(A most beautiful, remarkable tale that will bring tears to your eyes)

By Rabbi Meir Y. Soloveichik


Why does no one find it remarkable that in most world cities today there are Jews but no one single Hittite even though the Hittites had a great flourishing civilization while the Jews nearby were a weak and obscure people?

When one meets a Jew in New York or New Orleans or Paris or Melbourne, it is remarkable that no one considers the event remarkable. What are they doing here? But it is even more remarkable to wonder, if there are Jews here, why are there not Hittites here? Where are the Hittites? Show me one Hittite in New York City.

By Walker Percy

If I forget thee O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning.
Psalm 137

In 1983, Yehudah Avner, a British Jew who had emigrated to Palestine and later served most of Israel’s prime ministers, was appointed Menachem Begin’s ambassador to the United Kingdom.

After 40 years in one of the most informal nations on earth, Avner now found himself back where he had been born, alighting a horse-drawn carriage at Buckingham Palace, “escorted by a chamberlain dressed like the Duke of Wellington,” presenting his ambassadorial credentials to the queen whose subject he had once been.

Though Elizabeth II had been greeting ambassadors for many decades, something about Avner struck her as extraordinary. “I do believe this is the very first time I have ever received credentials from a foreign ambassador actually born in this country,” she said. “How did you manage that?”

“Your Majesty,” said I, “though physically born in this country, I was spiritually given birth to in Jerusalem, from whence my ancestors were exiled by Roman legions 2,000 years ago.”

“Were they really?” said the queen. “How unfortunate!” and she began to talk about the weather. Droplets of sweat trickled down my armpits. Here was I alluding to the mysteries of Jewish history’s conundrums, and there was she talking about the weather.

What could she possibly know of the dreams of a 17-year-old Jewish boy in post-war Manchester…who now, 36 years later, had returned to the country of his birth bearing the credentials of the country of his birthright? How could she not be mystified?

Striking: A royal representative of a monarchy whose entire purpose is to embody history may have found the timeless nature of Jewish existence, and Judaism’s eternal bond to an ancient city, too mysterious to grasp.
The Jewish link to Jerusalem goes hand in hand with the mystery of Jewish eternity.

Established as Israel’s capital when the now extinct Hittites still bestrode the world, Jerusalem was the city toward which the Jews of Rome, Aleppo, Paris, Baghdad, and Berlin said their prayers, binding themselves thereby to one another as empire after empire became the Ozymandias of its age.

By continuing to lay claim to this bond, Jews remind the world that, as Chaim Weizmann said to Arthur Balfour, “we had Jerusalem when London was a marsh,” or, as Disraeli more pithily put it to an anti-Semitic parliamentary opponent, “while the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.”

This may not be something of which some European nations enjoy being reminded. It is with this in mind that we must understand the world’s angry overreaction to President’s Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem in his remarkable December 6 address. The speech was nothing less than the recognition of reality.

The “decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,” writes Elliott Abrams, “is absolutely the right decision for one reason above all others: because Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.” Why then the international outcry? Abrams suggests that “hatred of Trump combines with longstanding anti-Israel bias, especially in the foreign ministries. The many phony statements of regret and copious crocodile tears about possibly forthcoming violence broadcast the clear hope that there would be plenty of rioting, just to prove Trump wrong.”

This is certainly correct; but there is, I believe, a deeper meaning to Europe’s displeasure. The world’s rage over the president’s announcement reveals a deeper dislike than of the president himself. Jerusalem, as Norman Podhoretz once put it in these pages, reflects what many consider “the scandal of Jewish particularity.”

The uniqueness of one city in the history of the world testifies to the enduring nature of one people on this earth. It is this notion, Podhoretz argued, that so many countries cannot tolerate, and it is this, not enthusiasm for a moribund peace process, that truly drives European anger today.

Meanwhile, the enduring, miraculous nature of Jews and their city is something many Americans have understood, and they have revered the Jewish link to Jerusalem long before the modern Jewish State was born. In 1871, William Seward, Abraham Lincoln’s one-time secretary of state, journeyed on pilgrimage to the Holy Land.

As his travelogue recounts, “our last day at Jerusalem has been spent, as it ought to have been, among and with the Jews, who were the builders and founders of the city, and who cling the closer to it for its disasters and desolation.”

Seward spent several hours on a Friday afternoon at the Wailing Wall, admiringly observing the Jews who were “pouring out their lamentations over the fall of their beloved city, and praying for its restoration to the Lord, who promised, in giving its name, that he would ‘be there.’”

Upon departing at sunset, he encountered a rabbi who begged him to attend kabbalat Shabbat, Sabbath evening prayers, at the Hurvasynagogue, then the most magnificent Jewish house of worship in the Holy Land (it was destroyed by the Jordanians in 1948 and just recently rebuilt).

Seward sat through the entire service, which concluded with a special Hebrew benediction. “The rabbi informed us,” the travelogue reports, “that it was a prayer of gratitude for Mr. Seward’s visit to the Jews at Jerusalem.” This was nothing less than what Jewish law calls hakkarat ha-tov—an expression of Jewish gratitude to any world leader who publicly embraces the Jewish link to their eternal city.

This obligation of hakkarat ha-tov binds Jews today. And that is why, whether one is a supporter or a critic of the president, whether or not the State Department follows suit in adding “Israel” to the passports of those born in Jerusalem, whether the future peace plan proposed by this administration will be worthy of consideration or not, this speech should be recognized by Jews as one of the most important, and profoundly American, speeches Trump has given.

It will be remembered by an eternal people, a nation whose memory exceeds that of any other, a nation afflicted with so many enemies and too few friends, who are enjoined by God never, ever to forget.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

Facebook: Israel Commentary:

Web Page:


Twitter:  @israelcomment             @schmice

Rx: Agenda for Ambassador John Bolton: Guide President Trump with Iran, N. Korea, Islamist Terror

By Jed Babbin

The Washington Times , April 9, 2018

When former U.N. ambassador John Bolton steps into the national security adviser’s job next week, the hyperventilating media would have you believe that the first thing on his “to-do” list is to start a nuclear war with North Korea and probably launch an attack on Iran just because we can. That’s nonsense.

The media are terrified of Mr. Bolton because he is a conservative hawk and has made some very aggressive statements about the North Korean and Iranian regimes. He may be aggressive, but he’s neither crazy nor stupid.

Mr. Bolton will be the president’s third national security adviser, after retired generals Mike Flynn and H. R. McMaster. Mr. Flynn’s tenure was so brief he couldn’t accomplish much, which can’t be said of Mr. McMaster. He and departing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson dissuaded the president from taking some of the most important actions necessary to repair the damage to our nation’s security done by former President Obama.

There are at least four policy matters that could comprise an initial agenda for Mr. Bolton, each of which would significantly assist the president in bolstering our national security.

The first is to begin fighting the ideological war that Islamists have constantly waged against us and which we have never tried to counter. In August 2016 Mr. Trump, probably voicing what he had learned from Mr. Flynn, said, “Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam.”

Mr. Trump was right and strategically so. Radical Islamic terrorism is motivated by a religiously-based ideology. It can only be won by the defeat of that evil ideology.

Mr. McMaster has always insisted that there is no connection between Islam and terrorism. In that he is dangerously wrong. As national security adviser, Mr. Bolton, who better understands the threat, will be uniquely-positioned to commence and manage our ideological war. He will be able to assemble the best psychological warfare team from the CIA, the Pentagon and other agencies to craft and commence the campaign. He will be able to guide the president and other government leaders, to play their critical roles in defeating the Islamist ideology.

The ideological fight will take many years, perhaps decades, to win but there is no prospect of defeating this enemy unless it is won.

The next big item on Mr. Bolton’s agenda should be Mr. Obama’s 2015 nuclear weapons deal with Iran. Since his inauguration, Mr. Trump has been pressured — by Messrs. Tillerson and McMaster, as well as our European allies — to stick with the deal. 

In January, the president gave Iran and our allies until May to fix the deal’s defects, implying that unless it is fixed he will revoke it. No changes have been made. Mr. Bolton, from the outset highly critical of the deal, can be expected to press the president to do the right thing and cancel the deal in May.

Mr. Bolton steps into his new job at an opportune moment to address a third item on his agenda. The president is supposed to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un in the next few weeks. Mr. Bolton will be able to advise the president on the pitfalls of any proposed agreement with Mr. Kim. 

When the meeting ends, as it almost certainly will with no agreement other than to talk again, he will be able to convince the president to do far more than has been done to improve our defenses against ballistic missile attacks.

One of the ways to improve our ballistic missile defenses is a space-based system called “Brilliant Pebbles” first unveiled in the 1990s. It is a system of small interceptor missiles, linked to our satellite missile tracking systems, which — even with 1990s technology — would have made America almost penetration-proof against such attacks. Modern technology would make the system even more effective depriving many adversaries, not just North Korea, of a “first strike” capability.

The fourth item on Mr. Bolton’s agenda should be to recommence sending captured terrorists to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Obama stopped the military and the CIA from sending any terrorists to Gitmo in 2008.

Gitmo, isolated and secure, is a place where terrorists can be interrogated at length. Such interrogations, which take place over months and even years, have proven to be a consistent source of actionable intelligence.

We are constantly lectured, by the left and self-proclaimed human rights advocates, that we have no right to hold prisoners indefinitely and that Gitmo is a propaganda tool used to recruit more terrorists. Under the law of war, we can hold prisoners until the conflict is over. It has never been demonstrated that Gitmo benefits terrorist recruitment, but so what if it does? Gitmo — and the fact that no prisoners are tortured there, a fact that is verified by frequent inspections by international groups — is another weapon we should use in the ideological war.

Each of these four policy matters is important, the first three overwhelmingly so. John Bolton is one of the few people who is sufficiently smart and politically-savvy to make them happen.

• Jed Babbin, a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration, is the author of “In the Words of Our Enemies.”

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to – complete list of recent articles  – google published articles

Twitter:  @israelcomment             @schmice

A New Realism: America and Israel in the Trump Era by John Podhoretz



(After months of constant derision in COMMENTARY, even arch-typical  ‘elite intellectual snob’, editor,  John Podhoretz, finally comes down on the side of Donald Trump. Below, he presents a most impressive discussion as to why.) jsk

Of all the surprises of the Trump era, (to Podhoretz and the like) none is more notable than the pronounced shift toward Israel. Such a shift was not predictable from Donald Trump’s conduct on the campaign trail; as he sought the Republican nomination, Trump distinguished himself by his refusal to express unqualified support for Israel and his airy conviction that his business experience gave him unique insight into how to strike “a real-estate deal” to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In addition, his isolationist talk alarmed Israel’s friends in the United States and elsewhere if for no other reason than that isolationism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Semitism often go hand in hand in hand.

But shift he did. In the 14 months since his inauguration, the new president has announced that the United States accepts Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and has declared his intention to build a new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, first mandated by U.S. law in 1996. 

He has installed one of his Orthodox Jewish lawyers as the U.S. ambassador and another as his key envoy on Israeli–Palestinian issues. America’s ambassador to the United Nations has not only spoken out on Israel’s behalf forcefully and repeatedly; Nikki Haley has also led the way in cutting the U.S. stipend to the refugee relief agency that is an effective front for the Palestinian terror state in Gaza. 

And, as Meir Y. Soloveichik and Michael Medved both detail elsewhere in this issue, his vice president traveled to Israel in January and delivered the most pro-Zionist speech any major American politician has ever given.

Part of this shift can also be seen in what Trump has not done. He has not signaled, in interviews or in policy formulations, that the United States views Israeli actions in and around Gaza and the West Bank as injurious to a future peace. And his administration has not complained about Israeli actions taken in self-defense in Lebanon and Syria but has, instead, supported Israel’s right to defend itself.

This marks a breathtaking contrast with the tone and spirit of the relationship between the two countries during the previous administration. The eight Obama years were characterized by what can only be called a gut hostility rooted in the president’s own ideological distaste for the Jewish state.

The intensity of that hostility ebbed and flowed depending on circumstances, but from early 2009, it kept the relationship between the United States and Israel in a condition of low-grade fever throughout Barack Obama’s tenure—never comfortable, never easy, always a bit off-kilter, always with a bit of a headache that never went away, and always in danger of spiking into a dangerous pyrexia. 

That fever spike happened no fewer than five times during the Obama presidency. Although these spikes were usually portrayed as the consequences of the personal friction between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that friction was itself the result of the ideas about the Middle East and the world in general Obama had brought with him to the White House. In this case, the political became the personal, not the other way around.

