our disposal for convincing the Iranians to abandon hopes of acquiring nuclear weapons. But because the Iranians continue to declare themselves steadfastly committed to nuclear development, it’s time to ratchet up the economic pressure. The Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act should be passed now. The survival of the world is at stake.

Facts and Logic About the Middle East
P.O. Box 590359
San Francisco, CA 94159


Why top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett truly is ‘Obamas Rasputin’

Redacted from a brilliant 37000 word World Net Daily article that must be read in its entirety

By David Kupelian
Whistleblower Magazine
March, 2014

SUPPOSE you were a committed leftist revolutionary who somehow got elected president of center-right America. Suppose you were great at making speeches, but little else. You masked your socialist agenda in the appealing rhetoric of fairness and justice, but secretly loathed the American system of constitutional government and free-market capitalism.

Suppose you also had developed into a pathological narcissist with an absurdly grandiose view of yourself and almost no tolerance for criticism and disagreement. Suppose your ego was so fragile, your worldview so distorted, your mind so angry beneath your charismatic exterior, and your self-image of being a divinely gifted leader in danger of disintegrating in the light and heat of mounting geopolitical turmoil and your own stunning failures as president.

In short, suppose you were Barack Obama.

As of 2014, a great many people that supported him say they regret their vote. America’s economy is still in shambles and its standing in the world arguably worse. The “Affordable Care Act” has been an unqualified catastrophe with millions losing health insurance and tens of millions more expected this year.

Yet Obama feigns confidence in his programs, lies as easily as breathing, and always seems to be playing golf, vacationing or fund raising. He admits he is lazy. He openly boasts about legislating from the Oval Office, refusing to work with Congress as the Constitution requires. Indeed, he doesn’t even like people, as former aide Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the highly influential progressive Center for American Progress, shockingly revealed. “The truth is,” Tanden said of the increasingly insular president, “Obama doesn’t call anyone, and he’s not close to almost anyone. Its stunning that he’s in politics, because he really doesn’t like people.”

So here’s the question: If you were Obama, how would you be able to continue to lead the country leftward in the face of overwhelming and undeniable evidence it is absolutely the wrong direction?

First of all, you’d need a fierce personal protector from all criticism, as well as a skilled enabler constantly re-assuring and comforting your gigantic but fragile ego not to mention a consigliere whose counsel you unreservedly trusted and followed. Meet Valerie Jarrett, who savvy Beltway insiders regard as the most powerful woman in Washington And yet, most White Americans have never even heard of her, let alone know who she is or what she does


For someone widely considered the most powerful adviser in the White House, a person the former editor-in-chief of the News York Times Magazine describes as “in many ways the de facto president,” Jarrett is virtually invisible.

… Jarrett pushed Obama to ignore the advice of more moderate advisers like Rahm Emanuel and instead to destroy the greatest health care system in world history. For it was she who convinced Obama to “go for broke” with Obamacare, which ultimately was forced down the throats of an unwilling American public and Congress, using bribery, parliamentary tricks and every conceivable tactic, including some of the most infamous political lies
(“You can keep your plan/doctor”) in history.

Jarrett has been responsible for bringing the most bizarre of presidential advisers to the Obama White House, including:

“Green jobs czar” Van Jones, who has described himself as a “rowdy black nationalist” and radical “communist,” having founded the communist group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM. One day after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Jones led a vigil expressing solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans and those he called victims of “U.S.Imperialism” around the world.

Federal Communications Commission “chief diversity officer” Mark Lloyd, who once advocated having “white people” step down from positions of power to make room for “more people of color [and] gays,”

Cass Sunstein, the powerful White House “regulatory czar” who has advocated that US taxpayers’ wealth be redistributed to poorer nations and that government infiltrate chat rooms and social network sites to clandestinely undermine citizens’ belief in what he considers “conspiracy theories” — including the belief that global warming is a deliberate fraud.

Journalist-author Richard Miniter, in his book “Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him” provides a revealing window into the inner sanctum of the current White House and Jarrett’s role there. The president himself says he talks to Jarrett several times a day, and that he rarely makes a major decision without consulting her.

One of the things that make Jarrett unique in presidential history is that she is also the first lady’s mentor. Indeed, she has guided the careers and lives of both Obamas for twenty years. She was in the room when Obama decided to run for president. Jarrett’s White House role is unprecedented. She meets privately with the president at least twice a day with no one else present. Her influence is enormous and wide-ranging. She wields informal power, like a first lady; scheduling power, like a chief of staff; and power over policy, like a special envoy.

Jarrett’s radicalism has caused major eruptions with top White House personnel. As National Review Online reporter, Andrew Stiles has pointed out, “Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who clashed often with Jarrett, likened her and senior aide Peter Rouse to Saddam Hussein’s maniacal sons, Uday and Qusay.”

Jarrett’s personal friendship with the president and first lady dates back more than two decades, before the couple was married, and before Barack Obama launched his political career in Chicago. The president has said he views her “like a sibling” and trusts her “completely.”

Edward Klein, who previously served as foreign editor of Newsweek and editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine, wrote a critical book about the 44th president, titled “The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House” paints a disturbing portrait of a president utterly dependent on his Rasputin-like adviser, Valerie Jarrett. Klein quotes a longtime Jarrett friend: “She functions as the eyes, ears, and nose of the president and first lady.”

Jarrett is a classic limousine Liberal who believes that Obama was elected president to engineer social change.

