Nikki Haley withdraws US from U.N. Human Rights Council. Blasts it as ‘cesspool of political bias’ against Israel

FILE - In this Jan. 2, 2018, file photo, United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley speaks to reporters at United Nations headquarters. Haley says the U.S. is withdrawing from UN Human Rights Council, calling it 'not worthy of its name.' (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)
https://youtu.be/N6fbAIWJB3Q
www.israel-commentary.org
The Washington Times  June 19, 2018

The Trump administration has pulled the U.S. out of the United Nations‘ main human rights body because of long-standing complaints that the panel is biased against Israel, U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Tuesday.

“For too long, [the U.N. Human Rights Council] has been a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias,” Mrs. Haley said. “Regrettably, it is now clear that our call for reform was not heeded.”

The U.S. made the move a day after U.N. officials sharply criticized President Trump’s handling of refugee families at the Mexico border.

The withdrawal is unprecedented in the council’s 12-year history. Libya was ousted seven years ago, but no other country has ever departed voluntarily. U.N. observers said they had seen it coming since the Trump administration’s start.

Last year, during her first address to the council, Mrs. Haley threatened the withdrawal. She cited Washington’s long-standing complaints that the 47-member Geneva-based council was biased against the Jewish state and warned members that the U.S. would leave if the panel failed to end its systematic scrutiny of alleged Israeli rights abuses against Palestinians.

“It is essential that this council address its chronic anti-Israel bias if it is to have any credibility,” she said

She noted that resolutions had been passed against Israel but none had been considered for Venezuela, where protesters were being killed amid political turmoil.

During a joint appearance with Mr. Pompeo on Tuesday, Ms. Haley said the United States “would be happy to rejoin” if the council undergoes reform.

Mr. Pompeo ratcheted up the rhetoric by indicating that such a development could be far down the road.

“We have no doubt there was once a noble vision for this council,” he said. “But today we need to be honest. The Human Rights Council is a poor defender of human rights. Worse than that, the Human Rights Council has become an exercise in shameless hypocrisy, with many of the world’s worst human rights abuses going ignored and some of the world’s most serious offenders sitting on the council itself.”

Last week, reports speculated that the failure of frenzied behind-the-scenes negotiations to reform the body would trigger the Trump administration’s move. A major point of contention: Washington’s objection to Israel being the only country in the world whose rights record arose every council session as “Item 7” on the agenda.

Minutes after Tuesday’s announcement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted his thanks to the U.S.: “Israel thanks President Trump, Secretary Pompeo and Ambassador Haley for their courageous decision against the hypocrisy and the lies of the so-called UN Human Rights Council.”

Some observers noted that the move reinforces the perception that Mr. Trump is seeking to advance Israel’s agenda on the world stage ahead of a long-awaited White House peace plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, is visiting the Middle East this week as the White House prepares to announce its plan.

Human rights advocates denounced the administration’s action.

“The Trump administration’s withdrawal is a sad reflection of its one-dimensional human rights policy,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “Defending Israeli abuses from criticism takes precedence above all else.”

Democrats on Capitol Hill slammed the administration for stepping back from another international agreement, after withdrawals from the Paris climate accord, the U.N. educational and cultural organization and the Iran nuclear deal.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Christopher A. Coons, Delaware Democrat, said in a statement that the U.N. Human Rights Council is not perfect but the withdrawal sends a clear message that the administration “does not intend to lead the world when it comes to human rights.”

Rep. Nita M. Lowey, New York, called the move “another isolationist maneuver in its foreign policy strategy that is weakening U.S. global leadership.”

But some leading allies, including the United Kingdom, indicted they were firmly on board.

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson joined Washington on Monday in criticizing Item 7 and urging the council to reform. Other European nations and Australia have also sided with the Jewish state, noting that countries with worse human rights records, including Syria, were spared such intense scrutiny.

A key question is where a continued U.S. retreat in the U.N. would leave a beleaguered Israel.

The U.N. Human Rights Council was created in 2006 to replace the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which was widely discredited for electing member states with questionable track records on human rights.

The year it was created, the George W. Bush administration decided against seeking membership. The U.S. joined in 2009 under President Obama.

This article is based in part on wire service reports.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC.
To subscribe to Israel Commentary: Send your email address to
Please Like on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman
Web Page: https://israel-commentary.orgo o  for previous articles

Why the Democrats are turning against Israel

www.israel-commentary.org

Redacted from a more inclusive article by Caroline Glick

Originally published at Breitbart.com.

July 9, 2018

Since President Donald Trump entered the White House, hardly a day has gone by without Israel receiving a warning from a Democratic politician or a liberal American Jewish leader that it had better curb its enthusiasm and be reticent in its support for Trump and his policies.

The partisan split is clear. A Pew survey of American support for Israel in January noted a great and growing gap in partisan support for the Jewish state. 79 percent of Republicans support Israel against the Palestinians. Only 27 percent of Democrats do.

The latest warning came this week. Ambassador Dennis Ross, the former U.S. mediator for the peace talks between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), told the Jerusalem Post that Israel needs to watch out.

“Given the strong opposition by Democrats to Trump,” Ross warned, “Israel risks getting caught up in that conflict,” he told the Post.

“There will be a post-Trump U.S. … Israel risks a backlash because the Trump administration has caused such deep alienation among Democrats, so it’s very important that there is outreach by Israel to Democrats.”

Ross also had advice for what Israelis should talk about when they talk to Americans. Israelis, he said, should avoid talking about shared values and visions of the world. Instead, they should focus their discussions with Americans on both sides of the aisle on security issues and regional Middle East topics.

Ross’s warning that Israelis should avoid speaking to Americans about shared values points to the core of Israel’s problem with Democrats — and, increasingly, with the American Jewish community which splits two-to-one in support for Democrats over Republicans.

(Dennis Ross is for Dennis Ross and does not give a damn about Israel. He does and says only what will help his political career. He still has great ambitions to be back calling the shots in the American State Dept. Ross was an anti-Israel force in the Senior Bush and Bill Clinton’s State Department along with other self-hating Jews –  Martin Indyk, Aaron Miller, Richard Haase and of course,  Madeleine Albright. Their  supposed “assistance” all  but brought Israel to its knees with their various “peace plans” that continue to this very day. 

Ross was described as a “Jewish Arabist” in an article in Moment magazine (April 1991) by former Near East Report editor Eric Rozenman.   He wrote that Ross was responsible for shaping the Bush-Baker policy that was “indifferent to what Israel claimed as vital interests and undiplomatically hostile to Israel’s prime minister” and had made it “the least sympathetic American government toward Israel in that country’s 43 years.”

 Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir has said in his dealings with Ross, that Ross was consistently more sympathetic to Arab positions than Israel’s positions. )  Jerome S. Kaufman  

Why the concern for UNRWA?

On Monday, seven former US ambassadors to the UN sent a letter to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisting that the administration restore full funding to UNRWA, the UN agency that funds so-called Palestinian refugees.

Since UNRWA was established in 1949, the US has given nearly $5 billion to the agency tasked with perpetuating refugee status among descendants of Arabs who left Israel in the 1948-1949 pan-Arab invasion.

In January, then-secretary of state Rex Tillerson informed the UN that the US was slashing its assistance to UNRWA by 50%, from $260 million to $130 million. At the time, citing UNRWA’s support for terrorism and economic corruption, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley recommended ending US financial assistance for the agency outright.

Both Israel and the U.S. are states based on ideals and ideas rooted in the Bible. Jewish identity and attachment to the land of Israel, like Jewish survival through two thousand years of exile and homelessness, owe entirely to the faithfulness of Jewish people scattered throughout the world to the laws of Moses and to their national identity as the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This enduring attachment to Jewish law and heritage, and to national identity, is what brought millions of Jews to settle in the land of Israel both before and after the State of Israel was founded 70 years ago.

The Jews who have come to Israel from the four corners of the globe were not entering a foreign land as economic migrants. They were exiles returning home. Israel is not a nation of immigrants so much as a state populated by ingathered Jewish exiles.

The civic religion that emerged in the U.S. was inclusive to those who accepted its basic values and principles. Given that the social compacts of both Israel and the U.S. were forged by settlers informed by the Bible, it is little wonder that the two nations have always had a natural affinity for one another.

Which brings us back to Ross’s warning.

The problem that Israel now faces with the Democrats is that whereas Israelis have by and large remained faithful to their identity — and consequently, their nationalism, or Zionism — Democrats are increasingly becoming post-nationalist.

Consider the situation along Israel’s border with Syria.

For the past two weeks, as the Russian-Syrian-Iranian advance against rebel-held southwestern Syria has proceeded, some 270,000 Syrians have fled their homes in Deraa and Quneitra provinces. While the bulk of the displaced have fled to the Syrian-Jordanian border, several thousand have situated themselves along Syria’s border with Israel.

In Israel, there is all but consensual support for the government’s position, stated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his weekly cabinet meeting Sunday. Netanyahu said, “Regarding southern Syria, we will continue to defend our borders. We will extend humanitarian assistance to the extent of our abilities. We will not allow entry into our territory.” That is, Israelis are committed to being good neighbors to the Syrians.

Meretz, the Israeli far Left newspaper,  represents only some 4 percent of the electorate, opposes the very notion of Jewish nationalism, or Zionism. It believes that Israel should open its doors – as a Jewish state – to refugees and others, including illegal economic migrants from Africa.

Meretz’s leader, Tamar Zandberg, knows that her party has no significant support domestically. And so she has focused a great deal of effort on building strong ties to Democrats and to progressive, anti-nationalist American Jewish groups to increase her party’s power and leverage in Israel.

The problem is that over the past twenty years or so, the American left has undergone a profound shift in values, from liberal nationalism to radical post-nationalism. This process, facilitated and accelerated during Barack Obama’s presidency, and expressed most emblematically in Democratic support for open borders, has made post-nationalism the sine qua non of the Democrats since Trump’s electoral triumph in 2016.

But the fact is that the Democrats’ shift in values from nationalist to post-nationalist, rather than any action Israel has taken in its domestic or foreign policy, is what has caused the rupture in Israel’s ties to the American left.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary: Send your email address to
Please “Like” on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman
Web Page: https://israel-commentary.org for previous articles

Half of all Americans now live in ‘sanctuaries’ protecting illegal immigrants!

www.israel-commentary.org

Study finds great surge in criminal activity in those jurisdictions

By Stephen Dinan 

The Washington Times 

About half of all Americans now live under sanctuary policies that shield illegal immigrants from law enforcement, according to the latest tally of jurisdictions that the Federation for American Immigration Reform is releasing Thursday.

FAIR calculates there were 564 states and municipalities that refuse some level of cooperation with federal immigration authorities as of April 1, up more than 200 since President Trump took office and up more than 500 compared with a decade ago. There were just 40 sanctuaries when President Obama took office.

Entire states such as California, Illinois and New York are now sanctuaries, as well as major cities and counties such as Fairfax, Montgomery and Prince George’s counties and the District of Columbia in the capital region, according to the list.

Combined, the sanctuaries on FAIR’s list cover 49 percent of the country’s population, The Washington Times calculated.

“This is just an astounding and a dramatic surge of sanctuary jurisdictions,” said Bob Dane, executive director at FAIR. “They’ve doubled in just two years, and if you game that out, if the exponential growth continues, it’s not going to be long before it’s accurate to say the U.S. is a sanctuary country.”

While there is no official definition of sanctuaries, FAIR counted any jurisdiction that bans police or other officials from asking about immigration status, forbids communication with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or refuses to hold likely deportees for pickup by ICE.

The organization scoured local government policies, looked at press reports and used ICE’s own set of reports last year listing jurisdictions that refused to honor “detainer” requests to hold illegal immigrants.

FAIR’s numbers are higher than other counts, such as the Ohio Jobs and Justice Political Action Committee, which has been tracking sanctuaries for years, or the ICE detainer list, which was started then quickly discontinued last year.

The surge in sanctuaries began under Mr. Obama, with an average of three sanctuaries per month added during his two terms, according to FAIR statistics. Mr. Trump, meanwhile, is seeing an average of 16 new sanctuaries each month.

California looms large on the list. More than 130 of the sanctuaries are in the state — including more than 80 that are new additions to the list, reflecting the anti-Trump sentiment of the West Coast.

Some jurisdictions embrace the sanctuary label, such as the District of Columbia. Mayor Muriel Bowser says the city is proud of the work it does to shield illegal immigrants.

Others object to the label.

“Fairfax County is not a sanctuary county or sanctuary city,” Virginia’s largest jurisdiction says on its website.

Fairfax says its officials try to comply with federal laws regarding information sharing, so that makes it a “welcoming community” but not a sanctuary.

FAIR says the county is a sanctuary because it tells police not to ask about immigration status even during an arrest. The group says Fairfax also refuses to hold immigrants for pickup by ICE — a courtesy most police give to other police departments, but increasingly refuse to give to federal immigration authorities.

Fairfax officials also bowed to complaints from immigrant rights activists last month and blocked ICE representatives from speaking at a public committee meeting last month where the county’s cooperation limits were being reviewed.

Mr. Dane said that while it’s generally Democratic politicians who have defended sanctuaries, it’s up to Mr. Trump to find a way to stop them.

That means continuing to harangue Congress to pass legislation punishing sanctuaries and sending even more deportation officers into sanctuaries to go after illegal immigrants, Mr. Dane said.

Trump owns this problem. The buck stops on the president’s desk, even though it’s not his fault,” he said.

The House last year passed a bill to crack down on sanctuary cities, but the Senate was unable to clear a Democrat filibuster when the issue came to the upper chamber this year. Just four Democrats joined Republicans in voting to crack down on sanctuaries — leaving them six votes shy of the 60-vote threshold to end the filibuster.

Sanctuary city defenders say communities of immigrants — including those in the U.S. legally — feel more comfortable knowing their local officials refuse to cooperate with the federal government. They say immigrants are less likely to report crimes if they fear they themselves will be turned over for deportation.

In the first months after Mr. Trump took office, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said there was a marked drop in reports of rape or spousal abuse among Hispanics.

As controversial as they are, sanctuary cities have also been remarkably effective in their goal of keeping people out of the hands of ICE.

(Maybe you should check if your area is a sanctuary one?  Is that what you want?  I would think obviously not and you should, right now, lean on politicians to change this se]f- destructive state of affairs.) jsk

To subscribe to Israel Commentary: Send your email address to
Please Like on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman
Web Page: https://israel-commentary.orgo for previous articles

The Truth About Hamas and Israel and the “Peaceful” Demonstration

Israel Commentary

Neglected information and opinion relative to Israel, the Middle East and the immediate world.

The Truth About Hamas and Israel and the “Peaceful” Demonstration

www.israel-commentary.org

Dozens of Palestinians died to further the terror group’s lies—and the Western media ate it up.

By Ronen Manelis

Wall Street Journal

Sami Abu Zuhri is the spokesman for the extremist group Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization funded by Iran. Hamas controls Gaza and has killed innocent Israeli, American, Brazilian, Kenyan, British, French and Chinese civilians. 

As chief intelligence officer of the Israel Defense Forces’ Gaza division from 2012-14, I came to know Mr. Abu Zuhri and other Hamas spokesmen from a distance. Their modus operandi is simple: Lie. Their lies support the stated goal of Hamas: the delegitimization and destruction of Israel.

For weeks the international media has reported on violence on the border between Gaza and Israel. Hamas has continued to lie to the world, which is why their rare acknowledgments of truth are especially revealing. Hamas spokesmen raced to the press last week to lament the death of innocent civilians.  But a senior Hamas leader, Salah Bardawil, said in a May 16 interview with a Palestinian TV station: “In the last round of confrontations, if 62 people were martyred, 50 of them were Hamas.”

Hamas itself has confirmed that 80% of those killed in their violent riots last Monday were members of a terrorist group, not innocent civilians. Several more of the fatalities were claimed by Palestinian Islamic Jihad. 

On May 13, Mahmoud Al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas, said in an interview with Al Jazeera: “When we talk about ‘peaceful resistance,’ we are deceiving the public.” You can trust Hamas only when they admit to their lies.

The Hamas spokesmen orchestrated a well-funded terrorist propaganda operation. Behind the theatrics was a plan that threatened Israel’s border and civilians. Hamas provided free transportation from throughout the Gaza Strip to the border for innocent civilians, including women and children. 

Hamas hired them as extras, paying $14 a person or $100 a family for attendance—and $500 if they managed to get injured. Hamas forced all of their commanders and operatives to go to the border dressed as civilians, each serving as a director of an area—as if to direct their own stage of the operation.

The audience was the international media. Hamas gave anyone with a video camera front-row access to the show and free Wi-Fi. The IDF had precise intelligence that the violent riots were masking a plan of mass infiltration into Israel in order to carry out a massacre against Israeli civilians. Hamas called it a “peaceful protest,” and much of the world simply fell for it.

The idea that this was a peaceful protest is the biggest lie of all, because the basic tenets required for a protest in a democracy like the U.S. or Israel do not exist in Gaza. Under Hamas’s control, there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of religion, no freedom of the press. There can be no such thing as a peaceful protest in Gaza, only gatherings organized, sanctioned and funded by Hamas. Calling this a protest isn’t fake news, just fake.

In multiple assaults on the border this spring, Hamas has used machine guns, Molotov cocktails, airborne improvised explosive devices and grenades. Hundreds of Gazans have tried to blow up or tear down the fence between Gaza and Israel, with the intention of infiltrating our sovereign territory and reaching innocent Israelis who live minutes from the border.

On April 6 the Hamas political leader, Yahya Sinwar, stated: “We will take down the border [with Israel] and we will tear their hearts from their bodies.” On Facebook Hamas posted maps for their operatives showing the quickest routes from the border with Israel to Israelis’ homes, schools, and day-care centers near the border. Does that sound like a peaceful protest to you?

Facing the dangers posed by cowardly terrorists who disguise themselves as civilians, IDF soldiers acted with courage and restraint, following strict rules of engagement to ensure minimum civilian injury and loss of life while still protecting the border. 

As part of Hamas’s propaganda operation, hundreds of Gazans were injured last week and several dozen died, most of whom were Hamas operatives. None of this violence had to occur, but it was the violence that Hamas instigated and orchestrated so that the headlines and pictures would reinforce the lies that the Hamas spokesmen had planned.

Hamas can lie—to the world, to Palestinians and to their own commanders and operatives—but I am proud that the IDF will never lie or use Israeli civilians or soldiers as pawns. 

Some of Israel’s greatest friends might have preferred that we had looked better in the media this past week, but between vanity and truth, the IDF always chooses truth. It is that morality that sustains the IDF. The uniformed professional soldiers of the IDF may not photograph well compared with terrorists disguised as civilians—but we are honest about what we are and what we say. As the IDF spokesman, if I cannot source and cite material, I will not allow it to be published. I will not release any statement if the facts are in doubt.

Some in the media helped Hamas by publishing its lies rather than the facts. Hamas achieved negative media coverage about Israel after their first violent riot, on March 30, the first day of this propaganda operation. Hamas could have then claimed a propaganda victory, stopped the violence, and prevented many deaths. But for Hamas, lies are more important than lives.

If in order to win the international propaganda war I need to lie like Hamas, then I prefer to tell the truth and lose. The IDF will win where it matters—protecting our civilians in the face of terror. The soldiers of the IDF won this week by keeping Israeli families safe and by stopping Hamas from accomplishing its stated goals.

Even more than the lying, the true difference between Mr. Abu Zuhri and me is that he goes to sleep every night wishing for the destruction of my country and the death of my children. I go to sleep at night hoping for a better life for his children as well as mine. And that’s the truth.

Brig. Gen. Manelis is the spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

israelcommentary@comcast.net

Please “like” on Facebook  1)Israel Commentary   2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Web Page: https://israel-commentary.org for previous articles

Google: https://plus.google.com/collection/EfhSZE

 

10 reasons the unpatriotic, greedy, misguided, uninformed won’t let Trump end Islamic immigration, ban Muslim Brotherhood and save US/Western Civilization

The Muslim Brotherhood’s emblem and slogan is focused on spreading Islamic law through both the sword and peaceful jihad, also known as cultural or ‘civilization’ jihad.

Excerpted from an eye-opening article By LEO HOHMANN

(Are you strong enough to open your eyes and help save our nation?) jsk

When President Trump was on the campaign trail, he made Islamic immigration and terrorism a focal point of his candidacy.

He at one point expressed his desire to end all Muslim immigration “until we can figure out what the hell is going on.”

He said he wanted to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, potentially cutting the legs out from under this shadowy network of seditious Islamists whose self-described mission is the worldwide spread of Sharia law.

I don’t think Trump knows all that much about the Brotherhood’s history, its tactics or its deceptive, two-pronged strategy of using both terror and peaceful political warfare against the enemies of Allah. 

Trump was simply responding to the global rise in terrorism that was coinciding with a mass population shift from the Islamic world into the Western democracies.

Western Europe, which has allowed the largest influx of Muslim migrants, has experienced the most terrorism, not to mention a huge spike in sexual assaults on its women. Then, to make matters worse, European governments sided with the migrants against their own people, clamping down on the free speech of any non-Muslims who complained about the Muslim atrocities. Trump saw what was going on in Europe and, rightly, wanted to stop it from coming here.

This is why the establishment elites hate Trump. He came out of nowhere to disrupt their plan to divide and conquer the last bulwark against global governance, America, using Islam as the battering ram that would crush the decaying remnants of Western Christianity. 

Upon the ashes of Christendom these elites would build their long-awaited new world order. This new order would feature a monstrous surveillance state watching the activities of every human being all the time, and a new religious fervor slanted toward Islam, the fastest-growing and most intolerant religion on earth.

Even before he took office, Trump came under pressure to back off his promises related to immigration and banning the Muslim Brotherhood. Those applying the pressure were  offshoots of the Brotherhood working in alliance with leftist Democrats and corporatist Republicans, all of whom are invested in building this new world order. 

He changed his talking points. Instead of halting Muslim immigration Trump said he would settle for “extreme vetting” to protect America from the disastrous outcomes Europeans were being forced to live with as a result of their governments’ open-borders, welcome all, immigration policies.

Once in office, Trump quickly discovered that even extreme vetting and a temporary travel ban would face fierce opposition. Useful idiots flooded airports and city blocks protesting his policy, which was inaccurately characterized as a “Muslim ban.”

Truth be told, due to foreign-policy entanglements, Trump never included some of the world’s most dangerous jihad mills – Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan – in his travel ban.

And when I refer to jihadists I am not talking merely of violent terrorists. I am talking about all of the Muslim men, women, preachers and businessmen it will take to build the ranks of support for a cultural remaking of America – essentially trading our Judeo-Christian heritage for one made in the image of Allah and his prophet.

What we are talking about here is a process of setting the table, laying the foundations, for the replacement of our Constitution with something more Sharia friendly. 

When a retired Supreme Court justice calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment, which John Paul Stevens did this week in an op-ed for the New York Times, and Americans routinely get punished professionally or smeared in the media for stating the obvious about Islam — that it is a violent, intolerant religion — please know that we are already halfway down the road toward the living hell known as Sharia.

By simply poking around the extremities of the beast, stopping short of a full-on declaration of war against the Brotherhood and its myriad Sharia-supporting front groups, Trump has stirred up the proverbial hornets’ nest.

Islamic immigration will be difficult to stop because it fills too many needs within post-Christian Western societies like the EU and US:

1 It fills employment rolls with cheap, controllable labor at hotels, airports, theme parks, meatpacking and food-processing plants.

2 It fills mosques, which form the glue that holds the ummah [global Islamic community] together and keeps it from assimilating into Western culture.

3 It fills voter rolls for the Democratic Party as more than 70 percent of Muslim migrants vote Democrat.

4 It fills the financial coffers of federal contractors who line their pockets with taxpayer-funded cash under the guise of humanitarianism. These groups, which include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and Episcopal Migration Ministries, get paid by the head with your tax dollars for every refugee they secretly relocate from the Islamic world into your city or town.

5 It fills the enrollments of U.S. colleges and universities with tuition-paying Arab students from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, and Yemen, as well as non-Arab Muslims from Pakistan, India, and Turkey. Most of these foreign students pay the full tuition rate, not the discounted rates paid by American students. They are seen as cash cows.

6 It fills U.S. Census forms in large, Democrat-run cities. Most Rustbelt cities like Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Rochester, Minneapolis and Cleveland have been losing population for years, but they have an ace in the hole to counter this death spiral. By throwing out the welcome mat to illegal aliens and Third World refugees, they can replace lost Americans with foreigners and thereby remain a force in the redistricting process every 10 years based on inflated census numbers. Even if the refugees and migrants never become voting citizens, their mere presence counted on a Census form ensures big-city Democrats get to send more representatives to their State Capitols and to Congress. This is why CAIR and Democrats are demanding Trump retract his idea of adding a question about citizenship to the census.

7 It further legitimizes seditious Muslim Brotherhood front groups that claim to speak for all Muslims, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and the Muslim Student Association. The U.S. military focuses on the Islamic threat overseas, but who stands up to these bullying organizations at home and counters the threat of cultural jihad waged from within? This is the process the Brotherhood refers to in its own documents as “civilization jihad” and they are light years ahead of us in waging this war of words and ideas.

8 It further divides Americans and wears down the social cohesion that is critical to the survival of any nation. These divisions accelerate the drive toward global governance as nations divided against themselves cannot stand. A divided nation is more likely to look to global bodies like the U.N. for answers to its problems. Yes, the globalist mantra “diversity is our strength” uttered repeatedly by the Bushes, Obamas and Clintons really is a lie modeled after the ancient legend of the Trojan Horse.

9 It furthers the agenda of the anti-Israel lobby in the U.S. There is no group that can be counted on more reliably to advance the anti-Israel agenda of the U.N. than Sharia-compliant Muslims. They will vote for anti-Israel candidates and support Israel’s enemies, including Hamas and Hezbollah, at every opportunity.

10 It furthers the agenda of globalist elites to replace capitalism with socialism. Islamic societies are inherently socialist societies. The world’s technocratic thought leaders recognize this and would love nothing more than to be able to attach a global religion to their political drive toward global domination.

As you can see, the stars are not aligned in Trump’s favor when it comes to the two-edged sword of Islamic immigration and the entrenched Muslim Brotherhood movement that greets Muslim migrants as soon as they arrive on U.S. shores, encouraging them not to assimilate. More than 75 percent of U.S. mosques have at least some connection to the Brotherhood, either through funding sources or theological connections to Sharia-adherent preachers.

Trump has succeeded in slowing the flow of jihadists into America, but his current policy is too little, too late, and not enough to save the country.

Unless Trump doubles down on his original plan to engage the enemy within, his administration will be remembered as one that failed to deliver much to the cause of freedom. That would be a shame, because I do believe Trump is the only modern-day president who recognized the danger of Islam, even if he didn’t fully understand how it works from within to undermine a free society.

Leo Hohmann is a veteran journalist and author of the 2017 book “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad.”

Congress to Consider Recognition of Israeli Sovereignty Over Golan Heights

New measure recognizes Israel’s control of Syrian territory

Israeli soldiers are seen in the Golan Heights

Israeli soldiers are seen in the Golan Heights / Getty Images

BY:

Congress is set to consider a new measure to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the contested Golan Heights region that separates Israel from Syria, a key piece of territory that has become all the more important since the civil war in Syria brought scores of jihadist fighters, including those backed by Iran, into the region.

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, (fantastic supporter) introduced on Thursday a resolution that could lead to an historic recognition by the United States that the contested area fully belongs to Israel, according to a copy of the amendment obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 following the Six Day War in the late 60s with Arab nations in the region. The United States has declined for decades to take a position on the status of this territory, but following President Donald Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, DeSantis and others see an opportunity for the United States to recognize another territorial reality—that the Golan Heights will not be given back to Syria, particularly in light of the strife gripping the country.

The amendment puts the United States on Israel’s side in the land dispute and describes the Golan Heights as a key piece of territory that cannot fall into the hands of Iran, which has staked claims in Syria and continues to threaten Israel’s northern border.

“It is the sense of the Congress that the Golan Heights represent an integral part of the state of Israel and are crucial to the ability of Israel to safeguard its borders and maintain its existence,” the measure states.

“Given the civil war in Syria and the expansion of Iranian influence in Syria, the United States should recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights,” the amendment adds.

The House Rules Committee is in possession of the measure, but have yet to take a stance.

DeSantis told the Free Beacon the Golan Heights territory is key to thwarting Iranian influence across the region and that the United States’ recognition that Israel owns the territory could send a powerful message across the region.

“The continuing turmoil in Syria and the steady expansion of Iranian influence illustrate why the Golan Heights are so important to the state of Israel and the anti-terror alliance,” DeSantis said. “The Golan provides Israel with a necessary buffer against the malevolent actors that are wreaking havoc in Syria.”

If Israel was forced to give back the territory it would leave itself vulnerable to an increase in terror attacks from Iranian controlled forces and other malevolent actors who would use the Golan region to stage strikes, DeSantis said.

“Indeed, Israel would be hard-pressed to ward off such threats without the Golan,” the lawmaker explained. “Given the interest of the U.S. in rolling back Iranian influence and combating terrorism, it is time for the United States to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.”

As with the United States’ recent recognition that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital city, the recognition that the Golan Heights cannot be given back to Syria represents a factual reality on the ground, DeSantis said.

“There is no conceivable scenario in which it makes sense for Israel to abandon such a strategically significant location so that terrorists can fill the vacuum left behind,” he said.

Jewish Secular and Religious Organizations too frightened to distinguish their friends from their enemies. So, what else is new?

www.israel-commentary.org

THE DISINTEGRATION OF AMERICAN JEWRY

Although right-wing anti-semitism has made headlines, the real threat emanates from the viciously anti-Israel and antisemitic Left.

Redacted from a fantastic  article by ISI LEIBLER that should be read in its entirety

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-disintegration-of-American-Jewry-553261

Jerusalem Post Opinion

MAY 1, 2018 

American Jewry, apart from the Orthodox and a minority of committed non-Orthodox, is demographically imploding.

Paradoxically, this is taking place at a time when support for Israel among the American people is at an all-time high and traditional anti-semitism is at its lowest level. Jewish education among non-Orthodox Jews is catastrophic, with widespread ignorance of Judaism and understanding about Israel. Assimilation is rampant, with intermarriage levels reaching 70%.

Although right-wing anti-semitism has made headlines, the real threat emanates from the viciously anti-Israel and anti-semitic Left and the growing numbers of Muslim extremists.

Under normal circumstances, a proud Jewish community, supported by most Americans, could neutralize these negative elements. However, the crisis is largely internal. In the past, American Jews, with valid historical justifications, have always had a penchant for liberalism. Their attachments to Israel and Judaism were synonymous and liberal political forces were Israel’s strongest supporters, while conservatives were less inclined to support the Jewish state.

However, over the past two decades, the far Left has become viciously anti-Israeli, even supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and depicting Israel as an imperialist occupier.

This trend reached a climax under US president Barack Obama, who made overtures to the Iranians and treated Israel politically as a rogue state.

Aside from ZOA head Morton Klein, not a single mainstream Jewish leader had the courage to stand up and protest Obama’s bias against Israel and his constant bracketing of Israeli defensive actions as morally equivalent to the actions of terrorists.

Despite this, incredibly, aside from African-Americans, the Jews remained consistently Obama’s greatest supporters.

When Donald Trump was elected president, the hatred manifested against him from the bulk of the Jewish leadership reached hysterical levels.

Many of the so-called leaders intensified the anti-Israeli hysteria by falsely accusing Trump of fascism and even anti-semitism – despite his Jewish friends and family members and outstanding support for Israel. In fact, the administration’s wholehearted, ongoing support for the Jewish state even seemed to intensify their anti-Israeli inclinations.

The Anti-Defamation League, headed by Jonathan Greenblatt, relinquished any pretense of being apolitical.

It continuously lashed out against the administration and behaved like an extension of the extreme anti-Trump opposition. The ADL frequently seemed more inclined to defend Muslim extremists than Jews, maintaining that organizations like Canary Mission, which exposes antisemitism on college campuses, are Islamophobic and racist.

It also ignored or dismissed much of the left-wing antisemitism and soft-pedaled its criticism of Black Lives Matter, an organization that accused Israel of ethnic cleansing and exaggerated the influence of far-right radicals, seeking to link them to Trump. The ADL also took upon itself to repeatedly condemn Israeli policies and the so-called “occupation.”

The Reform movement leader, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, behaved similarly, usually with the support of leaders of the Conservative movement. Jacobs initially even condemned Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

In this environment, the anti-Israeli-government J Street was absurdly promoted by sectors of the establishment as a moderate and a legitimate vehicle to soften the more delusional Jewish groups openly seeking the demise of Israel and even defending Hamas.

By remaining silent and appealing for tolerance even toward groups castigating Israel like Jewish Voice for Peace, the Jewish establishment created a defeatist climate, paving the way for the chaos currently prevailing in the Jewish community.

This has impacted on large numbers of Jews, especially youth with virtually no Jewish education and for whom Israel has already become a marginal factor.

In turn, this has strengthened the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement and created an atmosphere in which it is chic for unaffiliated Jews to distance themselves from, or in some cases even publicly condemn Israel.

Twenty years ago, it would have been inconceivable to have any other than delusional Jewish fringe groups attacking Israel. Today, especially on campuses, it requires courage to even stand up against these perverted anti-Israeli Jews.

These self-hating Jewish deviants have combined with Muslim extremists and the far Left to intimidate Jews committed to Israel, making life for them unbearable, particularly on campuses. They are at the forefront of the BDS movement, deny Israeli spokesmen the right to speak, disrupt their lectures and support the depiction of Israel as an apartheid state.

The extent of the madness is reflected in groups of Jewish radicals publicly reciting Kaddish for jihadist Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers defending their borders.

Sadly, many Jewish leaders urge supporters of Israel to be tolerant of these hostile Jewish groups and, rather than confronting them, entreat them to engage in dialogue. Regrettably, many Hillel groups encourage and provide venues for such dialogue.

It is hardly surprising that, in such an environment, encouraged by the anti-Israel media and the radical wing of the Democratic Party, whereas in the past Jewish support for Israel was almost a given, today the preponderance of liberal Jews – especially their leaders – feel awkward supporting Israel. Wishing to conform to their self-image as “enlightened,” in most cases they feel comfortable publicly condemning the Israeli government.

The current, almost unprecedented unity of the Israeli people transcends politics over issues such as war and peace, defense of the borders and deterring terrorism, including the violent efforts by Hamas to breach Israel’s borders. This is ignored by many liberal American Jews living in an atmosphere in which they not only feel the need to conform and condemn Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his democratically elected government but in many cases, go even further, castigating the IDF for allegedly responding disproportionately to terrorists who use human shields.

It is time for those committed to Israel to be courageous and stand up and be counted. They should dismiss the absurdity of promoting the “big tent” and attempts to engage in dialogue with Jews condemning Israel’s right to defend itself.

They should publicly demand the resignation of leaders who criticize Israel’s security policies, which are supported by a broad Israeli consensus. They should call on their leaders to publicly castigate Jews who denigrate Israel and expel from their ranks those who support or tolerate groups promoting BDS or defend those seeking Israel’s destruction.

Jews who align themselves with Islamic extremists or the anti-semitic far Left are equivalent to Jews who would have supported the Nazis had Hitler not turned on them. They should be spurned by the community and rejected from Jewish gatherings or synagogues.

Until there are Jewish leaders who are fully committed to supporting Israel during these critical times rather than primarily concerned with displaying their tolerance toward those who seek our destruction, the disintegration of the non-Orthodox American Jewish community will proceed unimpeded.

The author’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com. He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

israelcommentary@comcast.net or join directly at web page:

www.israel-commentary.org   and for previous articles.

Facebook :  Please “like” 1)Israel Commentary   2) Jerome S. Kaufman

 

My ‘Black Lives Matter’ Problem (Or… is it Your Problem?)

“Black Lives Matter” is wrong on crime, wrong on Israel, and wrong on education.

www.israel-commentary.org

By Jason D. Hill

Excerpted and redacted from the article in COMMENTARY,  JUNE 2018

… I had lunch recently with a retired (uber liberal) professor who once taught at a university in New York and now teaches inside prisons.… 

… Our conversation, had left my mind racing with thoughts about the moral hypocrisy of Black Lives Matter. I thought about two transgressive and unpardonable sins of the Black Lives Matter movement. The first has to do with its outrageous position on Israel; the second pertains to its immoral demands regarding the education of black Americans.

The leaders of Black Lives Matter have written a profoundly anti-Israel (and anti-American) manifesto in which they accuse Israel of “genocide” and “apartheid.” The manifesto endorses the “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions” (BDS) movement and takes the view that the United States justifies and advances the global war on terror via its alliances with Israel. This, according to Black Lives Matter, makes the U.S. complicit in a supposedly genocidal massacre of the Palestinian people.

As a staunch defender of Israel on moral grounds, I categorically condemn the moral ineptitude of the Black Lives Matter movement on this point. If there is a victim in the Middle East, it is the beleaguered state of Israel. 

The Jewish state is the only technologically advanced and democratic country in a region of illiberal, primitive, and human-rights-abusing nations that treat women worse than cattle and don’t know the meaning of religious reciprocity. 

Since its founding, Israel has fought marauders in the likes of the Jordanians, the Egyptians, and the Syrians. These parties have invaded Israel, threatened her right to exist, and tried to eliminate her and Jewry itself from the region. 

Israel’s enemies among the Palestinians have sought to do the same with the help of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority. And the Palestinians have made an unprecedented demand in the history of warfare. Displaced by a war that their leaders started and lost, they claim a right to return to a territory they failed to conquer. 

While Arab Israelis serve in the Knesset side by side with Israeli Jews, Palestinians have elected governments whose charters have called for the annihilation of Jews and whose leaders portray Jews as pigs, vermin, and an evil to be eradicated.

Israel is the only country I know of that grants citizenship and land rights to its avowed enemies. What’s more, Israel offered a Palestinian state to both Yassir Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas and was not only repeatedly turned down but repaid with the second intifada and the indiscriminate murder of Israeli citizens. Palestinian intransigence is forged in the conviction that no deal will be made so long as Jews—any Jews—occupy the land of Israel. 

In 2005, Israel unilaterally handed over its territory in Gaza to the terrorist government Hamas and was, and still is, rewarded by a daily showering of rockets into Israeli land.

With its accusations against Israeli Jews, Black Lives Matter suggests that in their support of Israel, such Jews are complicit in the unproven crimes of genocide and apartheid. We must remember that even amid the daily onslaughts of war and terror that Palestinians inflict on Jews, the Israelis, in a spirit of almost irrational altruism, take great pains to limit civilian casualties and to ensure that those caught in a war they did not personally initiate are spared as much harm as possible.

Black Lives Matter is not only being unjust toward Israel; its anti-Israel stance betrays Jews in America, to whom blacks in this country are enormously indebted. If there are any unsung heroes of the civil-rights movement, it is those Jews who played an enormous but largely unacknowledged role in the liberation of blacks from racial oppression.

 American Jews undertook monumental efforts to found and fund some of the most important civil-rights organizations in the U.S. These include the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1909, Henry Moscowitz joined W.E.B. Du Bois and other civil-rights leaders to create the NAACP. The vice chairman of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (now the Union for Reform Judaism), Kivie Kaplan, served as the national president of the NAACP from 1966 to 1975. Arnie Aronson worked with A. Philip Randolph and Roy Wilkins to found the Leadership Conference.

From 1910 to 1940, there were more than 2,000 primary and secondary schools and 20 black colleges (including Howard, Dillard, and Fisk Universities) established in whole or in part by contributions from Jewish philanthropist Julius Rosenwald. 

At the height of enrollment at the so-called Rosenwald schools, nearly 40 percent of Southern blacks were educated at one of these institutions. 

During the civil-rights movement, Jewish activists represented a disproportionate number of whites involved in the struggle for black emancipation. Jews made up half of the young people who participated in the Mississippi Freedom Summer in 1964. Leaders of the Jewish Reform Movement were arrested with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in St. Augustine, Florida, in 1964, after mounting a challenge to racial segregation in public accommodations. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were drafted in the conference room of the Religious Action Center (RAC) of Reform Judaism, under the aegis of the Leadership Conference, which for decades was in the RAC’s building.

The hard, cold, and unsentimental fact of the matter is that without Jewish financial backing and moral contributions, there may never have been a civil-rights movement.

There is another morally irresponsible claim made by the Black Lives Matter movement—a claim that should offend any self-respecting black American citizen. I refer to the movement’s demand that the United States provide free college education to blacks. 

On what grounds is this organization making such a demand? Why free college education for blacks but not for poor whites or for Latino, Asian, or Native-American college students? What special sociopolitical conditions exist for blacks that do not hold for other ethnic or racial groups such that blacks deserve to be exempt from paying college tuition?

Could it be that the spokespersons for the movement are failing here to recognize another cultural pathology blacks face? I have in mind the problem of single-parent families—in which 70 percent of African-American children now live. This is a financially untenable situation for a massive swath of black America. And it is certainly an issue over which blacks have control. 

The cardinal sin of asking for anything for free in this life is that you abnegate your responsibility not just for maintaining your existence but, more important, for achieving your humanity. 

The demand for a free education, along with the demand for race-based reparations by Black Lives Matter and others, is symptomatic of another problem in race relations. There are those on the left who see self-reliance, initiative, and a commitment to one’s own life as, at best, hopelessly naive. 

Such people see grit, honor, hard work, and self-reliance as “white” ideals that are being imposed on others. Those traits reinforce whiteness, in their minds, and there is a gnawing resentment of those blacks who wish to appropriate such virtues for themselves. They cease being black in the minds of some on the far left. 

Such ideas assume a malevolence about the American polis that is untenable and empirically false. No doors are closed forever to anyone in this great country of ours. If your ethos and character disposition are set for achievement, if your will is wedded to a resilience and tenacity, and you rid yourself of the idea that you are entitled to the financial earnings of other people, you will find a way to make it here. 

On the other hand, the kind of dependency that Black Lives Matter promotes lays the groundwork for personal failure.  (And their followers proudly embrace that perpetual personal failure, aiding and abetting their own self-destruction) jsk

pastedGraphic.png

This essay is adapted from Jason D. Hill’s forthcoming book We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People, which will be published by Bombardier Books in July and is available for pre-publication sale on Amazon.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

israelcommentary@comcast.net

Please “like” on Facebook  1)Israel Commentary   2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Web Page: https://israel-commentary.org for previous articles

 

How Jews continue to send contributions to the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) is beyond understanding. 

(Once again the ADL lines itself up with the US and Israel’s arch enemy dedicated to its destruction and the adaption of Sharia law undermining, in every aspect, our Judea-Christian Ethic namely:

CORE – Council on American Islamic Relations and designated as an unindicted conspirator by U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis who found that the government presented “ample evidence to establish the association” of three organizations with Hamas, a Palestinian group that the U.S. has labeled as a terrorist organization and with a defunct charity convicted in the terrorism support case, the Holy Land Foundation.

Despite this common knowledge the ADL deliberately acted against the actions of  some of the best friends, Donald Trump and John Bolton, Israel and the Jews have ever had in the Administration. 

Equally astounded by the ADL action was long time astute political commentary and Israel supporter, Frank J. Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy. He blasted critics of John Botton and Donald Trump as “Far from being concerned that terrorist fronts and their enablers are in hysterics because Donald Trump has entrusted these key roles to Fred Fleitz, the American people (especially the ADL) should be delighted with this fresh evidence that the president is determined to keep his promise to make America safe, as well as great again,” he said.   (jsk)

John Bolton’s Deputy Draws Ire of Jewish, Muslim Groups

Trump supporters defend appointment of Fred Fleitz to National Security Council post

By Dion Nissenbaum

June 1, 2018

WASHINGTON—Jewish and Muslim groups are objecting to the appointment of a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst to a top White House post because of his controversial views of Islam.

The Anti-Defamation League, Council on American-Islamic Relations and other groups said Fred Fleitz shouldn’t serve as chief of staff to national security adviser John Bolton because he has advanced what they call Islamophobic views.

As a conservative analyst, Mr. Fleitz has called for the U.S. to formally declare war on a broadly defined Global Jihad Movement; suggested that most mosques in America are incubators for subversion or violence; and denounced some interfaith dialogue efforts in America as a move by “stealth jihadists” to undermine the country’s democratic values.

Mr. Bolton’s decision to bring Mr. Fleitz into the key White House role suggests that the new national security adviser might be moving back toward a more confrontational approach to Islam such as that favored by President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser, Mike Flynn, critics said.

“The appointment of Fred Fleitz speaks volumes about the administration’s prioritization of fear mongering and racism over actual national security issues,” said Scott Simpson, public advocacy director for Muslim Advocates, a Washington-based group.

Mr. Fleitz didn’t directly respond to requests for comment. But the Trump administration defended Mr. Fleitz on Thursday and a senior administration official characterized the criticism of him as “a deliberate smear campaign from the left against the Trump administration.”

Until this week, Mr. Fleitz served as senior vice president for policy and programs at the Center for Security Policy, a conservative think tank that has been called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil-rights group, because of its views of Islam.

Frank J. Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy, blasted critics of Mr. Fleitz.:

“Far from being concerned that terrorist fronts and their enablers are in hysterics because Donald Trump has entrusted these key roles to Fred Fleitz, the American people should be delighted with this fresh evidence that the president is determined to keep his promise to make America safe, as well as great again,” he said.

The senior administration official suggested that the criticism was the byproduct of left-leaning groups embittered by Mr. Fleitz’s long-running critique of their work.

Mr. Fleitz spent nearly two decades with the CIA and served as Mr. Bolton’s chief of staff when he was undersecretary of state for arms control. Since 2011, Mr. Fleitz has been a conservative commentator, analyst and researcher.

In 2015, he was one of several co-authors of “The Secure Freedom Strategy: A Plan for Victory Over the Global Jihad Movement,” a book that laid out a call for the U.S. to formally declare war on the movement and to embark on clandestine operations to destroy it.

The authors said that 80% of American mosques are “incubators of, at best, subversion, and, at worst, violence and should be treated accordingly.”

The authors also suggested that a “majority of Muslims and Islamic authorities” support efforts to impose Islamic law across the world.

Critics of Mr. Fleitz suggested that his elevation to the key post could signal a return to a more confrontational approach to Islam by the National Security Council.

But administration officials said Mr. Fleitz was unlikely to play a significant role in shaping policy because he was expected to focus largely on administrative issues in his role as chief of staff and executive secretary.

At the start of the Trump administration, Mr. Flynn hired a number of people at the National Security Council holding provocative views on how to address Islamic extremism. When Mr. Flynn was forced to resign after less than a month on the job, he was succeeded by Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, who shied away from using the term “radical Islamic terrorism,” a term Mr. Trump embraced on the campaign trail.

Mr. Trump named Mr. Bolton to succeed Gen. McMaster in March. Mr. Bolton has moved slowly to install his own team at the National Security Council.

Dion Nissenbaum is a national security reporter based in Washington for The Wall Street Journal. He covers the defense industry and the Pentagon.To contact Mr. Nissenbaum, call 202-862-6617 or e-mail dion.nissenbaum@wsj.com. Follow him on Twitter: @DionNissenbaum

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

israelcommentary@comcast.net

Please “like” on Facebook  1)Israel Commentary   2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Web Page: https://israel-commentary.org for previous articles

Google: https://plus.google.com/collection/EfhSZE

pastedGraphic.pngpastedGraphic_1.pngpastedGraphic_2.pngpastedGraphic_3.png

Summary of Holiday of Shavuos. Hashem chooses the Jews to receive his Torah

From: www.chabad.org

 The holiday of  Shavuot celebrates  3,330 years since Hashem’s rendezvous with the Jewish people at a humble  mountain called Sinai.

It was – the first and only time the Creator communicated  with an entire nation,  a mere fifty days after taking them from Egypt.  Hashem gave the Torah to the Jews, entrusting a nation of recent slaves with the  cosmic mission of bringing  Divine light to the universe. This moment and mission are celebrated on the holiday of Shavuos.                                                    

The Torah        

Torah is Hashem’s wisdom, an expression of His essence. He created the universe so that the Torah’ s ideals could be actualized                                                          

 The Torah, as we experience it, is Divine  wisdom distilled for consumption by the  human mind. By studying its laws, logic and  stories, it becomes possible to wrap our rational  minds around Divine concepts.                                                           

To nourish you mind and soul, study whenever you can — ideally a chapter each morning  and evening.                                                                                 

To start today, check out, https://www.chabad.org , the #1 Judaism website on line.                                                                    

Counting the days to Hashem’s giving the Torah to the Jews                                                                              

Shavuot means “weeks,” referring to the  seven weeks our ancestors counted between Exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Torah. Today we count  as well, reciting a special  blessing and prayer  each of the 49 consecutive  nights between Passover  and Shavuot. This step-by-step process prepares  us to receive the Torah on the day of  Shavuot itself                                                

Cust0mary All Night long Prayer session

On the morning the Hebrews  were to receive the Torah,  our ancestors slept late. They sincerelY thought that they would be best able to receive the Torah if unconstrained by physical bodies —their souls could tap into sub-conscience realms beyond the mind.                                                  

In truth, Hashem  wantS us to be  present an awake in our service.  Instead                                   of escaping the physical world to reach holiness, we can use Torah to make the world  itself holy.                                                              

We compensate for our ancestors’ misjudgment by staying up the entire first night of Shavuot (Saturday Night, May 19, 2018)  studying Torah.  Many local Chabad centers will be hosting all-night Torah-fests, with                            .interesting lectures and discussion, plus lots  of delicious treats.                                                      

 Shavuot and Kids                                                          

Before giving the Torah, Hashem asked the Jews for a guarantor to ensure its perpetuation even as the demands of daily life overtook our focus. They suggested the elderly or the sages —people who had the time and energy                                to champion the Torah. But G-d wanted to know that everyone would hold the Torah  dear.