Given the general leftish direction of his foreign-policy views from college onward, it would have been a miracle had Obama felt kindly disposed toward the Jewish state’s own understanding of its tactical and strategic condition. And Netanyahu spoke out openly and forcefully to kindly disposed Americans—from evangelical Christians to congressional Republicans—about the threats to his country from nearby terrorism and rockets, and a developing nuclear Iran 900 miles away. 

His candor proved a perpetual irritant to a president whose opening desire was to see “daylight” (as he said in February 2009) between the two countries. Obama caused one final fever spike as he left office by refusing to veto a hostile United Nations resolution. This appeared churlish but was, in fact, Obama allowing himself the full rein of his true and long-standing convictions on his way out the door.

The things Trump both has and has not done should not seem startling. They constitute the baseline of what we ought to expect one ally would say and not say about the behavior of another ally. But as Obama’s disgraceful conduct demonstrated, Israel is not just another ally and never has been. It is a unique experiment in statehood—a Western country on Mideast soil, born from an anti-colonialist movement that is now viewed by many former colonial powers as an unjust colonial power, created by an international organization that is now largely organized as a means of expressing rage against it.

Historically, American leaders have had to reckon with these unique realities—and the fact that the hostile nations surrounding Israel and hungering for its destruction happen to sit atop the lifeblood of the industrial economy. The so-called realists who claim to view the world and the pursuit of America’s interests through cold and unsentimental eyes have experienced Israel mostly as a burden.

Through many twists and turns over the seven decades of Israel’s existence, they have felt that America’s support for Israel is mostly the result of short-sighted domestic political concerns for which they have little patience—the wishes of Jewish voters, or the religious concerns of evangelical voters, or post-Holocaust sympathy that has required (though they would never say it aloud) an unnatural suspension of our pursuit of the American national interest.

Israel created problems with oil countries, and with the United Nations, and with those who see the claims for the necessity of a Jewish state as a form of special pleading. As a result, the realists have spent the past seven decades whispering in the ears of America’s leaders that they have the right to expect Israel to do things we would not expect of another ally and to demand it behave in ways we would not demand of any other friendly country.

The realists and others have spent nearly 50 years propounding a unified-field theory of Middle East turmoil according to which many if not all of the region’s problems are the result of Israel’s existence. Were it not for Israel, there would not have been regional wars in 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982—no matter who might have borne the greatest degree of responsibility for them. 

There would have been other conflicts, but not this one. There would have been no world-recession-inducing oil embargo in 1973 because there would have been no response to the Yom Kippur War. Were it not for Israel, for example, there would be no Israeli–Palestinian problem; there would have been some other version of the problem, but not this one.

Unhappiness about the condition of the Palestinians in a world with Israel was held to be the cause of existential unhappiness on the Arab street and therefore of instability in friendly authoritarian regimes throughout the Middle East. Meanwhile, Israel’s own pursuit of what it and its voting populace took to be their national interests was usually treated with disdain at the very least and outright fury at moments of crisis.

It was therefore axiomatic that the solution to many if not most of the region’s problems ran right though the center of Jerusalem. It would take a complex process, a peace process, that would lead to a deal—a deal no one who believed in this magical process could actually describe honestly and forthrightly or give a sense as to what its final contours would be. If you could create a peace process leading to a deal, though, that deal itself would work like a bone-marrow transplant—through a mysterious process spreading new immunities to instability in the Middle East that would heal the causes of conflict and bring about a new era.

Again, this was the view of the (so-called) realists. With Israel’s 70th anniversary coming hard upon us, the question one needs to ask is this: What if the realists were nothing but fantasists? What if their approach to the Middle East from the time of Israel’s founding was based in wildly unrealistic ideas and emotions? 

Central to their gullibility was the wild and irrational idea that peace was or ever could be the result of a process. No, peace is a condition of soul, an exhaustion from the impact of conflict, born of a desire to end hostilities.  Only after this state is achieved can there be a workable process, because both parties would already have crossed the Rubicon dividing them and would only then need to work out the details of coexistence.

There was no peace to be had. The Arab states didn’t want it. The Palestinians didn’t want it. The Israelis did and do, but not at the expense of their existence. The Arabs demanded concessions, and the Israelis have made many over the years, but they could not concede the security of the millions of Israel’s citizens who had made this miracle of a country an enduring reality. The realists fetishized “process” because it seemed the only way to compel change from the outside. And so Israel has borne the brunt of the anger that follows whenever a fantasist is forced to confront a reality he would rather close his eyes to.

That is why I think what Trump and his people have done over the past 14 months represents a new and genuine realism. They are dealing with Israel and its relationships in the region as they are, not as they would wish them to be. They are seeing how the government of Egypt under Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is making common cause with Israel against the Hamas entity in Gaza and against ISIS forces in the Suez. 

They are witness to the effort at radical reformation in Saudi Arabia under Muhammad bin-Salman—and how that seems to be going hand in hand with an astonishing new concord between Israel and the Desert Kingdom over the common threat from Iran. This is a harmonizing of interests that would have seemed positively science-fictional in living memory.

Mostly, what they are seeing is that an ally is an ally. Israel’s intelligence agencies are providing the kind of information America cannot get on its own about Syria and Iran and the threat from ISIS. Israel is a technological powerhouse whose innovations are already helping to revolutionize American military know-how. Israel’s army is the strongest in the world apart from the regional superpowers—and the only one outside Western Europe and the United States firmly locked in alliance with the West. 

Things are changing radically in the Middle East, and as the 21st century progresses it is possible that Israel will play a constructive and influential role outside its borders in helping to maintain and strengthen a Pax Americana.

Donald Trump is a flighty man. (Podhoretz was compelled to put in this schtick) All of this could change. But for now, the replacement of the false realism of the past with a new realism for the 21st century seems like a revolutionary development that needs to be taken very, very seriously.

Re-visiting a different version of former FBI Director James Comey’s self-storied career.

The Politicization of the FBI

February 2018 • Volume 47, Number 2

Redacted from a fascinating in-depth detailed article 

By Joseph E. diGenova, Former U.S. Attorney

February 2018


Joseph E. diGenova is a founding partner of diGenova & Toensing, LLP. He received his B.A. from the University of Cincinnati and his J.D. from Georgetown University. He has served as United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Independent Counsel of the United States, Special Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Counsel to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Over the past year, facts have emerged that suggest there was a plot by high-ranking FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials in the Obama administration, acting under color of law, to exonerate Hillary Clinton of federal crimes and then, if she lost the election, to frame Donald Trump and his campaign for colluding with Russia to steal the presidency. This conduct was not based on mere bias, as has been widely claimed, but rather on deeply felt animus toward Trump and his agenda.