… How good is Jarrett’s advice? She approved the $535 million taxpayer-funded loan guarantee to Solyndra, the California solar company that went belly up. Klein writes that Jarrett had “close ties to the George Kaiser Family Foundation, which controlled 35.7 percent of Solyndra.” And it was Jarrett that pushed Obama to personally travel to Copenhagen in an attempt to bring the Olympics to Chicago, only to come home rebuffed, empty handed and humiliated.

Much of Jarrett’s extraordinary influence explains Klein, “stems from the fact that Jarrett is the president’s trusted watchdog.” She protects the vainglorious and thin-skinned Obama from critics and complainers who will deflate his ego. No one gets past Jarrett and sees the president if they have a grievance, or a chip on their shoulder or even an incompatible point of view.

… Historians will no doubt look back and ask how it’s possible that the 44th US president, Barack Hussein Obama, could possibly have been so disastrously out of touch with reality, so wrongheaded in his decisions never course-correcting in any meaningful way despite staggering evidence at every juncture? With the clarity and objectivity that comes with the passage of time they will surely conclude a great deal of credit goes to Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Rasputin, for enabling the president to stay the course — a course she herself was instrumental setting for him decades earlier.

David Kupelian is an award-winning American journalist vice president and managing editor of World Net Daily and editor of Whistleblower magazine. A widely read online columnist, he is also the bestselling author of “The Marketing of Evil” and “How Evil Works”

The Wondrous Advances of the Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI)

“Space, Surveillance Aircraft, Cyber & Missile Defense Systems”

In a fascinating first interview, Yossi Weiss, CEO of Israel Aerospace Industries, reveals the development trends of the company and the complex challenges the defense industries will face in 2014. An Israel Defense Exclusive!

Redacted from an in-depth interview by Amir Rapaport 27/3/2014

When Yossi Weiss completed 27 years of service with the IDF Navy and joined IAI in 1998, he could not have expected that in 15 years he would find himself heading the defense industry with the country’s highest number of employees: 17,000.

Reality has led him to head a company that has a backlog of orders of more than US$ 10 billion. Now, after nearly a year and a half as CEO, with substantial cuts in defense budgets expected worldwide in 2014, Weiss speaks, in his first interview, about the direction in which he is steering the company: “The challenges are not simple, but we have excellent growth engines.”

Yossi Weiss, 63, is a mechanical engineer, the son of Holocaust survivor parents from Haifa. He has 7 children and 19 grandchildren, the offspring of two wives (he remarried after his first wife had passed away). In the last few positions he had filled in the IDF Navy, he was involved in numerous force build-up weapon system projects, serving as the leader of the “Dolphin” submarine project until his discharge at the rank of Captain (colonel). Among the various positions he had filled in the Navy, he was on loan to the IMOD Weapon System & Technological Infrastructure Research & Development Administration (MAFAT) for four years; there, he was involved in future naval and anti-aircraft technologies.

Yossi Weiss’ career is a significant example of the close connections between the IDF and IMOD on the one hand and the Israeli defense industries on the other hand: immediately following his discharge from the military he “coasted” into the position of Head of the Attack System Administration at IAI’s MABAT Division.

Following that he headed the Naval & Anti-Aircraft Administration at the same division. In 2002 he was appointed as GM of IAI’s HALAL (Space) Division. During his reign as GM of the HALAL Division, the Amos and Ofek surveillance and communication satellites, including a satellite carrying a synthetic aperture radar system, were launched into orbit and work began on Project Venus – the joint French-Israeli satellite project. In April 2006, Weiss was appointed as GM of IAI’s Missile & Space Division and Corporate Vice President of IAI. In July 2012 he was appointed as CEO, following the retirement of IAI’s previous CEO, Yitzhak Nissan.

” … We do not benefit from as much support by the political echelon as industries in other countries, and have to utilize the very best of the Jewish genius so as to make the client understand that operatively, I am giving him something that is superior to what my competitor offers. … According to Yossi Weiss, IAI continues to spot numerous opportunities in Asia (in India, 2014 will be an election year, so sales will be limited, but in other Asian countries, IAI is competing for numerous projects), in South America (particularly in Brazil) and in countries that were once a part of the great Soviet Union.”

Other fields of activity Weiss points out as significant growth engines are UAVs, quite naturally, and the surveillance aircraft IAI supplies, such as the Falcon aircraft sold to India and currently being manufactured for Italy and for other countries that Weiss would not name.

“If until now we had aircraft applications for the benefit of an aerial status picture, like the AWACS, or the Hawkeye electronic warfare aircraft, we added an application associated with the status picture of ground area cells, based on airborne sensors and ground-based sensors,” says Weiss.

IAI intends to compete on the supply of a new self-propelled gun system to the IDF Land Arm, in cooperation with KMW of Germany and Lockheed-Martin of the USA. What about ground robotics? I believe that naval robotic platforms will evolve relatively quickly. As far as ground robotic systems are concerned — it will take a while longer.”

According to Yossi Weiss, “The USA was and has remained, as far as IAI is concerned, a major ‘anchor’ in our operations. Among other things, we are working intimately with both Lockheed-Martin and Boeing.”

“For Boeing, we serve as important sub-contractors, especially in the field of composite materials. We manufacture wing parts, doors and other elements for them. We are currently hard at work finalizing a plan for expanding our operations vis-à-vis Boeing. … According to our estimates, the number of aircraft in the civilian market will double, worldwide, by 2032. If there are about 16,000-17,000 passenger aircraft in the world today, in the future there will be 30,000 aircraft, and consequently this is a very important market for us.”

… “We regard ourselves as a high-tech industry to all intents and purposes. Almost 70% of our operations have high-tech characteristics. Each year, we invest about one billion US Dollars in development. Our present backlog of orders amounts to more than 10 billion US Dollars.”

Please read the article in its entirety:
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis