Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in Australia Feb. 25, 2017.

By Alex Traiman/ (Jewish News Service)

For the second time in a month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has informed the leader of a major Western power that Israel will retain full security control over all of the disputed territories in any future arrangement with Palestinians.

Netanyahu told Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in a closed-door meeting that Israel would never give up its military presence in Judea and Samaria (commonly known as the West Bank), Israel Radio reported. The statement matches comments Netanyahu made in mid-February during his press conference with President Donald Trump.

While laying out his prerequisites for any peace deal, Netanyahu said at the White House that Israel “must retain the overriding security control over the entire area west of the Jordan River…because otherwise we’ll get another radical Islamic terrorist state in the Palestinian areas exploding the peace, exploding the Middle East.”

Dr. Khalil Shikaki, director of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR), believes Netanyahu’s approach would make full Palestinian sovereignty impossible.

“I can’t possibly see that the same person would think this is a two-state solution. Where is the second state? There is only one state. There is a state and a protectorate, but there is not a two-state solution,” Shikaki told

“But I am sure the prime minister knows fully that this is either a good bargaining position to take at the beginning of negotiations, or that he is obviously not interested in a two-state solution outcome,” he said.

Following the White House summit, rather than focusing on Netanyahu’s comments about retaining Israeli military over all of the disputed territories, most mainstream media chose to focus headlines on Trump’s ambiguous answer when asked if he is “ready to give up the notion” of two states. Trump had answered, “So I’m looking at two states and one state, and I like the one that both parties like.”

Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization for America (ZOA), said Trump’s comments brought an abrupt end to 16 years of carefully worded support—by both Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic President Barack Obama—for a two-state solution.

“It’s because of Donald Trump’s enormously important bully pulpit that he has single-handedly changed the conversation,” Klein told “The issue now is whether we can get to peace, as opposed to whether we can get to a Palestinian state.”

Is a two-state solution practical?
A recent poll by Shikaki’s PSR, together with the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University, showed that 50 percent of Israeli Jews and 44 percent of Palestinians living in the West Bank support a two-state solution.

Yet the same study showed that more than 80 percent of Israeli Jews and 72 percent of Palestinians do not believe a Palestinian state will be established in the next five years.

Shikaki explained that, “ The idea of a one-state solution is something that more and more Palestinians are turning to. There is a very strong tendency among Palestinians and Israelis to conclude that the two-state solution is no longer practical. And as a result, they start looking for alternatives. But none of these alternatives seem to garner as much support as there still is for a two-state solution.”

ZOA’s Klein argued that it is easy for Palestinians to support a two-state solution because “Israel is already a state. So when they say they support a two-state solution, what that means is that they support a Palestinian state.”

He contended that the inability of Palestinians to recognize Israeli sovereignty, and their unwillingness for any Jews to live in a future Palestinian state, underscore the dangers of making concessions on Israel’s borders

Klein asserted that Palestinians “say they support a Palestinian state, but ask them whether they support Israel as a Jewish state. Ask them whether they support not allowing any so-called Palestinian refugees moving into Israel. Ask them if they support 800,000 Jews living within the confines of a Palestinian state, and you’ll get different answers.”

Shikaki noted that one past proposal that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have floated for resolving the issue of Israeli settlements is “to ask [Jews in the disputed territories] to live under Palestinian sovereignty if they wish to stay.” He said, however, that the Israeli public has never favored such a plan.

“We no longer have a majority of Palestinians, as we once did, who endorsed the idea of settlers staying under Palestinian sovereignty, but we never had a Jewish majority for that anyway,” said Shikaki.

Yet removing hundreds of thousands of Jews from Judea and Samaria may garner even less public support. In his press conference with Trump, Netanyahu said that “Jews are called Jews because they come from Judea. This is our ancestral homeland. Jews are not foreign colonialists in Judea.”

A one-state solution

By mentioning for the first time the possibility of U.S. support for a one-state solution, Trump has, in Shikaki’s view, “contributed to making the two-state solution less viable, and thereby increasing the demand for the one-state solution.”

“Trump’s mere statement, therefore, has played essentially the same role [in the peace process] as the failure of negotiations, settlement construction, etc. All these things have in the past convinced the majority of Palestinians and Israelis that the viability of the two-state solution is questioned,” Shikaki said.

Israelis may have arrived at the same conclusion, but from a different angle.

While on a recent trip to meet with Israeli policymakers, Klein said he observed that “almost no people are talking about supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state and criticizing Jews that live in Judea and Samaria.”

“My sense,” Klein added, “is that people now understand that a Palestinian state would be a Hamas-Fatah terrorist state and that the reason there is no peace has nothing to do with the Jews in Judea and Samaria.

They now seem to understand that it is because the Palestinian Authority refuses to sit down and negotiate, and because they continue to promote hatred and violence in every element of their culture, and they pay salaries to families who produce killers.”

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

From: The American Thinker

February 24, 2017

By Rabbi Dov Fischer

They are my great protectors — leftist Jews, professional Democrat Jews, Jews in Hollywood and on Broadway, Jews in the liberal mainstream media.  For a year and more, they have been in the forefront protecting me from the “anti-Semitism” of candidate — now President — Donald Trump, from Steve Bannon and Breitbart, from the Republican Party.  There they are, yelling “anti-Semitism!” and worrying about me.  And oh how they care for Israel!

They are phony baloney.  They are as false as the Fake News they spread about the President of the United States.  I know.  I am a Jew all day every day.  I wear a yarmulka at home, at work, indoors, outdoors.  I walk an hour to and from synagogue on my Sabbath, replete with yarmulka, engaging society around me.

My clerical colleagues and friends among the Catholic Diocese where I live, among the Protestant pastors and ministers whom I count dearly, among the non-Jews in all walks of my life, all know I am a Jew.

I am not the kind of Jew whose kitchen observes Judaism, while I eat lobster and pork outside.  And I am sick and tired of seeing and hearing these professional leftists — liberals and radical left activists who often are employed and paid well for their left-driven agenda activism — manipulating the happenstance of their Jewish birth to justify hurling vile and baseless accusations of “anti-Semitism” against those in the Trump Administration who actually are philo-Semitic.

If these leftists are so concerned about anti-Semitism, why is it that so many among them never once sought to protect me or Israel from Barack Obama or John Kerry?  When Obama and Kerry combined to imperil Israel by entering into a horrific deal with Iran, they were quiet.

When Obama insulted the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, treating him like a beggar from Jerusalem, forcing Bibi to wait outside while the Obamas dined, they did not complain.

As Keith Ellison, whose anti-Semitic record of back-biting against Israel and Jews has been exposed, rises within Democrat ranks they do not object.

They do not condemn the anti-Semitism of an Al Sharpton, nor challenge why an Obama began his second Presidential campaign by meeting with Sharpton’s organization.  Where were they when Kerry and Obama ambushed Israel at the very end of Obama’s term, refusing to veto an anti-Semitic United Nations Security Council resolution that declared an outright lie: that Jews have no connection to East Jerusalem?

They are not playing with a full deck.  This President of the United States, Donald Trump, is the most philo-Semitic President of my lifetime, perhaps in American history.  That is why he carried the vote of the Orthodox Jewish community of America in overwhelming numbers.

We Orthodox Jews know what anti-Semitism really is, what it sounds and feels like, at work and at play.  We are not cardiac Jews who speak of having a “Jewish heart,” as though Mother Teresa or Father Damian had any less compassion, nor do we manifest our Jewishness solely by using Yiddish words like “chutzpah” and giggling over embarrassments like Lena Dunham and Sarah Silverman.

Rather, we live Torah tradition and adhere to Torah commandments, and we synthesize our American and Judaic cultures effortlessly.

Donald Trump — unlike a great many of his liberal Democrat critics among the Jewish “leaders” in the United States and the liberal Democrat Jews in Hollywood, on Broadway, and in journalism — actually has Jewish grandchildren.

By contrast, many of their Jewish lines have been self-severed. His daughter is an Orthodox Jew.  His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is an Orthodox Jew.  Jared and Ivanka do not hide their Judaism; they revel in it proudly, though quietly.

Unlike Hillary Clinton’s Jewish son-in-law, they did not have a Protestant pastor co-conducting their marriage.  Donald Trump did not distance from them; rather, he remains connected with them.

Donald Trump has associated with Orthodox Jews all his life.  He has named an extraordinary attorney, David Friedman, to be America’s Ambassador to Israel.  The Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of the Trump Organization, Jason Dov Greenblatt, is an Orthodox Jew. In January 2017, President Trump appointed him to be United States Special Representative for International Negotiations.

Donald Trump has been a lifelong supporter of Israel.  His father, Fred Trump, donated land for the construction of an Orthodox synagogue — and then donated the money to build it.

When Prime Minster Netanyahu announced, partly in response to the anti-Semitic UN Security Council Resolution that the Obama-Kerry ambush allowed, that Israel now will build more than 6,000 new homes in Jewish communities Judea and Samaria, the Trump Administration broke with fifty years of American policy and did not speak a single word of condemnation.

Days later, President Trump, standing alongside Netanyahu, abandoned the failed and unworkable mantra of the “Two-State Solution,” a formula that never has been realized in fifty years of negotiations because it is fundamentally flawed, and the President instead said America will support any solution — “One State, Two State” — no particular prescribed formula other than what the parties to the situation themselves directly agree to pursue.

Is President Trump perfect?  Hardly.  Does he sometimes cause even his strongest supporters to close their eyes, take a deep breath, count to ten, then count to a thousand, all while taking more deep breaths?  Absolutely.  That is President Trump.

But that same man is a great supporter of Israel with a lifelong record of great philo-Semitism.  And how dare any one, particularly a quasi-Jew on some liberal organization’s payroll, call this man soft on anti-Semitism!

So who are these defenders of mine, these “defenders of the Jews,” who regularly and falsely accuse the man of a vile hatred that is outside his very persona?

The newspaper and television “news” programs and reports somehow find them.  They craft Fake News by quoting the Jews they want.

There is a Steven Goldstein, the director of something called the “Anne Frank Center.”  As an American Orthodox Rabbi of more than 35 years, a former Vice President of the Zionist Organization of America, a member of the Rabbinical Council of America’s executive committee during most of the past decade, and a host of other Jewish organizational affiliations and leadership posts,

I can say unequivocally that this fellow who ranted against President Trump on the same day that the President forcefully condemned anti-Semitism merely is one more professional liberal.

Even as the President said that,  “The anti-Semitic threats targeting our Jewish community and community centers are horrible and are painful and a very sad reminder of the work that still must be done to root out hate and prejudice and evil,” this Goldstein was attacking Trump.

The “Anne Frank Center” that Goldstein heads arrogates the name of a tragic Holocaust victim to advance a leftist agenda.  It is akin to someone forming a “Martin Luther King Center” to sell discount tickets to baseball games and ski resorts.

Goldstein himself comes there straight from a stint as director of a gay rights activist group in New Jersey.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913 amid the horrific era of the Leo Frank lynching in 1915 Georgia, now has been taken over by Democratic Party activists.  With the retirement of its venerable leader, Abraham Foxman, the ADL now is run by Jonathan Greenblatt, who arrived straight from serving in the Obama White House as Special Assistant to President Obama and Director of his Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation.



The Union for Reform Judaism, another regular critic of President Trump, now is run by a hierarchy of liberal reform rabbis marked by their almost-universal fealty to the Democrat Party.


And there is no shortage of liberal Jews at the Huffington Post, Slate, Vox, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other mainstream media who are quick to condemn every imaginable manifestation of Trump “anti-Semitism” that their minds can conjure.  If Trump were to say,  “I don’t like juice,” they would be yelling: “Trump said he doesn’t like Jews!”

When a Trump campaign banner attacked Hillary Clinton and used a depiction that included a six-pointed star, a sheriff’s badge, these sorts saw a “Star of David.”  “Anti-Semite!” some yelled.

When a sensitive White House statement memorializing the Holocaust, written for the President by a Jewish aide who himself had lost family during the Shoah, failed to use exactly the right wording, some yelled “Anti-Semite!”

In seeing anti-Semitism emanating from every corner, they even saw a friendly welcoming wave by radio talk show host Laura Ingraham to the crowd at the Republican National Convention as being a Hitler salute.  And yet, after Keith Ellison was exposed for mocking Jews and Israel to a small Muslim group in Minnesota, these “defenders” remained silent.

It is enough already.  I do not need the Jewish professional liberal Democrats to protect me from President Trump.  I need him to protect me from them.

Rabbi Dov Fischer, an attorney and adjunct professor of law, is rabbi of Young Israel of Orange County, California and holds prominent leadership roles in several national rabbinic and other Jewish organizations. He has been Chief Articles Editor of UCLA Law Review, clerked for the Honorable Danny J. Boggs in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and served for most of the past decade on the National Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America.  His writings appear at

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

III Update on Dem choice Tom Perez  (Does not sound much better than Ellison!)

“Perez does not deserve congratulations—unless that was tongue in cheek. He deserves derision. According to Pamela Geller, Perez was the lapdog for hardcore Muslim supremacists when he was Obama’s Assistant Attorney General, a gutless tool doing the bidding of the terror-tied groups.

Perez is also responsible for the dismissal of the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case. He launched an investigation of Sheriff Joe Arpaio for adopting an English-only policies inside his jails. And before taking over as Assistant AG, Perez was president of Casa de Maryland, a radical open borders group that encourages illegal aliens not to speak with the police and urges local governments to create sanctuary cities.

He fought to mandate that Mexican IDs be recognized as valid photo ID in the US, even though the documents are so rife with fraud that 22 of Mexico’s 32 states and districts refuse to recognize them.”
To me…these are the reasons Trump was elected. Let them continue to double down on their extreme liberal policies/talk and we’ll control the Whitehouse and Congress another 4 years!

Pam Geller


Redacted from an article by Jason Maoz, Senior Editor

The Jewish Press, Jan. 27, 2017

Steven Plaut, a prolific writer whose take-no-prisoners prose style and relish for puncturing left-wing pretensions became very familiar to Jewish Press readers over a nearly 15-year period beginning in 2002, died in Israel last week after a long battle with cancer. He was 65.

A professor at the Graduate School of Business of the University of Haifa, Plaut brought a sharply analytical mind to any subject about which he wrote. In addition to The Jewish Press, Plaut’s articles appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Newsday, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Maariv, Fortune, Middle East Quarterly, National Review, Commentary, and numerous online outlets.

Plaut was raised in a non-Orthodox Zionist home in Philadelphia (he became increasingly observant after making aliyah in 1981). Bill Cosby’s mother was Plaut’s babysitter and Plaut’s father sold Bill his first suit of clothes.

Plaut was married to Dr. Pnina Ohana Plaut, a granddaughter of Rabbi Nissim Ohana, chief rabbi of Egypt and later of Haifa.

In a 2003 interview with The Jewish Press, Plaut said he’d taken “a fairly low profile in the Israeli media,” writing primarily on economics, until the 1993 Oslo Accords.
“Oslo broke the camel’s back,” he said. “From that moment on, I have devoted myself to doing everything in my power, mainly through op-ed writing and Internet agitating to…rescue Israel from the mega-stupidity of its own leaders.”