In the course of this plot, FBI Director James Comey, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, Strzok’s paramour and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, FBI General Counsel James Baker, and DOJ senior official Bruce Ohr—perhaps among others—compromised federal law enforcement to such an extent that the American public is losing trust. 

A recent CBS News poll finds 48 percent of Americans believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia collusion probe is “politically motivated,” a stunning conclusion. And 63 percent of polled voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll believe that the FBI withheld vital information from Congress about the Clinton and Russia collusion investigations.

I spent my early legal career as a federal prosecutor. I later supervised hundreds of prosecutors and prosecutions as a U.S. Attorney and as an Independent Counsel. I have never witnessed investigations so fraught with failure to fulfill the basic elements of a criminal probe as those conducted under James Comey. Not since former Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray deep-sixed evidence during Watergate has the head of the FBI been so discredited as Comey is now.

The Case of the Clinton Emails

The Hillary Clinton email scandal began in 2013 with the U.S. House of Representatives investigation into the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. It was during that investigation that accessing Secretary of State Clinton’s emails became an issue. But it wasn’t until The New York Times broke the story on March 2, 2015, that Clinton had a secret, personal server that things really took off.

Thousands of emails that the House at first requested, then subpoenaed, conveniently disappeared—remember those reports about BleachBit and the smashing of Clinton’s numerous phones with hammers? Clinton and her aides were, to say the least, not forthcoming. It was clearly time for the FBI and DOJ to act, using the legal tools at their disposal to secure the emails and other materials the House had subpoenaed. But that didn’t happen.

Incredibly, FBI Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch refused to convene a grand jury during the Clinton investigation. Thus investigators had no authority to subpoena evidence or witnesses. Lacking leverage, Comey then injudiciously granted immunity to five Clinton aides in return for evidence that could have been obtained with a subpoena. 

Even when Clinton claimed 39 times during a July 2, 2016, interview—an interview led by disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok—that she could not recall certain facts because of a head injury, Comey refused the case agents’ request to subpoena her medical records.

Not only was there no grand jury, the FBI never issued a search warrant—something it does when there is concern a person will destroy evidence. Clinton deleted half her emails and then claimed, under penalty of perjury, that she had turned over to the government all emails that “were or potentially were” work-related. The FBI later found email chains classified as “secret” or “confidential” that she had not turned over. Still no search warrant was issued.

Comey’s dereliction did not stop at the failure to utilize essential prosecutorial tools. He violated several rules that prosecutors consider sacrosanct.

Comey allowed one lawyer to represent four material witnesses, an arrangement ripe for the four to coordinate testimony. 

After needlessly giving immunity to two lawyers representing Clinton, Comey permitted both to sit in on her July 2, 2016, FBI interview—a patent conflict. 

Comey and the FBI never questioned Clinton about her public statements, which changed over time and were blatantly false. “I did not email classified information to anyone” morphed into “I did not email anything marked ‘classified,’” which morphed into the claim that (c) did not mean what it clearly meant. False and changing statements are presented to juries routinely by prosecutors as evidence of guilt.

Breaking DOJ protocols, violating the chain of command, and assuming an authority he never had, Comey usurped the role of the U.S. attorney general on July 5, 2016, when he announced that the case against Clinton was closed. 

He justified his actions saying that he no longer trusted Attorney General Lynch after her June 27, 2016, meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport. This meeting took place at the height of the so-called investigation—just days before Peter Strzok interviewed Clinton on July 2. Thanks to the efforts of Judicial Watch to secure documents through the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that Comey was already drafting a letter exonerating Clinton in May 2016—prior to interviewing more than a dozen major witnesses. 

In late spring 2016, just weeks prior to Comey’s July 5 press conference clearing Clinton of any crime, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe ordered FBI agents in New York to shut down their investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Their objections were overruled. Sources have told me that McCabe also shut down an additional Clinton investigation. This is the McCabe who, while he was overseeing the Clinton email investigation, had a wife running for the Virginia State Senate and receiving more than $460,000 in campaign contributions from a longtime Clinton loyalist, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe. 

The Case of Trump-Russia Collusion

Rumors of collusion with Russia by Trump or the Trump campaign surfaced during the primaries in 2015, but gained in strength soon after Trump secured the Republican nomination in July 2016. Thanks to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, we now know that high-level FBI officials were involved in promoting these rumors. Among Horowitz’s discoveries were text messages between FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page that suggest an illegal plan to utilize law enforcement to frame Trump. The most revealing exchange we know of took place on August 15, 2016. Concerned about the outcome of the election, Strzok wrote:

I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in [Andrew McCabe’s] office—that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.

No amount of sugar coating or post hoc explanation of this and other texts can conceal the couple’s animus against Trump and support for Clinton.

At the heart of the Russia collusion scheme is the FBI’s utilization of a document paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Called the Steele Dossier because it was written by former British MI6 officer Christopher Steele, this document contains unsubstantiated information designed to taint Trump and his presidency. 

Comey and then-CIA Director John Brennan laundered the Steele Dossier through the U.S. intelligence community to give it an aura of credibility and get it to the press. It was also used by the FBI and senior DOJ officials to secure wiretap warrants from a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Then its contents, via court-authorized FISA warrants, were used to justify the illegal unmasking of the identities of wiretapped Trump officials. 

In sum, the FBI and DOJ employed unverified salacious allegations contained in a political opposition research document to obtain court-sanctioned wiretaps, and then leaked the contents of the wiretaps and the identities of political opponents. This was a complex criminal plot worthy of Jason Bourne.

The Pall Over the Special Counsel and the FBI

Layered over this debacle is a special counsel investigation unfettered by rules or law. Not surprisingly, James Comey triggered the special counsel’s appointment—and he did so by design. According to Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, having been fired on May 9, 2017, he leaked official documents to his friend, Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, with the specific intent that Richman would leak them to the press. 

Reportage on that leak is what led Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint Robert Mueller—a former FBI director and Comey’s good friend—as special counsel to investigate allegations of Trump-Russia collusion. Mueller’s reputation has been damaged by a series of decisions that violate the ethical rules of appearances. For instance, he hired Democratic partisans as lawyers for the probe.

Mueller also staged a pre-dawn raid with weapons drawn on the home of Paul Manafort, rousing Manafort and his wife from their bed—a tactic customarily reserved for terrorists and drug dealers. Manafort has subsequently been indicted for financial crimes that antedate his campaign work for Trump and that have nothing to do with Russia collusion.