When they said “Our children will be our guarantors,” Hashem was satisfied that all through history, the Torah would be transmitted through our kids — our very future.                                   

Children naturally absorb the Torah’s moral concepts, which is why children of all ages, even infants, should go to synagogue to                           hear the reading of the Ten Commandments  on Shavuot (Sunday, May 20, 2018), reliving the event as we experienced it the first time.  

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

israelcommentary@comcast.net

Facebook:  1)Israel Commentary   2) Jerome S. Kaufman  

Please “like” on Facebook

Web Page: https://israel-commentary.org – previous articles

Google: https://plus.google.com/collection/EfhSZE

pastedGraphic.pngpastedGraphic_1.pngpastedGraphic_2.pngpastedGraphic_3.png

The Truth About Hamas and Israel and the “Peaceful” Demonstration


www.israel-commentary.org

Dozens of Palestinians died to further the terror group’s lies—and the Western media ate it up.

By Ronen Manelis

Wall Street Journal, May 21, 2018

Sami Abu Zuhri is the spokesman for the extremist group Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization funded by Iran. Hamas controls Gaza and has killed innocent Israeli, American, Brazilian, Kenyan, British, French and Chinese civilians. 

As chief intelligence officer of the Israel Defense Forces’ Gaza division from 2012-14, I came to know Mr. Abu Zuhri and other Hamas spokesmen from a distance. Their modus operandi is simple: Lie. Their lies support the stated goal of Hamas: the delegitimization and destruction of Israel.

For weeks the international media has reported on violence on the border between Gaza and Israel. Hamas has continued to lie to the world, which is why their rare acknowledgments of truth are especially revealing. Hamas spokesmen raced to the press last week to lament the death of innocent civilians.  But a senior Hamas leader, Salah Bardawil, said in a May 16 interview with a Palestinian TV station: “In the last round of confrontations, if 62 people were martyred, 50 of them were Hamas.”

Hamas itself has confirmed that 80% of those killed in their violent riots last Monday were members of a terrorist group, not innocent civilians. Several more of the fatalities were claimed by Palestinian Islamic Jihad. 

On May 13, Mahmoud Al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas, said in an interview with Al Jazeera: “When we talk about ‘peaceful resistance,’ we are deceiving the public.” You can trust Hamas only when they admit to their lies.

The Hamas spokesmen orchestrated a well-funded terrorist propaganda operation. Behind the theatrics was a plan that threatened Israel’s border and civilians. Hamas provided free transportation from throughout the Gaza Strip to the border for innocent civilians, including women and children. 

Hamas hired them as extras, paying $14 a person or $100 a family for attendance—and $500 if they managed to get injured. Hamas forced all of their commanders and operatives to go to the border dressed as civilians, each serving as a director of an area—as if to direct their own stage of the operation.

The audience was the international media. Hamas gave anyone with a video camera front-row access to the show and free Wi-Fi. The IDF had precise intelligence that the violent riots were masking a plan of mass infiltration into Israel in order to carry out a massacre against Israeli civilians. Hamas called it a “peaceful protest,” and much of the world simply fell for it.

The idea that this was a peaceful protest is the biggest lie of all, because the basic tenets required for a protest in a democracy like the U.S. or Israel do not exist in Gaza. Under Hamas’s control, there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of religion, no freedom of the press. There can be no such thing as a peaceful protest in Gaza, only gatherings organized, sanctioned and funded by Hamas. Calling this a protest isn’t fake news, just fake.

In multiple assaults on the border this spring, Hamas has used machine guns, Molotov cocktails, airborne improvised explosive devices and grenades. Hundreds of Gazans have tried to blow up or tear down the fence between Gaza and Israel, with the intention of infiltrating our sovereign territory and reaching innocent Israelis who live minutes from the border.

On April 6 the Hamas political leader, Yahya Sinwar, stated: “We will take down the border [with Israel] and we will tear their hearts from their bodies.” On Facebook Hamas posted maps for their operatives showing the quickest routes from the border with Israel to Israelis’ homes, schools, and day-care centers near the border. Does that sound like a peaceful protest to you?

Facing the dangers posed by cowardly terrorists who disguise themselves as civilians, IDF soldiers acted with courage and restraint, following strict rules of engagement to ensure minimum civilian injury and loss of life while still protecting the border. 

As part of Hamas’s propaganda operation, hundreds of Gazans were injured last week and several dozen died, most of whom were Hamas operatives. None of this violence had to occur, but it was the violence that Hamas instigated and orchestrated so that the headlines and pictures would reinforce the lies that the Hamas spokesmen had planned.

Hamas can lie—to the world, to Palestinians and to their own commanders and operatives—but I am proud that the IDF will never lie or use Israeli civilians or soldiers as pawns. 

Some of Israel’s greatest friends might have preferred that we had looked better in the media this past week, but between vanity and truth, the IDF always chooses truth. It is that morality that sustains the IDF. The uniformed professional soldiers of the IDF may not photograph well compared with terrorists disguised as civilians—but we are honest about what we are and what we say. As the IDF spokesman, if I cannot source and cite material, I will not allow it to be published. I will not release any statement if the facts are in doubt.

Some in the media helped Hamas by publishing its lies rather than the facts. Hamas achieved negative media coverage about Israel after their first violent riot, on March 30, the first day of this propaganda operation. Hamas could have then claimed a propaganda victory, stopped the violence, and prevented many deaths. But for Hamas, lies are more important than lives.

If in order to win the international propaganda war I need to lie like Hamas, then I prefer to tell the truth and lose. The IDF will win where it matters—protecting our civilians in the face of terror. The soldiers of the IDF won this week by keeping Israeli families safe and by stopping Hamas from accomplishing its stated goals.

Even more than the lying, the true difference between Mr. Abu Zuhri and me is that he goes to sleep every night wishing for the destruction of my country and the death of my children. I go to sleep at night hoping for a better life for his children as well as mine. And that’s the truth.

Brig. Gen. Manelis is the spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

israelcommentary@comcast.net

Please “like” on Facebook  1)Israel Commentary   2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Web Page: https://israel-commentary.org for previous articles

Google: https://plus.google.com/collection/EfhSZE

pastedGraphic.pngpastedGraphic_1.pngpastedGraphic_2.pngpastedGraphic_3.png

The State of California Prays to the Sun God

The Bogus Advantages of Solar Panels 

The state finds another way to make housing less affordable.

Wall Street Journal – The Editorial Board May 11, 2018

California is often where bad ideas spring to life these days, and they’re worth highlighting lest they catch on in saner precincts. Consider the state Energy Commission’s decision this week to mandate solar panels on all new homes. Meanwhile, Democrats bemoan the lack of affordable housing. Hmmm, maybe there’s a connection?

Regulators say the panels will add $8,000 to $12,000 to the cost of a home, which may be chump change in the Bay Area where the median home price is $1.2 million. But that’s a lot of money in Fresno or Bakersfield.

The commission’s estimate that the mandate will add only $40 to a monthly mortgage appears to assume that interest rates stay low forever, that the cost of panels continues to fall and that Congress extends the 30% renewable energy tax credit. The average cost of a rooftop solar panel system today is $18,840, which amortized at a 5.5% interest rate over 30 years is $107 a month.

Oh, and to ensure panels are operating efficiently, homeowners would have to pay between $300 and $500 for an annual cleaning and inspection. Repair costs average $650. This is a boon for contractors, which is why the home builders lobby endorsed the mandate. Crony green capitalism lives.

Regulators also say the panels will shave $80 off monthly utility bills, but that’s only because the state’s 50% renewable-energy mandate has made electricity so expensive. The retail rate of power in California is about 19.15 cents per kilowatt hour, twice as much as in Washington and a third higher than in Arizona.

Homeowners with solar panels also benefit from the state’s net metering subsidy, which compensates them for the excess power they produce and remit to the grid at the retail rather than wholesale rate. Yet California sometimes produces so much solar power that it has to pay Arizona to take it to avoid overloading power lines.

Thus, utilities pay homeowners to produce energy that they don’t need at a huge mark-up and then send it to Arizona at a loss. Brilliant. Balancing the electrical grid will also become more expensive and challenging due to the solar-panel mandate.

California’s astronomical housing costs are a result of these government mandates, zoning restrictions, and permitting fees. The state Legislative Analyst Office estimates that it costs between $50,000 to $75,000 more to build a home in California than in the rest of the country. 

Building a low-income housing unit costs about $332,000.