Presciently – this was more than two years before the Gaza disengagement-Plaut dismissed then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as “tired” and “timid.”

“They say that a people deserves the leaders it gets, but in the case of Israel such an assertion would border on being an anti-Semitic libel,” Plaut told The Jewish Press.

“Israel has produced a long stream of incompetent demagogues and cowardly lemming-like leaders, divorced from reality and pursuing national self-obliteration.

Ariel Sharon is marginally better than [his recent predecessors]. But this is not the Sharon of 1973 or 1982. It is a tired, timid, and exhausted Sharon, unwilling to take the heat for pursuing a serious Israeli defense.

Like his predecessors, he seems to think that Palestinian terrorism must be allowed to continue until the Palestinians feel they have reached catharsis and just get tired of murdering Jews.”

Plaut described Sharon’s reprisal campaigns in the face of the raging terrorism of the Second Intifada as “half-hearted.” He called those reprisals “the ‘Arik Sharon Hokey-Pokey’ [in which] you put your ground troops in, you take your ground troops out, and then you move ’em all about. Then you pull them out again until the next atrocity.”

Asked why Benjamin Netanyahu had been so forcefully repudiated by the Israeli electorate in 1999, after just three years in office, Plaut was quick to respond:  “Because he tried be Shimon Peres II.”

Netanyahu was elected in 1996 for the sole purpose of ending Oslo. Upon his election, however, he turned about 180 degrees and pursued Oslo with all the same delusional vigor as Peres and Rabin before him.

True, he scowled when hobnobbing with Arafat, in contrast to Peres’s idiotic grins, but in fact he was simply pursuing Oslo – albeit Oslo Lite. He abandoned Hebron to the terrorists…. He continued the face-to-face meetings with Arafat even as Arafat was mass murdering Jews.

He signed the Wye appeasements, making him the ‘Wye’s Man of Chelm.’ “Netanyahu lost to Ehud Barak in 1999 for the same reason that New Coke failed — why have a pale imitation of an Oslo appeaser when you can elect the real thing?”

The question of why Israeli leaders had been so shortsighted in pursuing the Oslo peace process elicited a characteristically blunt answer from Plaut:

“A facetious answer would be that Rabin and Peres had an ingenious master plan. You see, they figured out that much of anti-Semitism is based on the common stereotype of Jews being smarter than other people, and they figured that they could end anti-Semitism once and for all by proving how false this stereotype is.”

As to how he found the time to write so prolifically, he was only half-joking when he replied, “I wake up each morning and force myself to read Haaretz, the Israeli far left newspaper. Then I face a choice. I can either walk around all day enraged and curse people and scream at my kids and provoke my wife, or I can release it all in an op-ed piece or commentary and then smile at the world and pet the cat and sniff the flowers.

In other words, it is a form of psychotherapy for me and keeps me out of a straitjacket.”

(Others of us don’t have to read Haaretz. There is plenty of other stupidity to go all around and it has not changed. The desire of the Jew, the Israeli, to commit suicide in order to please his enemies and impress the Goyim with that stupidity plus the Jew’s refusal to argue in his own self-interest, continues unabated.) jsk

II  And the self-destruction  continues to this very day as described in the redacted article from by Alan Bergstein below:

A careful reading of  the Progressive, Far-Left, Democrat leaning, English language, barely Jewish tinged newspaper, The Forward, describes the  straight-out Democrat Party’s fears about their possible new DNC chair, Keith Islamist Ellison.

Congressman Ellison, who earned his Democrat laurels and House seat by being a stalwart leader of both CAIR (The Federally Un-indicted Council on American-Islamic Relations  and Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam in Milwaukee, seems to be some lengths ahead of the other candidates who don’t carry as much baggage as he does in this race to head The Party.

But he does throw some fears into the hearts of The Party’s big Jewish $$$$ donors who, with barely a partial gene of political intelligence still understand that he is first and foremost, a dyed-in-the-wool Jew hater.

And that gives them some shivers since they all must have at least heard vague rumors of family members slaughtered in the near forgotten Holocaust of the deep past.

Jewish Democrats such as Little Debbie Schultz, Chuckie-Boy Schumer and teacher-union Oberfuhrer Randi Weingarten and apologetic sorta Jew, Bernie Sanders, are shivering in their boots that their attempts to, excuse the expression, whitewash Ellison’s lurid and open for all to see, Jew hating history will bring more attention to him and therefore, somehow tarnish the already disgraced image of the Party.

We’d be all made aware that Ellison joined with 44% of his brother and sister House Democrats in voting to support the UN Security Council’s Resolution 2334 which vilified Israel for building homes within its borders.

And just recently he stated that this nation’s foreign policy was dictated by Israel, a nation with only 7 million people.

He had been booked last year to be the keynote speaker at the Muslim American Society which is a Muslim Brotherhood based organization. This terrorist linked group also sponsored a previous visit of his to Saudi Arabia.

Donations to his campaign have come from notable Islamists both here and abroad. In general, Ellison is the poster boy for domestic Radical Islam and therefore is right up The Party’s alley.

So look to all the Jewish Democrat leaders to shamefully gush over his appointment to lead The Party in their increasing hostility to Israel and domestic Jewry. Perhaps if he’s elected, the Democrats could open up each of their meetings with the cry of “Allahu Akhbar.”

Alan Bergstein

( PS Fortunately, since Bergstein’s comments were written, the Democratic Party, no thanks to its Jewish component, elected former Labor Secretary Tom Perez who was favored by people loyal to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton)

Article compiled by Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor

Israel Commentary

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Dispersion of (Israel’s) Enemies and Conquest of the Land

Sixth Reading (Shishi)

20  (When you will sin with the Golden Calf, the Shechinah will not accompany you personally, rather) I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that  I have prepared to give you

21  Beware of him and listen to him, for My Name is associated with him. Do not rebel against him for he will not forgive your transgression (since he never sins himself)

22  But, listen to His voice and do all that I say, I will be the enemy of your enemies and if I will oppress your oppressors.

23  For My angel will go before you, and bring you to the Amorites, the  Chitites, the Perizites, the Cana’anites,  the Chivites, and the Jebusites, and I will destroy them.

24  Do not bow down to their gods  Do not worship them and do not follow their practices. Rather you should demolish (their Gods) and completely shatter their stones (upon which they stand on so they can bow down to them).

25  You shalt worship God, your God, and He will bless your food and your drink. I will banish illness from among you.

Seventh reading (shivii)

26  (If you obey My WiII) then there will not be a woman who miscarries or a barren woman in your land. I will cause the days of your lives to be full..

27  I will send My terror ahead of you and I will throw all the people among whom you will come, into confusion. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and flee from you.

28  l will send the hornet swarms before you (that strike them in the eyes and inject venom into them) and they will drive out the Hivites,  Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you.

29  I will not drive them away from you in one year, lest the land become depopulated and the beast of the field become too many for you (to contend with).

30 Little by little I will drive them away from you until you increase and can occupy the land.

31 I will set your border from the Reed Sea to the Philistine (Mediterranean) Sea, and from the desert to the River Euphrates, for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hands, and you will drive them away from you.

32 Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods

33 Do not let them live in your land since they may cause you to sin against Me, in that you will worship their gods, which will be a trap for you.

(PS   Hashem did not have a “bold” on his computer but I did) jsk

(Please open the link below showing the river Euphrates as the given eastern border of the Jewish nation. The land encompassed a large portion of present day Syria, extended well into Iraq and Jordan did not even exist – well before the British carved it out of the Balfour Declaration and artificially created an entire nation to satisfy their colonial ambitions.