From the outset of this scandal, I have considered Comey a dirty cop. His unfailing commitment to himself above all else is of a pattern. Throughout his career, Comey has continually portrayed himself as Thomas Becket, fighting against institutional corruption—even where none exists. 

A great disservice has been done to the dedicated men and women of the FBI by Comey and his seventh floor henchmen. A grand jury probe is long overdue. Inspector General Horowitz is an honest man, but he cannot convene a grand jury. We need one now. We need our FBI back.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to – complete list of recent articles

pastedGraphic.pngFacebook: 1. Jerome S. Kaufman  2 .Israel Commentary

Twitter:  @israelcomment             @schmice

Why do the Arabs hate the so-called “Palestinian” Arabs so?

(An erudite in-depth history and explanation of the “Palestinian” Arab Refugee Scam)

Redacted from a much more detailed article

By Dr. Mordechai Kedar

The Arab world, for many reasons, is not at all interested in giving the Palestinian Arabs a state. The Palestinian Arabs don’t really want one either, because why kill the “refugee” goose that lays the golden eggs?

In Israel, and in much of the Western world, we tend to think that the Arab world is united in support of the Palestinians, that it  wants nothing so much as to solve the Palestinian problem by giving them a state, and that all the Arabs and Muslims love the Palestinians and hate Israel.

This, however, is a simplistic and partial point of view, because while It is true that many, perhaps even the majority of Arabs and Muslims hate Israel, there are a good many who hate the Palestinians just as much.

Their hatred of Israel stems from Israel’s success in surviving despite wars, terror, boycotts and the enmity aimed at the Jewish state; it stems from the fact that there is an existing Jewish state even though Judaism has been superseded by Islam, the ‘true religion.’ 

It is exacerbated by Israel’s being a democracy while they live under  dictatorships, because Israel is rich and they are poor, because Israel is Paradise compared to Arab countries, many of which resemble nothing so much as the last train stop before Hell (see Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan – and the list goes on) …and most importantly, because Israel has succeeded in areas in which they have failed, and their jealousy drives them up a wall.

But why should they hate the ‘unfortunate’ Palestinian Arabs? After all, the Arab narrative says that the Palestinian Arabs’ land was stolen and they were forced to become refugees. The answer to this question is complex and is a function of  Middle Eastern culture, which we in Israel and most Westerners neither understand nor recognize.

One of the worst things in Arab eyes is being cheated, fooled or taken advantage of. When someone attempts to cheat an Arab – and even more so, if that person succeeds – an Arab is overcome by furious anger, even if the person involved is his cousin. 

He will call on his brother to take revenge on that cousin, in line with the Arab adage: “My brother and I against my cousin – and my brother, my cousin and I against a stranger.”

Regarding the Palestinian Arabs, first of all,  many are not originally Palestinians at all. They are immigrants who came to the Land of Israel from all over the Arab world during the British Mandate in order to find employment in the cities and on the farms the Jews had built.    ( a fact universally ignored especially by Jew and Israel haters)

These supposed indigent “Palestinian” Arabs are themselves immigrants who still have names such as “Al Hurani (from Huran in southern Syria)”, “Al Tzurani (from Tyre in Southern Lebanon)”, “Al  Zrakawi (from Mazraka in Jordan),” “Al Maztri (the Egyptian)” and many other names that point to their actual, geographically origin – not “Palestine” or Israel. Why, ask the other Arabs, should they get preferential treatment compared to those who remained in their original countries?

Starting with the end of the 1948 Israeli War of Independence, the politics in the Arab world began to center on Israel and the “Palestinian problem” whose solution was to be achieved only by eliminating Israel. In order to help succeed in that mission, the Arab refugees were kept in camps, with explicit instructions from the Arab League to  keep them there and not to absorb them in other  Arab countries.

UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency – whose only customers are 3 generations of Arabs that should  have been resettled by their 20 Arab brethren nations 60 plus years ago!) guarantees unlike any other genuine refugees that they were provided with food, education and medical care without charge – that is to say, the nations of the world footed the bill, while the Arab neighbors of these eternal “refugees” had to work and provide food, education and medical care for their families by the sweat of their brow.  

Refugees who were supplied with free foodstuffs, such as rice, flour, sugar and oil, for the use of their families, would often sell some  of it to their non-refugee neighbors and make a tidy profit.

Those living in the refugee camps do not pay municipal taxes, leading to a significant number of “refugees” who rent their homes to others and  collect exorbitant sums in comparison with those renting apartments in nearby cities, thanks to this tax exemption. In other  words, the world subsidizes the taxes and the refugees line their own pockets .

In Lebanon, several refugee camps were built near Beirut, but were incorporated into the expanding city, then turned into high class neighborhoods with imposing high rise apartment buildings. Someone has profited from this change, and it is not the man in the  street, who has every reason to feel cheated.

The Palestinian “refugee” camps located in Lebanon have been taken over by armed organizations, from the PLO to ISIS, including Hamas, the Popular Front, the Democratic Front and organizations of Salafist Jihadists. These organizations act viciously towards surrounding Lebanese citizens and in 1975 brought on a civil war that  lasted for 14 long  years of bloodshed, destruction and saw the emigration of hundreds of thousands of real Lebanese from their villages to lives of horrible suffering in tent camps all over the country’ Many took  refuge in Palestinian “refugee” camps, but the Lebanese refugees received less than 10 per cent of what  Palestinian Arabs received, causing much internecine jealousy  and hatred.

In Jordan, in 1970, the Palestinian Arabs, led by PLO head Yassir Arafat, attempted to take over the country by establishing autonomous regions of their own, complete with roadblocks and armed Palestinian Arabs in the country’s north that challenged the monarchy. In September 1970, known as “Black September”, King Hussein decided he had had enough and would show them who is boss in Jordan. The  war he declared against  them cost thousands of  lives on both sides.

Meanwhile, in Israel,  20% of the citizenry within the pre-1967 borders is made up of “Palestinian” Arabs who do not rebel or fight against the state. In other words, the “Palestinians” living in pre-1967 Israel enjoy life in the only democracy in the Middle East, while the Arab countries sacrifice their soldiers’ blood to liberate “Palestine.” Is there a worse case of feeling that you are being exploited than that of an Arab soldier putting his life in danger for this meaningless cause?

Worse still is what every Arab knows: Palestinian Arabs have been selling land to Jews for at least a century, profit immensely from the deals and then go wailing to their Arab brothers to come and free “Palestine” from the “Zionist occupation.”

Over the years, the Palestinian Arabs were given many billions of euros and dollars by the nations of the world, so that the yearly per capirta income in the PA is several times greater than that of the Egyptian, Sudanese or Algerian man in the street. His life is many, many times better than that of Arabs living in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen over the past seven years,

On a political level, the Palestinians have managed to arouse the hatred of many of their Arab brethren: In 1990, Arafat supported Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. In revenge, Kuwait, once it was freed of Iraqi conquest, expelled tens of thousands of Palestinians, most of whom had been employed in its oil fields, leaving them destitute overnight. This led to an economic crisis for their families in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, who had been receiving regular stipends from their sons in Kuwait.

Today, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad are supported by Iran, the country abhorred by many Arabs who remember that airplane hijacking and the ensuing blackmail were invented by the Palestinian Arabs who hijacked an El Al plane to Algiers in 1968, fifty years ago, beginning a period of travail still being endured by the entire world.

Despite the 1989 Taif agreement that ended the civil war in Lebanon and was supposed to lead to the de-weaponization and dissolution of all the Lebanese militias, Syria  allowed Hezbollah to keep its arms and to develop its military power unrestrainedly. 

The repeated excuse was that the weapons were meant to “liberate Palestine” and would not be aimed at the Lebanese. To anyone with a modicum of brains, it was clear that  the Palestine story was a fig leaf covering the sad truth that the weapons were going to be aimed at Hezbollah’s Syrian and Lebanese enemies. “Palestine” was simply an excuse for the Shiite takeover of Lebanon.

Worst of all is the Palestinian demand that Arab countries refrain from any relations with Israel until the Palestinian problem is solved to the satisfaction of the PLO and Hamas leaders. 

However, a good  portion of the Arab world cannot find any commonalities that could unite the PLO and  Hamas. They have given up on achieving an internal Palestinian reconciliation, watching the endless squabbles ruin any chances of progress regarding Israel. 

To sum up the situation, the Arab world – that part of it which sees Israel as the only hope in dealing with Iran – is not happy at the expectation that it must mortgage its future and  its very existence to the internal fighting between the PLO  and Hamas.

And let us not forget that Egypt and Jordan have signed peace agreements with Israel, have moved outside the circle of war for the “liberation of Palestine” and have  forsaken their Palestinian Arab “brothers,” leaving them to deal with the problem on their own.

Much of the Arab and Muslim world is convinced that the “Palestinians” do not want a state of their own. After all, if that state is established, the  world will cease to donate those enormous sums, there will be no more “refugees” and the Palestinian Arabs will have to work like everyone else. How can they do that when they are all addicted  to receiving handouts without any strings attacked?

One can say with assurance, that 70 years after the creation of the “Palestinian problem,” the Arab world has realized that there is no solution that  will satisfy those who have  turned “refugee-ism”  into a profession, so that the “Palestinian problem” has  become an emotional and financial scam that only serves to enrich the corrupt leaders of Ramallah and Gaza.

Translated by Rochel Sylvetsky, Senior Consultant to A7 English site, Op-ed and Judaism editor.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to – complete list of recent articles

pastedGraphic.pngFacebook: 1. Jerome S. Kaufman  2 .Israel Commentary

Twitter:  @israelcomment             @schmice




Black Congressional Caucus Stands by its Man – Louis Farrahkan!

(Note: Members of Caucus must be Black by Unwritten Rule – 49 total members  and virtually all Democrat  48 Democrat, 1 Republican (Mia Love Utah).  White guy turned down in 2006 for being white!)

Redacted from article 

By Valerie Richardson – The Washington Times

March 19, 2018

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Women’s March co-President, Tamika D. Mallory, have come under fire this month for failing to condemn Louis Farrakhan after revelations that they met with or appeared at events with the notorious anti-Semite.

The Republican Jewish Coalition has called on eight black lawmakers to resign over their Farrakhan association. Not all have commented, but those doing so have been careful to denounce anti-Semitism without condemning the Nation of Islam leader himself.

Is that enough? Not for the Anti-Defamation League, which called it “disturbing to see people of good conscience and character meeting with this individual whose worldview is so warped and tainted by anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.” “We hope that political leaders will reject meetings with him in the future and denounce him for the bigot he really is,” the ADL said in a statement.

For Democrats, the Farrakhan flap threatens to fray the progressive coalition in Congress by exacerbating tensions with Jewish voters already worried about the party’s direction as anti-Israel movements such as Boycott, Divest and Sanctions gain steam on the left.

Liberal Jews who have joined anti-Trump rallies sponsored by the Women’s March have been taken aback by revelations over the group’s links to Mr. Farrakhan, including social media photos showing him holding hands with Ms. Mallory and board member Carmen Perez.

“Many progressive Jews have reacted with shock to the Farrakhan adoration from leaders of the Women’s March,” said Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson. “That Farrakhan connection, however, has been public and unapologetic for years.”

Even before Mr. Farrakhan gave a shout-out to Ms. Mallory at his Feb. 25 Saviours’ Day speech, the Women’s March had been accused of anti-Semitism through its link to convicted Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh, who has been embraced by Women’s March leader Linda Sarsour.

“Rather than treating the alignment of the Women’s March leaders with a notorious anti-Semite as an aberration, progressive Jews need to ask themselves whether it reflects a deeper anti-Semitism in the progressive world, masquerading as anti-Zionism,” said Mr. Jacobson, who runs the conservative Legal Insurrection blog.

Republican National Committee blasts ‘hateful eight’

The uproar also has touched off scrutiny of the relationship between the Nation of Islam and the black political establishment, which can be traced to 1984, when Mr. Farrakhan rushed to defend Jesse Jackson in the Democratic presidential primary after he was reamed for calling New York “Hymietown.”

Some hailed Mr. Farrakhan as a hero for leading the 1995 Million Man March, a rally on the National Mall aimed at uniting black men and promoting self-reliance against economic and social ills.

The result is that Mr. Farrakhan, 84, has apparently become politically untouchable in some pockets despite repeatedly denouncing Jews in public, including during his Feb. 25 Saviours’ Day speech in which he blasted “the Satanic Jew” and said that “powerful Jews are my enemy.”

Even the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center has listed the Nation of Islam as a “hate group” and condemned Mr. Farrakhan’s tirades against “wicked Jews” and gays.