Moses made no such claim on all this land. He did reluctantly give the land East of the Jordan River to the tribes of Gad, Reuben and 1/2 of Mannasseh. Gad and Reuben had begged for the land seeing it extremely well suited for the grazing of their  large herds and flocks of livestock.

Present day Israel does not claim even that land but would be content just to keep only that land given to them by Hashem between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – a very small percentage of Hashem’s original dedication.  The “Palestinian” Arabs would have to make do with the 21 Arab countries with thousands of miles of oil rich land they already have! By the way, they would simply be going back to Arab lands they lived in for centuries before they themselves came to Israel after the British conquered it in WWI and the Jews “made the desert bloom” shortly after that) jsk

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment


Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Now I know why I always had a great feeling about Nikki Haley and did not believe all the obstructionist garbage the Democrats were putting out while her nomination was being considered. Chalk up another victory for that awful President Trump who is setting the world on its ear! The politically correct, the “Establishment” politicians and lobbyists,  the effete intellectual snobs, have just been put on their butts, I hope, for evermore.

Jerome S. Kaufman

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone
Marco Rubio destroys Anti-Israel hecklers, politicians at Friedman ……

“When David Friedman’s (Trump’s ambassador to Israel) confirmation hearing took place the other day, a gaggle of anti-Israel hecklers …

Israel Video Network

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Trump left with scores of Pentagon vacancies to fill after Obama team flees (and the one’s left leaking classified information to harm US)

Redacted from an article:


By Rowan Scarborough – The Washington Times – February 8, 2017

The Pentagon has been stripped of almost all of its political appointees from the Obama administration, but an uncertain Senate future awaits the candidates whom President Trump will nominate to remake the armed forces in his image.

Of Mr. Obama’s 163 political appointees at election time, who included Senate-confirmed service secretaries, undersecretaries and assistant secretaries, only 16 remain at the Defense Department, according to a Pentagon statement to The Washington Times.

The exodus might be considered normal in the transfer of power: Political appointees are required to turn in their resignations in December. But Washington’s bitter political climate is far different today from the last transfer of power in 2009.

Senate Democrats are resisting Mr. Trump and his agenda via the confirmation process. There is a chance that some of the Defense Department’s 53 appointed positions requiring Senate confirmation will be vacant for a long time.

The vacancies give Mr. Trump an opportunity to select men and women who will provide the leadership, policies and catalyst for his two main priorities: rebuilding the military and defeating the Islamic State terrorist group.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said the Trump team has been wise in giving a cold shoulder to the “NeverTrump” advocates in the Republican Party. “Loyalty to the president, especially one who was as courageous as President Trump on his position against radical Islam, is important,” Mr. McInerney said.

The 163 political appointees account for a smidgen of the Pentagon’s 25,000 employees, yet can, in the case of President Obama, drive the ship. They developed polices that led to openly gay troops, women in direct land combat, a new war in Iraq and climate change as a national security threat.

Senate Democrats did fast-track confirmation of Defense Secretary James N. Mattis, a retired four-star Marine Corps general widely respected on both sides of the aisle.

“President Trump and Secretary Mattis need their team to be in place,” said Jim Dolbow, a former Republican Senate defense aide. “I would advise Democrats to be more like the late Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson, who put his country first instead of resorting to politics of personal destruction and delaying tactics.”

Both parties have histories of blocking nominees on tangential issues, such as a dispute with the White House or a government department. The “hold” is a perfect example of the power that one lone senator can exert.

In his third week, Mr. Trump, thanks to Democrat obstruction,  has only one Senate-confirmed Pentagon official in place: Mr. Mattis. In 2008, the Pentagon put out the figure of 250 political appointees, a larger number than the one provided to The Times this week. A spokesman said there is no set number and some jobs go vacant.
Mr. Obama kept more than 150 of President George W. Bush’s political appointees in 2009, including Mr. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, who wanted them all to stay.

Mr. Trump has picked what appears to be establishment types, not conservative revolutionaries, for Navy secretary (venture capitalist and former Army officer Philip Bilden) and for Air Force secretary (former Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico, an Air Force Academy graduate).

Mr. Mattis’ ruling roundtable will be the Defense Department’s five undersecretaries for acquisition, budget, intelligence, personnel and policy.
Below them are key appointments for assistant secretaries for policies on Asia, Europe and the Middle East, as well as for the top civilian for special operations forces.

“People are policy,” said Elaine Donnelly, who directs the Center for Military Readiness. “President Trump and Defense Secretary James Mattis will not be able to strengthen our military and improve readiness unless they replace Obama-era holdovers with people who will end political correctness in the military.”

Mrs. Donnelly believes Mr. Obama shifted the Pentagon emphasis to his social agenda and political correctness at the expense of readiness. Listing senior posts, she said, “All of these positions should be filled by qualified people who share Secretary Mattis’ stated paramount goal: mission readiness and lethality in battle.”

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Thursday, February 9, 2017

The State Department has more than doubled the rate of refugees from Iraq, Syria and other suspect countries in the week since a federal judge’s reprieve, in what analysts said appears to be a push to admit as many people as possible before another court puts the program back on ice.

A staggering 77 percent of the 1,100 refugees let in since Judge James L. Robart’s Feb. 3 order have been from the seven suspect countries. Nearly a third are from Syria alone — a country that President Trump has ordered be banned altogether from the refugee program. Another 21 percent are from Iraq. By contrast, in the two weeks before Judge Robart’s order, just 9 percent of refugees were from Syria and 6 percent were from Iraq.

“There’s no doubt in my mind they would be doing whatever they could to get people in before something changes because, from their perspective, their motivation is to resettle these folks. It would not be the first time that State Department officials have prioritized facilitating someone’s entry to the United States over security concerns,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Mr. Trump issued an executive order Jan. 27 putting in place the early stages of his extreme vetting policy, including an immediate 90-day pause on admitting visitors from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — all countries where the government says it can’t be sure of its vetting procedures.

The executive order also called for an immediate 120-day halt to admitting refugees from anywhere around the globe. Mr. Trump singled out Syria in particular, saying refugees from there are halted indefinitely.

Late last week Judge Robart ruled Mr. Trump had likely overstepped legal boundaries and issued a temporary restraining order for most of the policy. An appeals court ruled Thursday to uphold the “TRO,” as it’s known in lawyer-speak.

(And, down the tube we are going with no end in sight and Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Democrat Party are delighted!) jsk

Immediately after Judge Robart’s decision, the State Department and Homeland Security agencies kicked back into gear, beginning to accept both refugees and visitors from the suspect countries.

Numbers weren’t available on the effects of the broader travel ban, but 1,110 refugees were admitted in the days since the program was restarted — and of those, 849 were from the seven danger countries the president singled out. A whopping 346 were from Syria alone, and another 232 were from Iraq.

The surge has also meant a major jump in the number of self-identified Muslims admitted: 64 percent of the new batch of refugees are from some sect of Islam, compared to just 31 percent in the first weeks of the Trump administration.

“It would appear, based on the numbers, that there is an effort within the refugee resettlement program to rush in as many of the nationals of these seven countries as possible before a ruling is made on the TRO,” said Rosemary Jenks, government relations manager at NumbersUSA.

Mr. Trump himself seemed to be aware of the changes, posting an oblique Twitter message on Wednesday asking the courts to issue a new decision overturning Judge Robart and reinstating his extreme vetting policy.

“Big increase in traffic into our country from certain areas, while our people are far more vulnerable, as we wait for what should be EASY D!” the president tweeted.

The State Department, in a statement to The Washington Times explaining the numbers, said it was focusing on “rescheduling those whose travel had been suspended the previous week.”

Nine organizations in the U.S. are chartered by the government to help with resettling refugees here. Several of them didn’t respond to requests from The Washington Times, but Erol Kekic, executive director of the Church World Service’s refugee program, said it might be a coincidence that so many refugees from the seven countries were being admitted. (Huh! Talk about wishful thinking, cop-out)

He said the cases that have been prioritized are those with urgent medical needs or those whose immediate safety is in question if they remain outside the U.S. Mr. Kekic said the refugee program has been maligned by the ongoing debate, and he pleaded for a chance to make his case to Mr. Trump.

Mr. Kekic bristled at allegations that the refugee program is a security problem for the U.S., saying the chance of being killed by a refugee in the U.S. was less than the chance of being struck by lightning. “Refugee is not a dirty word,” he said.

One part of Mr. Trump’s order that hasn’t been blocked in the courts is his reduction in the number of refugees to be accepted this year. President Obama had set a 110,000 cap for fiscal year 2017, which runs through Sept. 30. Mr. Trump cut that to 50,000.
Some 34,000 refugees have already been admitted, meaning that even if the courts do keep the program operational, the number of people that can be admitted is severely constrained.

There has been no slowdown in processing cases of asylum claims, which are refugees who manage to make it to the U.S. and claim protection once here.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Homeland Security agency that first judges asylum claims, said that program wasn’t affected by Mr. Trump’s order.

In a Feb. 2 memo, USCIS Acting Director Lori L. Scialabba said they would also continue processing applications for family members of those approved for refugee or asylum status who were already in the U.S., even if they were from the seven countries Mr. Trump had singled out.

She also said: “USCIS will continue refugee interviews when the person is a religious minority in his or her country of nationality facing religious persecution.

Additionally, USCIS will continue refugee interviews in jurisdictions where there is a preexisting international agreement related to refugee processing. USCIS will not approve a refugee application for an individual who we determine would pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.” (And, good luck to your ability to determine that or even try)


Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

The Iran Deal Can’t Be Enforced

Read More About: These are weasel words of the highest order coupled with flat-out misrepresentation by Iran and willful blindness by the United States

The Wall Street Journal
Feb. 6, 2017

Iran’s continued missile testing on Saturday has given President Trump one more reason to tear up his predecessor’s deal with the regime in Tehran. After Iran’s Jan. 29 ballistic-missile launch, the Trump administration responded with new sanctions and tough talk.

But these alone won’t have a material effect on Tehran or its decades-long effort to acquire deliverable nuclear weapons. The real issue is whether America will abrogate Barack Obama’s deal with Iran, recognizing it as a strategic debacle, a result of the last president’s misguided worldview and diplomatic malpractice.

Terminating the agreement would underline that Iran is already violating it, clearly intends to continue pursuing nuclear arms, works closely with North Korea in seeking deliverable nuclear weapons, and continues to support international terrorism and provocative military actions.

Escaping from the Serbonian Bog that Obama’s negotiations created would restore the resolute leadership and moral clarity the U.S. has lacked for eight years.

But those who supported the Iran deal, along with even many who had opposed it, argue against abrogation. Instead they say that America should “strictly enforce” the deal’s terms and hope that Iran pulls out.

This would be a mistake for two reasons. First, the strategic miscalculations embodied in the deal endanger the U.S. and its allies, not least by lending legitimacy to the ayatollahs, the world’s central bankers for terrorism.

Second, “strictly enforcing” the deal is as likely to succeed as nailing Jell-O to a wall. Not only does the entire agreement reflect appeasement, but President Obama’s diplomacy produced weak, ambiguous and confusing language in many specific provisions.

These drafting failures created huge loopholes, and Iran is now driving its missile and nuclear programs straight through them.

Take Tehran’s recent ballistic-missile tests. The Trump administration sees them as violating the deal. Iran disagrees. Let’s see what “strict enforcement” would really mean, bearing in mind that the misbegotten deal is 104 pages long, consisting of Security Council Resolution 2231 and two attachments: Annex A, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the main nuclear deal, known by the acronym JCPOA); and Annex B, covering other matters including ballistic missiles.

Annex B isn’t actually an agreement. Iran is not a party to it. Instead it is a statement by the Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany, intended to “improve transparency” and “create an atmosphere conducive” to implementing the deal. The key paragraph of Annex B says: “Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons” for eight years.

Note the language: Iran is not forbidden from engaging in all ballistic-missile activity, merely “called upon” to do so. The range of proscribed activity is distinctly limited, applying only to missiles “designed to be capable” of carrying nuclear weapons. Implementation is left to the Security Council.

The loopholes are larger than the activity supposedly barred. Iran simply denies that its missiles are “designed” for nuclear payloads—because, after all, it does not have a nuclear-weapons program. This is a palpable lie, but both the JCPOA and a unanimous Security Council accepted it.

Resolution 2231 includes a paragraph: “Welcoming Iran’s reaffirmation in the JCPOA that it will under no circumstances ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” The ayatollahs have been doing precisely that ever since their 1979 revolution.

Finally, Resolution 2231 itself also merely “calls upon” Iran to comply with Annex B’s ballistic-missile limits, even as the same sentence says that all states “shall comply” with other provisions. When the Security Council wants to “prohibit” or “demand” or even “decide,” it knows how to say so. It did not here.

The upshot is very simple: Iran can’t violate the ballistic-missile language because it has reaffirmed that it doesn’t have a nuclear-weapons program. Really, what could go wrong?

These are weasel words of the highest order, coupled with flat-out misrepresentation by Iran and willful blindness by the United States. The Jell-O will not stick to the wall. The deal cannot be “strictly enforced.” And this is only one example of the slippery language found throughout the deal.

Pentagon sources have said that the missile Iran recently tested failed while re-entering the Earth’s atmosphere. This is telling. If the missile program were, as Iran claims, only for launching weather and communications satellites, there would be no need to test re-entry vehicles. The goal would be to put satellites in orbit and keep them there.

But nuclear warheads obviously have to re-enter the atmosphere to reach their targets. The recent tests provide even more evidence of what Iran’s ballistic-missile program has always been about, namely supplying delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons.

Time always works on the side of nuclear proliferators, and the Iran deal is providing the ayatollahs with protective camouflage. Every day Washington lets pass without ripping the deal up is a day of danger for America and its friends. We proceed slowly at our peril.
Mr. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

Jackie Mason from whom you could plotz discussing Trump’s election.



Jerome S. Kaufman

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

‘Tough Love’—The First and Last Obama Lie



JAN. 13, 2017

I wrote an article in this space six months into the Obama presidency entitled “The Turn Against Israel.” It appeared in the July 2009 issue. These were its concluding paragraphs:

“The goal of American foreign policy in the Middle East is now the creation of a Palestinian state. Very little will be expected of the Palestinians in the creation of that state; Hamas should renounce terror and recognize Israel, but a failure to do so will not kill the deal. Violence should be foresworn, but even that is of secondary importance to the state itself.

“A great deal is, however, expected of Israel. Settlements are to be frozen, including their ‘natural growth.’ Israel must bolster the Palestinian economy, provide Palestinians with jobs, and make things better in Gaza. Israel is to give; the Palestinians are to receive. Israel’s giving is to be accompanied by a promise of reduced violence. Palestinian receiving will be accompanied by Israel’s surrender of more territory beyond the entirety of Gaza and the near-entirety of the West Bank already in Palestinian hands.