“In reality, Farrakhan has done almost nothing for black America,” said Mr. Magida. “The Nation of Islam, under Elijah Muhammed at least, had certain economic programs that marginally helped African-Americans. He has done nothing to help African-Americans economically, socially, educationally, intellectually.”

In politics, however, where perception is often reality, black leaders who renounce Mr. Farrakhan may pay a political price if they are seen as kowtowing to outside pressure.“If you do renounce him, are you then seen as an Uncle Tom?” asked Mr. Magida.

The Republican National Committee issued a press release Tuesday detailing the links between Mr. Farrakhan and the eight Black Caucus members, dubbing them “the hateful eight.”

A video taken at a 2006 caucus event showed Mr. Farrakhan hugging and shaking hands with several Democratic members of Congress, including Reps. Al Green of Texas, Barbara Lee of California and Maxine Waters of California. Assistant Minority Leader James E. Clyburn of South Carolina — the House’s third-ranking Democrat — shared a stage with him in 2011, and Rep. Andre Carson, Indiana Democrat, acknowledged Friday that he had met with Mr. Farrakhan.

Democratic National Committee Deputy Chairman Keith Ellison has taken heat for reports linking him to Mr. Farrakhan after 1995, despite saying he has had no relationship with him since the Million Man March.

Even President Obama was pulled into the fray after a long-suppressed 2005 photo surfaced showing him with Mr. Farrakhan at a caucus gathering. Mr. Obama has not commented publicly on the photo.

“It is not sufficient to condemn anti-Semitism without condemning the nation’s leading anti-Semite,” Mr. Siegel said. “If members of Congress met with David Duke and then refused to condemn him, they would have been forced to resign long ago. The right moral action is for the Farrakhan members to resign.”


To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address – complete list of recent articles

pastedGraphic.pngFacebook: 1. Jerome S. Kaufman 2 .Israel Commentary

Twitter:  @israelcomment

Arab Leaders Change Gear on Palestinian Distortion

By Walter Russell Mead

Wall Street Journal, April 3, 2018

Facing threats from Iran and Turkey, they want peace—and to strangle Hamas.

On the surface it was business as usual in the Gaza Strip. Hamas bussed thousands of residents to the border with Israel to begin a six-week protest campaign ahead of the 70th anniversary of Israel’s independence—or, as the Palestinians call it, the nakba, or “catastrophe.” This protest would mark “the beginning of the Palestinians’ return to all of Palestine,” according to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

It didn’t. Stones were thrown, tires were set aflame, and shots were fired. When the smoke cleared, the borders were still in place and 15 Palestinians lay dead, with three more succumbing later from injuries. While families endured their private tragedies, familiar controversies swirled. The usual people denounced Israel in the usual ways, countered by the usual defenders making the usual arguments.

But what is happening in Gaza today is not business as usual. Tectonic plates are shifting in the Middle East as the Sunni Arab world counts the cost of the failed Arab Spring and the defeat of Sunni Arabs by Iranian-backed forces in Syria.

In headier times, pan-Arab nationalists like Gamal Abdel Nasser and lesser figures like Saddam Hussein dreamed of creating a united pan-Arab state that could hold its own among the world’s great powers. 

When nationalism sputtered out, many Arabs turned to Sunni Islamist movements instead. Those, too, have for the time being failed, and today Arab states seek protection from Israel and the U.S. against an ascendant Iran and a restless, neo-Ottoman Turkey.

But the American protection on which Arabs rely cannot be taken for granted, as President Trump’s apparent determination to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria in the near term demonstrates. Under these circumstances, Israel’s unmatched access to Washington makes Jerusalem even more important to Arab calculations. Perhaps only Israel can keep the U.S. engaged in the region.

It is against this backdrop that the old Palestinian alliance with the Arab nations has frayed. Most Arab rulers now see Palestinian demands as an inconvenient obstacle to a necessary strategic alliance with Israel. 

The major Gulf states and Egypt apparently have agreed on two goals. The first is to strangle Hamas in Gaza to restore the authority of the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. The second is to press the authority to accept the kind of peace that Israel has offered repeatedly and that Yasser Arafat and his successor have so far rejected.

Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are playing for time. They support the first goal by refusing to pay the salaries of government employees in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip even as they resist pressure to make peace with the Jewish State. It is not yet clear what the authority’s final response to the peace pressure will be. Even if it ultimately decides to accept an Arab-sponsored compromise, making a show of resistance can improve its credibility with the Palestinian public and, perhaps, extract better terms.

Hamas is in an even more desperate plight. The Arab blockade and donor strike cripples Gaza in ways the Israelis never could. Food is growing scarce, electricity is erratic, unemployment exceeds 40%, and raw sewage runs into the sea. Many Gaza residents presumably want the only thing Hamas can’t offer: relief.

Historically Hamas has reacted to this kind of pressure by launching wars against Israel, trusting its friends abroad to force the Jewish state to cease fire before it can inflict serious damage on Hamas’ leadership. But in the 2014 war, Arab foot-dragging gave Israel time to deal a serious defeat to Hamas. Another war would be equally ruinous and for the same reason: The Arab governments want Hamas crushed, and they won’t stop Israel from doing the job.

The current demonstrations, Hamas hopes, can whip up a global wave of rage and indignation against Israel without provoking a full-on war. That might weaken the Arab coalition against it. But the prime audience for Hamas’s performance this time isn’t the Arab world; it is Turkey and Iran, whose support Hamas will need to survive if it is driven from Gaza (as Arafat was once driven from Jordan and Lebanon).

Rifts between Palestinians and other Arabs are nothing new. But the collapse of Arab nationalism and the failure of Sunni radicalism have weakened the political forces that rallied Arab support to the Palestinian cause. With millions of new Arab refugees in Syria, and growing threats to Arab independence from powerful neighbors, prioritizing Palestine is a luxury many Arabs feel they can no longer afford.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: – complete list of recent articles

pastedGraphic.pngFacebook: 1. Jerome S. Kaufman

2 .Israel Commentary

Twitter:  @israelcomment


The Greek Church and the Jews

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Last week I decided to attend the funeral services of a friend of mine. He was a good guy, always kind to me but to be honest, I think I was simply following Yogi Berra’s advice when he declared that he attended his friends’ funerals in the hope that they would attend his!