Israel, the president asserts, will be better off if all this happens. Trust him. He’s Israel’s friend. A better friend than anyone else, remember, because he’s willing to be honest about Israel’s need to sacrifice itself on the altar of nothing more than a promise, and maybe not even that.

“And so the turn against Israel that so many predicted during the 2008 campaign is coming to pass—with a smile, and a nod, and an invocation of a word that actually means something very different from friendship. It might even mean its opposite.”

The decision in December by President Obama to abstain on a UN Security Council vote effectively declaring any Jewish presence in East Jerusalem or the West Bank a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and therefore illegal under international law marked the moment he crossed the finish line in the course he had charted from 2008 onward.

The turn against Israel was complete. And, as he had when he began it, in farewell interview after farewell interview, he characterized his assault on the legitimacy of the Jewish presence in the Holy Land as an act of tough love. “Friends need to tell each other the hard truths,” said Secretary of State John Kerry in a speech defending the abstention.

Which raises the key question: Why abstain? If “hard truths” define friendship, then by all means they should have made the truths as hard as possible. If Obama and Kerry truly believe the Jewish presence in East Jerusalem is illicit, then they should have voted for the resolution. Instead, they took the coward’s way out. They opened the vault to the criminals and placed the jewels in their hands while wearing white gloves so there would be no residual trace of their fingerprints. The abstention was in some weird sense the mark of their bad conscience. They wanted something to happen while maintaining some historical deniability about their involvement in it.

In the eight years of the Obama presidency, war broke out twice between the Palestinians and the Israelis and nearly broke out a third time. In each case, the issue was not the West Bank, or East Jerusalem, or anything near. The two wars and the third near-war took place in and around Gaza, from which Israel had withdrawn unilaterally in 2005—more than three years before Obama took office. The wars were the result of aggressions by the terrorist organization Hamas.

The idea that the settlements and the Jewish presence in East Jerusalem are the main barrier to peace between Israel and the Palestinians was proved to be a lie right before Obama’s eyes in 2009, and 2012, and 2014. And he didn’t care to see it, because he is blinded by an antipathy he wishes to ascribe to Israeli action when honesty would compel him to find it in his own misguided leftist ideology—or within his own soul.

Baruch Hashem (Thank G-d) Israel has survived the horrendous blessing of Barack Obama’s false friendship.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

A Beautiful Tale: Donald Trump’s father, Fred Trump’s Synagogue and his adopted Rabbi in Flatbush, Brooklyn

Read More About: In terms of Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election Rabbi Wagner has no doubt as to the reason.

Related by Rabbi Wagner, Mashgiach Ruchani (Spiritual Supervisor)
Yeshiva (Hebrew religious learning institution) Ohr Yerushalayim in Moshav (Israeli socialist community), Beit Meir, Israel

Rabbi Wagner shares the incredible story of how Donald Trump’s father, Frederick Trump, built a shul (Orthodox synagogue) for the congregation, headed by his father, Rabbi Yisrael Wagner, and how Trump went  on to make annual donations of funding for the kehilla (local  Jewish community)  and to aid Jewish families in financial distress.

Redacted from: ISRAPUNDIT+DAILY+DIGEST++FEB+1 2017

Even today, after Donald Trump has already been inaugurated as President of the United States, many pundits are still trying to figure out how it happened.

How did the man with the smallest chance of victory manage to win this election in complete defiance of all the predictions and assessments of the experts and all the polls that seemed to be against him? In retrospect, there are many explanations for his astounding victory, some of which are more logical, while others are less so.

There is one man, Rabbi Shmuel Wagner, who has no background whatsoever in the media or in political commentary but, who is confident that he knows of at least one reason for Trump’s stunning victory: the zechus of his father.

(Zechus Avos means that one derives the merit of the good deeds of his parents or ancestors that brought him or assisted in bringing him good fortune, either financial or sources of pride and happiness in his family or the prominent position he himself might have obtained)

The Rabbi of Trump’s Neighborhood

After Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election, several publications featured a grainy sixty-year-old photograph that depicts Fred Trump, the new president’s father, in a shul in the neighborhood of Flatbush in Brooklyn. The photograph was accompanied by a terse caption that did little to shed light on the background to this unusual picture.

Rabbi Shmuel Wagner is a son of Rabbi Yisrael Wagner of blessed memory, the rov (rabbi) of the shul in Flatbush where the picture was taken. Rabbi Shmuel reveals a truly incredible story behind it.

“To give you a little background information about Fred Trump’s generosity and his special relationship with my father,” Rabbi Wagner says, “let me take you several years further into the past. My father was born in Galicia (small locked in land area between Poland and the Ukraine that was home to many Jews, who, unfortunate to still live there at the time of the Holocaust, were killed). The Rabbi’s father happened to be an illuy (genius and Torah scholar).

He was a prominent bochur (honor student) in Belz and was very close with Rav Aharon of Belz. He was about 18 or 19 years old when World War II began. He father was engaged at the time to a daughter of Rav Shraga Feivel Willig, the rov of the city of Buchach in Galicia.

When the war began, he and his kallah (bride)  were both displaced from their homes, and each of them miraculously survived the war. They were re-united after the war, also miraculously, in a displaced persons camp, and they got married in Salzburg, Austria.

From Salzburg, Rabbi Yisrael Wagner made his way to Bolivia, where he served as the rov (rabbi) of a Jewish community. “At first, my parents received immigration papers for Bolivia,” Rabbi Wagner continues his account. “After he served as a rov there for two years, they came to California, in the United States, in the year 1950. That is where I was born. My father was the rov of a shul in California, but there were no suitable schools for children there, so the family moved to New York, where there were chadarim (Hebrew classrooms) and yeshivos.”

A few weeks after the Wagner family arrived in New York, Reb Yisrael was appointed rabbi of a residential area belonging to a businessman named Fred Trump, father of Donald Trump.

Reb Shmuel says, “Fred owned 31 residential buildings in the area, with many apartments for rent. It was an area on the outskirts of Flatbush, near the beach. Most of the tenants in those apartments were Jews, and almost all of them were irreligious.”

Reb Yisrael quickly created A Shul (synagogue)  in a parking garage

Despite the fact that most of the local residents were not frum (religious), they took an interest in Rabbi Wagner’s shul. “There was a minyan (group of at least 10 men necessary to conduct crucial parts of the service)  in the shul as soon as it opened,”

Rabbi Wagner recalls. “There were Jews from Europe there and they cared about davening (praying) in a shul. The shul operated in a parking garage of one of the buildings, and my father received the position of rov ( rabbi)  through a relative.

“The shul began with thirty members, but it experienced tremendous growth in just a few years, to the point that it came to serve hundreds of families. Many of the mispallelim (Jewish community) were not religious, but they were very much attracted to the shul, to my father, and to the warmth that he radiated to them. They loved the experience of the shul and listening to my father’s devar Torah (explanations of the Torah readings)  And he, with his kindhearted manner and his trademark warmth, taught them Torah and chassidus.

(Chassidus – The study of Chassidic philosophy – An  applied custom to practice the Jewish faith emphasizing the joy of the religion rather than as some onerous burden or heavenly command).

At some point the shul’s membership grew to where the facility was no longer large enough to house the congregation. It was understood that the shul needed a proper building in order to function. “My father had an idea,” Rabbi Wagner recalls. “He offered to approach Fred Trump, whom he didn’t know personally, even though Trump was his landlord.

He hoped that he could use his wisdom to convince Trump to give him a building for his shul. He thought that he might influence his landlord by explaining that Jews, who were Trump’s largest group of customers, need a shul near their homes. He also knew that Fred Trump was a man of faith, and he was likely to relate to the request.

“Thus, my father’s request appealed both to Trump’s emotions and to his shrewd business mind. And it worked. My father and Fred both understood that a kehillah (community) that revolved around a shul would be one whose members led a proper spiritual lifestyle and his business would benefit from that.

My father managed to reach Fred Trump’s heart. Trump was very moved by the idea my father expressed and the two became close friends. Fred proceeded to donate a piece of real estate for the shul, and he even made a very generous donation so that a magnificent shul building could be built.”

Rabbi Wagner adds that over time, Fred Trump’s donations grew progressively more generous. “Sometimes, my father would tell him about various Jewish families in the area who were needy, and he would give large sums to help them as well.”

What motivated a non-Jewish businessman to make such large charitable donations to needy Jews? “He was devoted to my father,” Rabbi Wagner asserts. “He admired him deeply, and he used to ask his opinion on many things. He was very impressed by the fact that my father, a Chassidic Jew from Belz in Europe, became the rov of a more modern congregation and inspired many Jews to keep Shabbos (the rules of the Sabbath)  and even to become fully religious.

When Donald Trump Worked in the Laundry Room

Rabbi Wagner has vivid recollections of Fred Trump’s son, a wild, blond-haired youth. “Donald’s father left him and his brother an inheritance of over a million dollars. In effect, Fred was the one who launched his son’s business career.

I still remember going to shul with my father for Shacharis (morning prayer) early every Sunday morning. The laundry room, where all the tenants washed their clothes in coin-operated machines, was in the basement of the building. And do you know who collected the money from those machines in the mornings? Donald Trump and his brother!

“Donald was Fred Trump’s second son. I remember him from the age of about 14 or 15, with his wild shock of blond hair and his endless reserves of energy and drive. His father used to send him to collect the money from the laundry machines. Fred taught his children from a very early age to take responsibility; he gave them no breaks. Donald may have been wild as a youth, but his father raised him well.”

Donald Trump’s Faith

During the election campaign in New York, Donald Trump told the Jews of the city that his father had built a shul there. He remembered the location well, and he recalled the work that his father had sent him to do in the residential buildings of the Jewish neighborhood.

In terms of Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential elections, Rabbi Wagner has no doubt as to the reason. His father had the zechus of paying for a shul to be built and maintaining it for years. He gave money to many struggling Jewish families and he gave great honor to the rov of the shul and to Jews in general.

Donald thus has zechus avos, (G-d given honor from his father’s good deeds) and that is what has brought him to the White House.”

Redacted by Jerome S. Kaufman in consultation with Rabbi Avrohom Wineberg, Sara and Morris Tugman Bais Chabad Torah Center, West Bloomfield, MI

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About: ,

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

The Far Left Democrat Party going even farther Left via Rep. Keith Ellison

Redacted from an article  BY SETH MCLAUGH­LIN

The Washington Times

Rep. Keith El­li­son, the Min­nesota Demo­crat seek­ing to be the next leader of the DNC, is once again be­ing dogged by ac­cu­sa­tions of past anti-Semitism and black na­tion­al­ism that haunted his 2006 cam­paign, which saw him be­come the first Mus­lim elected to Congress.

It’s like deja vu for Rep. Keith El­li­son. More than a decade after he per­suaded Min­nesota vot­ers to look be­yond his con­tro­ver­sial past and re­ward him with a seat in Congress. Mr. El­li­son is now ask­ing na­tional Democrats to do the same as he seeks to lead their party.

The first Mus­lim elected to Congress, Mr. El­li­son is now run­ning to lead the Demo­cratic Na­tional Com­mit­tee when the party will at­tempt to re­build in the wake of yet an­other elec­tion spank­ing. But the con­gress­man’s bid has been com­pli­cated by ques­tions about his views on Louis Far­rakhan, the pol­i­tics of Is­rael and black na­tion­al­ism.

Writ­ing un­der the name Keith Hakim, Mr. El­li­son penned col­umns while at the Univer­sity of Min­nesota Law School in which he de­fended Na­tion of Is­lam chief Mr. Far­rakhan against ac­cu­sa­tions of be­ing a racist and an anti-Semite.

Mr. El­li­son also said a sep­a­rate black state might be a bet­ter op­tion for black Amer­i­cans than af­fir­ma­tive ac­tion.

Ad­di­tion­ally, he’s faced crit­i­cism for the lead role he played as a mem­ber of a Black Law Stu­dents As­so­ci­a­tion, invit­ing black na­tion­al­ist speak­ers to the Univer­sity of Min­nesota — events that drew op­po­si­tion from cam­pus groups rep­re­sent­ing Jewish, women and gay and les­bian stu­dents.

Joshua Wirtschafter, who led the Jewish as­so­ci­a­tion at the time, says he saw Mr. El­li­son more as a de­fender of free speech rights than a backer of the speak­ers’ sep­a­ratist views. “Even in that pe­riod, he did not en­dorse the anti-Semitic mes­sages of black na­tion­al­ist speak­ers,”

“I think the man should be judged in his 30s and 40s and early 50s, rather than his ex­plo­ration in his 20s of black na­tion­al­ism,” he said. “I saw Keith try out the big firm lawyer role, I saw him try­ing out the black na­tion­al­ist role, and nei­ther of them fit him.”
In­stead, Mr. El­li­son cut a ca­reer path that saw him take over as ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor of the Le­gal Rights Cen­ter, a non­profit group that pro­vides le­gal rep­re­sen­ta­tion for poor peo­ple. He won his seat in Congress in 2006.

For a DNC strug­gling to fig­ure out how it lost an elec­tion that ap­peared, ear­lier this year, to be sewn up, Mr. El­li­son of­fers a back-to-ba­sics ap­proach. He says the party needs to em­power lo­cal ac­tivists and par­ties and drive a pro­gres­sive agenda that res­onates with the work­ing-class vot­ers that ditched Democrats in the 2016 elec­tion.

He has called for ex­pand­ing So­cial Se­cu­rity, rais­ing the min­i­mum wage to $15 per hour, pro­tect­ing vot­ing rights for unions, de­crim­i­nal­iz­ing mar­i­juana, coun­ter­ing cli­mate change criticism, stand­ing up for il­le­gal im­mi­grants, in­creas­ing taxes on the rich and strength­en­ing col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing for union and la­bor groups.

(Huh! The above are all the things most of us do no want and that is why we voted for Trump. Maybe, like Barack Obama, Ellison thinks he just has to be more effective in presenting the message rather than the content itself?)
The field also in­cludes New Hamp­shire Demo­cratic Party Chair­man Ray Buck­ley, South Carolina Demo­cratic Party Chair­man Jaime Har­ri­son and Sec­re­tary of La­bor Thomas E. Perez, who was urged to en­ter the race in part be­cause of con­cerns over Mr. El­li­son’s past and lib­eral lean­ings.

The Min­nesota con­gress­man has al­ready earned the sup­port of some of his party’s big­gest names, in­clud­ing Sen. El­iz­a­beth War­ren, in­com­ing Se­nate Mi­nor­ity Leader Charles E. Schumer and Sen. Bernard San­ders, who ran for Democrats’ pres­i­den­tial nom­i­na­tion this year.
Two dozen mem­bers of the House, ac­tivist group and pow­er­ful la­bor unions are also back­ing his bid.

(These recommenders constitute damn good reasons not to have the Democrat Party back in power and return to the disaster Barack Obama created) jsk

Ellison’s mo­men­tum, how­ever, has been slowed by his ini­tial re­luc­tance to make clear he would give up his con­gres­sional seat to be a full-time chair­man, and by warn­ings from the Anti-Defama­tion League over his lack of sup­port for Is­rael.