I sat quietly listening, in the very impressive ornate Greek church, to the somber melodious  Greek chant coming from the deep voice of the huge Greek priest and I tried not to fall asleep – like I do in my own synagogue services.

Then my ears suddenly perked up when the priest lapsed into a bit of the English translation.  I heard him say something about Jesus and how he told the Jews to follow his teachings. Huh!

Excuse me, but what has Jesus and the Jews got to do with this funeral service and how did this priest know what Jesus said to the Jews? And, what could it have possibly been anyway, except the same vile anti-Semitic distribe and lies that have permeated the Roman Catholic churcn, the Eastern Orthodox  churches  and the Protestant churches of Martin Luther and John Calvin for the  past near 2000 years?

Then I told myself, please don’t get excited.  Just Google, The Greek Liturgy and the Jews,  and see what comes up.  Sure enough, at the top of the list was the article quoted below confirming my worst suspicions.

But, before we read the Greek article, please let us happily acknowledge that within the last 50 years there have been major Catholic Church changes and admonitions against the preaching of Jew-hatred by the Church and its officials.

In fact, after centuries of perpetual hatred, formal dialogue between Roman Catholics and Jews began about 50 years ago, with the Vatican’s 1965 Nostra Aetate declaration. The declaration finally and formally repudiated the charge that Jews were collectively responsible for killing Jesus and stressed the religious bond between Jews as the big brothers of the Church.

Also of note is the fact that the Jews’ dedication to monotheism pre-dated that of the Christians by over 3000 years and it was adopted by the Church as a result of the teachings of a Jewish carpenter named  Jesus Christ.


Thirty five years later, Israeli Jews were treated to an official visit by the very kind, empathetic Pope John Paul II who had actually lived with and through the horrific World War II  killing of the Jews by the Poles,  the Germans and with the enthusiastic support of almost all of the rest of Europe.

Pope John Paul II arrived in Israel, March 21, 2000, for a historic five-day visit, during which he visited the holy sites of the three major religions and met with Israel’s political leaders and Chief Rabbis. His Yad Vashem speech was viewed as the inspiring  climax of John Paul’s great efforts to reconcile Christians and Jews.

There is no doubt that the Vatican Declaration of Nostra Aetate and the very personal involvement and preaching of Pope John Paul II has had a major positive effect upon most Roman Catholics. They are no longer blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus Christ nor are they heaping upon the Jews whatever other calumnies  are in fact, their own responsibility.

Finally, to the article on the Greek liturgy that had perked up my ears:


Exclusive: Jews called ‘God-killers’ in Orthodox sects’ Easter prayer services.


April 20, 2007, A group of 12 Orthodox priests have called on their Eastern Orthodox  Churches to review its longstanding theological positions toward Jews and the State of Israel, and to excise anti-Semitic passages from its liturgy.

The dissident priests made their demands in a 12-point declaration adopted during a weeklong visit to Israel that is meant to spur debate in the Eastern Orthodox Christian world and to challenge centuries-old anti-Semitic views.

“Sadly, there are some Orthodox Christians who propagate disgusting anti-Semitism under the banner of Orthodoxy, which is incompatible with Christianity,” said Rev. Innokenty Pavlov, professor of theology at Moscow’s Biblical Theological Institute.

“We have to raise our voices and call on Orthodox laity and the Church leadership to formulate an official position of the Orthodox Church toward our relations with Judaism, as it was formulated a few decades ago by the Catholic Church,” he added, referring to the Second Vatican Council of 1962 to 1965.

The 10-page declaration issued Thursday calls for the renunciation of replacement theology and the removal of anti-Semitic passages from Church liturgy – particularly Easter services – and endorses the eternal connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel.

The passages appear in the standard Orthodox liturgy all over the world. The dozen Orthodox priests who signed the declaration – some in open defiance of directives from church leadership – represent five different Orthodox churches, including the Russian, Greek, Ukrainian, Georgian and Ecumenical Orthodox Churches. “We came to the firm belief that it is high time for the Orthodox Church to correct its attitude toward Jews and Judaism,” the declaration states.

Unlike the Catholic and Protestant churches, the Orthodox Church has never removed anti-Semitic passages from its liturgy, which still refers to Jews as Christ killers, said Dr. Dmitry Radyehsvky, director of the Jerusalem Summit, a conservative Israeli think tank that co-sponsored the visit.

He said the anti-Semitic passages were most conspicuous during Easter services, and included statements such as “the Jewish tribe which condemned you to crucifixion, repay them, Oh Lord,” which is repeated half a dozen times, and “Christ has risen but the Jewish seed has perished,” as well as references to Jews as “God-killers.”

“Orthodox Christianity lives up to its name: it’s extremely conservative – even more than Catholicism,” Radyehsvky said. “For them to even pose the question about the need to throw out Judophobic passages from the liturgy, which were there for 1,500 years, is a revolution,” he said.

Radyshevsky said that while some of the best Orthodox Christian philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries, like Vladimir Soloviev and Sergiy Bulgakov, were philosemites, it never filtered down to the masses.

Now, however, some Orthodox Christian intellectuals feel their church needs revival and that this has to start with their roots: reconciliation with the Jews. “It is high time to start the dialogue between Orthodox Christianity and Judaism,” said Rev. Ioann Sviridov, editor-in-chief of the Russian Christian radio-station Sophia.

“In light of rising anti-Semitism and other manifestations of nationalism in Russia, our church has to respond to this ugly phenomena and review some of the aspects of its relations with Jews and Judaism,” he said.

(I love the demands above but,  from my own last week’s experience at the local Greek Church, they  seem to have fallen upon deaf ears)  jsk

One final aside — I never could really understand another indisputable  “achievement” of the  Greeks during WWII.

From: The Jewish-Greek Tragedy during the Holocaust — The Illusion of Safety.

By Curt Leviant

The first book of a four part series depicts the Greek Jews under 3 Zones of German occupation during WW II —  German, Bulgarian and Italian. “Although the Bulgarians protected their Jews, in the Greek zone this benevolence was set aside. The Greeks  deported 11,000 Jews to concentration camps and only 2200 survived!  In the Italian zone, Jews were not persecuted and racial laws were ignored.

One can’t wonder whether or not the mindless poison pouring out of the sermons of Eastern Orthodox Churches, to this very day,  had anything to do with these damning statistics?

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor/Publisher

Israel Commentary

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to: – complete list of recent articles
Facebook: 1. Jerome S. Kaufman
2 .Israel Commentary
Twitter:  @israelcomment