Oth­ers have noted that Mr. El­li­son helped lead a march in Min­nesota in re­sponse to the 1992 Rod­ney King verdict, telling the Min­nesota Star Tri­bune: “Black peo­ple do not live un­der democ­racy. You don’t have an obli­ga­tion to obey a gov­ern­ment that con­sid­ers you to be less hu­man.”

Mr. El­li­son was born in Detroit and grad­u­ated from Wayne State Univer­sity, where he con­verted from Catholi­cism to Is­lam, be­fore mov­ing to Min­neapo­lis for law school.

Mr. El­li­son en­tered the Min­nesota leg­is­la­ture in 2002 and made a name for him­self as a cham­pion on en­vi­ron­men­tal, la­bor and voter rights is­sues, said Rep. Frank Horn­stein, who en­tered at the same time and sat next to Mr. El­li­son in the state House chamber.

The ques­tions about Mr. El­li­son’s views on Mr. Far­rakhan sur­faced when he ran for Congress in 2006, and he tried to put them be­hind him by telling the Jewish Com­mu­nity Re­la­tions Coun­cil that “I should have come to that con­clu­sion that they were anti-Semitic ear­lier than I did.” “I re­gret that I didn’t,” he said.

(The chameleon-like characteristics of politicians are always amusing and terrifying to observe. How easily politicians shed past awful positions to please the current circumstance and audience. And, I don’t believe a word Ellison now says.)  jsk

II  There will be Democrat Party Forum in Detroit, Feb 4, 2017 with 10 possible candidates for Democrat Party Chairman

“The Democratic Party welcomes all Americans from all backgrounds. What we do not welcome is people discriminating against others based on who they are or how they worship,” interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile said in a statement to The Hill.

(You may remember that Donna Brazile, anchored one of the Hillary Clinton debates  and  is not apologizing for leaking CNN debate questions and topics to the Hillary Clinton campaign during the Democratic primary. Her only regret, it seems, is that she got caught.)

CNN has dropped her as an analyst but the Democrat Party has no such reservations. She thus completes the group of nefarious characters mentioned above who are in the camp of Keith Ellison)

Ellison and former Labor Secretary Tom Perez are viewed as the favorites to be the next DNC chair. Those two and five other candidates — New Hampshire Democratic Chairman Ray Buckley, South Carolina Chairman Jaime Harrison, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former DNC official Jehmu Greene and Idaho Democratic official Sally Boynton Brown — have participated in all of the DNC’s Future Forum events at cities across the country.

The official field of candidates will likely narrow by Feb. 21, when the contenders are required to submit petitions signed by 20 DNC members.

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments

Read More About:

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone

The controversy over the White House Holocaust statement

Updated by Libby Nelson@libbyanelson Jan 30, 2017,

President Donald Trump released a brief statement to commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a small, symbolic step taken by past presidents to mark one of the world’s greatest tragedies. It didn’t take long for many people to notice that a key word was missing: Jews.

“It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust,” Trump’s statement began. “It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.”

As critics quickly noted, there was no mention that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, or an acknowledgment of the virulent, state-sponsored anti-Semitism that led to their deaths — details that are crucial and commonplace in most discussions of the Holocaust.

Then, on Saturday, the White House said that Jews had been omitted from the statement on purpose because other victims also suffered and died in the Holocaust, an explanation that seemed to minimize the effects of a genocide that killed two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe. Sen. Tim Kaine called it “Holocaust denial.”

II Conservative commentator John Podhoretz in his Saturday column slammed the White House’s defense of its actions

Jake Tapper of CNN reported Saturday night that Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks defended and even celebrated the White House statement. The decision not to mention the Jews was deliberate, Hicks said, a way of demonstrating the inclusive approach of the Trump administration!

“Despite what the media reports, we are an incredibly inclusive group and we took into account all of those who suffered…it was our honor to issue a statement in remembrance of this important day.”

John Podhoretz retorted:  No, Hope Hicks, and no to whomever you are serving as a mouthpiece. The Nazis killed an astonishing number of people in monstrous ways and targeted certain groups—Gypsies, the mentally challenged, and open homosexuals, among others.

But the Final Solution was aimed solely at the Jews. The Holocaust was about the Jews. There is no “proud” way to offer a remembrance of the Holocaust that does not reflect that simple, awful, world-historical fact. To universalize it to “all those who suffered” is to scrub the Holocaust of its meaning.

Given Hicks’s abominable statement, one cannot simply write this off. For there is a body of opinion in this country, and in certain precincts of the Trump coalition, who have long made it clear they are tired of what they consider a self-centered Jewish claim to being the great victims of the Nazis.

Case in point: In 1988, as a speechwriter in the Reagan Administration, I drafted the president’s remarks at the laying of the cornerstone of the Holocaust Museum in Washington.

As was the practice, the speech was sent around to 14 White House offices, including an office called Public Liaison staffed by conservatives whose job it was to do outreach to ethnic and religious groups.

The official at Public Liaison who supported anti-Communist groups in Eastern Europe was tasked with the job of reviewing it. She sent the speech back marked up almost sentence by sentence. At the top, she wrote something like, “This must be redone. What about the suffering of the Poles and the Slovaks? The president should not be taking sides here.”

I was astonished, and horrified, and took the document to my superior, who told me to ignore it. “She has a bee in her bonnet about this,” he said of the Public Liaison official.

On another occasion, in an article commissioned by a conservative magazine, I wrote a sentence in which I called the Jews “the most beleaguered people in history.” An editor there objected, and insisted we add the word “uniquely” between “most” and “beleaguered” because there was an element, he said, of “special pleading.”

I bring these anecdotes up to say that the Hope Hicks statement does not arrive without precedent. It is, rather, the culmination of something—the culmination of decades of ill feeling that seems to center on the idea that the Jews have somehow made unfair “use” of the Holocaust and it should not “belong” to them.

Someone in that nascent White House thought it was time to reflect that view through the omission of the specifically Jewish quality of the Holocaust. Now the question is: Who was it?

In those remarks at the cornerstone laying, President Reagan said this: “I think all of us here are aware of those, even among our own countrymen, who have dedicated themselves to the disgusting task of minimizing or even denying the truth of the Holocaust.

This act of intellectual genocide must not go unchallenged, and those who advance these views must be held up to the scorn and wrath of all good and thinking people in this nation and across the world.” This was in reference to the new and horrifying field of Holocaust denial.

It is heartbreaking to think these are words that can now be applied to the White House in which a Republican successor to Reagan is now resident, only 28 years after he departed it for the last time. Heartbreaking and enraging.

(Please recall that John Podhoretz is a well known Trump hater and has been trying to disparage and eliminate him though the whole nominating process and his resounding victory over Hillary Clinton. What with all of  Podhoretz’s own slanted previous reporting, I don’t think we should rush to judgement against Trump.

Trump-hating is much too popular with CNN and the rest of the establishment media. There is a vendetta here that will undoubtedly persist throughout President Trump’s administration. Thus, this expected Podhoretz screed must be taken with a grain of salt.

I don’t believe Donald Trump has an iota of Jew Hatred in his body. He has lived among and done business with tons of Jews his whole life. And, need we forget his brilliant daughter Ivanka married an Orthodox Jew and is keeping the faith better than about 90% of Jews in this country — many of whom have the same view of Donald Trump as does John Podhoretz.

Of course Jews have never been good at picking their heroes  Consider Franklin Delano Roosevelt and you may also remember that they spent most of their time in the desert giving Moses a bad time.)

Jerome S. Kaufman

Subscribe to Israel Commentary:
Twitter: @israelcomment

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Email this to someone



Powered by Facebook Comments