Last year the Democratic legislature approved a $4 billion general-obligation bond for the November ballot and imposed a $75 fee on mortgage refinancing to expand “affordable” housing. The Democratic model in a nutshell: Make housing more expensive with government mandates and then subsidize it, which makes it still more expensive.

Liberals have long supported more dense housing to cut carbon emissions, yet Democrats earlier this year killed legislation that would have streamlined reviews for housing projects by public transit stations. 

“Density for density’s sake doesn’t necessarily lead to affordability,” declared state Senator Ben Allen of the People’s Republic of Santa Monica.

All of this explains why hundreds of thousands of middle-class Californians are fleeing. 

In 2016 Arizona welcomed twice as many Californian refugees as Mexican immigrants. California’s labor force last year expanded by a mere 1% compared with 2.2% in Nevada and Arizona. Sharing a border with California is a gift that keeps on giving.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

israelcommentary@comcast.net

Please “like” on Facebook  1)Israel Commentary   2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Web Page: https://israel-commentary.org for previous articles

Google: https://plus.google.com/collection/EfhSZE

pastedGraphic.pngpastedGraphic_1.pngpastedGraphic_2.pngpastedGraphic_3.png

Rabbi Meir Kahane’s open letter to the world describing its treatment of the Jew over the centuries.

www.israel-commentary.org

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

israelcommentary@comcast.net

Facebook:  1)Israel Commentary   2) Jerome S. Kaufman  

Please “like” on Facebook

Web Page: https://israel-commentary.org – previous articles

Google: https://plus.google.com/collection/EfhSZE

pastedGraphic.pngpastedGraphic_1.pngpastedGraphic_2.pngpastedGraphic_3.png

 

Jews once again play ostrich in Germany to their great peril

Jews celebrate the 70th anniversary of Israel’s re-birth

By Bret Stephens

New York Times  Opinion Columnist

April 20, 2018

Adam Armoush is a 21-year-old Israeli Arab who, on a recent outing in Berlin, donned a yarmulke to test a friend’s contention that it was unsafe to do so in Germany. On Tuesday he was assaulted in broad daylight by a Syrian asylum-seeker who whipped him with a belt for being “yahudi” — Arabic for Jew.

The episode was caught on video and has caused a national uproar. Heiko Maas, the foreign minister, tweeted, “Jews shall never again feel threatened here.”

It’s a vow not likely to be fulfilled. There were nearly 1,000 reported anti-Semitic incidents in Berlin alone last year. A neo-fascist party, Alternative for Germany, has 94 seats in the Bundestag. Last Thursday, a pair of German rappers won a prestigious music award, given largely on the basis of sales, for an album in which they boast of having bodies “more defined than Auschwitz prisoners.” The award ceremony coincided with Holocaust Remembrance Day.

To be Jewish — at least visibly Jewish — in Europe is to live on borrowed time. That’s not to doubt the sincerity and good will of Maas or other European leaders who recommit to combating anti-Semitism every time a European Jew is murdered or a Jewish institution attacked. It’s only to doubt their capacity.

There’s a limit to how many armed guards can be deployed indefinitely to protect synagogues or stop Holocaust memorials from being vandalized. There’s a limit, also, to trying to cure bigotry with earnest appeals to tolerance. The German government is mulling a proposal to require recent arrivals in the country to tour Nazi concentration camps as a way of engendering a feeling of empathy for Jews. It doesn’t seem to occur to anyone that, to the virulent anti-Semite, Buchenwald is a source of inspiration, not shame.

All this comes to mind as Israel this week marks (in the Hebrew calendar) the 70th anniversary of its independence. There are many reasons to celebrate the date, many of them lofty: a renaissance for Jewish civilization; the creation of a feisty liberal democracy in a despotic neighborhood; the ecological rescue of a once-barren land; the end of 1,878 years of exile.

But there’s a more basic reason. Jews cannot rely for their safety on the kindness of strangers, least of all French or German politicians. Theodor Herzl saw this with the Dreyfus Affair and founded modern Zionism. Post-Hitler Europe still has far to fall when it comes to its attitudes toward Jews, but the trend is clear. The question is the pace.

Hence Israel: its army, bomb, and robust willingness to use force to defend itself. Israel did not come into existence to serve as another showcase of the victimization of Jews. It exists to end the victimization of Jews.

That’s a point that Israel’s restless critics could stand to learn. On Friday, Palestinians in Gaza returned for the fourth time to the border fence with Israel, in protests promoted by Hamas. The explicit purpose of Hamas leaders is to breach the fence and march on Jerusalem. Israel cannot possibly allow this — doing so would create a precedent that would encourage similar protests, and more death, along all of Israel’s borders — and has repeatedly used deadly force to counter it.

The armchair corporals of Western punditry think this is excessive. It would be helpful if they could suggest alternative military tactics to an Israeli government dealing with an urgent crisis against an adversary sworn to its destruction. They don’t.

It would also be helpful if they could explain how they can insist on Israel’s retreat to the 1967 borders and then scold Israel when it defends those borders. They can’t. If the armchair corporals want to persist in demands for withdrawals that for 25 years have led to more Palestinian violence, not less, the least they can do is be ferocious in defense of Israel’s inarguable sovereignty. Somehow they almost never are.

Israel’s 70th anniversary has occasioned a fresh round of anxious, if not exactly new, commentary about the rifts between Israeli and Diaspora Jewry. Some Diaspora complaints, especially with respect to religion and refugees, are valid and should be heeded by Jerusalem.

But to the extent that the Diaspora’s objections are prompted by the nonchalance of the supposedly nonvulnerable when it comes to Israel’s security choices, then the complaints are worse than feckless. They provide moral sustenance for Hamas in its efforts to win sympathy for its strategy of wanton aggression and reckless endangerment. And they foster the illusion that there’s some easy and morally stainless way by which Jews can exercise the responsibilities of political power.

Though not Jewish, Adam Armoush was once one of the nonchalant when it came to what it means to be Jewish in the 21st century. Presumably no longer. For Jews, it’s a painful, useful reminder that Israel is not their vanity. It’s their safeguard.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

israelcommentary@comcast.net

Facebook:  1)Israel Commentary   2) Jerome S. Kaufman  

Please “like” on Facebook

Web Page: https://israel-commentary.org – previous articles

Google: https://plus.google.com/collection/EfhSZE

pastedGraphic.pngpastedGraphic_1.pngpastedGraphic_2.pngpastedGraphic_3.png

The Catholic Fracture via Pope Francis

www.israel-commentary.org

The Catholic Fracture Via Pope Francis

National Review  April 16, 2018
Pope Francis (center) during the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Synod of Bishops, October 2015. (Alberto Pizzoli/AFP/Getty Images)

To Change the Church: Pope Francis and the Future of Catholicism, by Ross Douthat (Simon & Schuster, 256 pp., $26)

With this new book, Ross Douthat has done a service to all those who take an interest in the life and teachings of the Catholic Church.

Douthat, a political columnist who writes for a mostly secular audience, is exquisitely careful in delineating the factional fault lines within the Church under Francis. He credits Francis with a surprising turnaround in the media’s perception of the Church, one that seemed impossible after the nadir of the child-sex scandals.

But what motivates this book are not questions of politics or of media perceptions, but ones concerning theology: Does a pope have authority to change Church teaching? Can Christian doctrine develop in such a way that it has practically the opposite meaning in one age that it has in the next? Is the Church about to undergo a schism? And beneath it all, a much more personal question lurks.

Douthat’s account really takes off when he comes to narrate, and comment on, the hour-by-hour intrigue of the two-year Synod on the Family (2014–15). To much of the rest of the world, the Catholic Church looks like an inscrutable closed system, one in which the chief occasionally shows a different personality to the world but that otherwise functions like a machine according to its own internal logic, breaking down here or there, as machines do.

But watching the sometimes ugly maneuvering and wheedling of the Synod’s progressives, and the alternating attempts at flattery and bold confrontation by the Synod’s conservatives, all over theological concepts, will return many readers to the palace intrigue of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

Francis closed the proceedings of the first year’s synod with a speech that sought a middle ground between the two factions, placing himself at the center. At the close of the second year’s synod, the pope, obviously frustrated that his desired language had not received approval, thundered openly and hysterically against the conservatives.

With the subsequent papal document Amoris Laetitia (2016), Francis and his fellow progressive reformers sought to institute a legal and official way of granting Holy Communion to those who live in a state of life the Church traditionally recognizes as adultery, without calling them to repent and reconcile with their first spouse or to live “as brother and sister” in their new household.

This debate has opened up rhetorical tools the Church seemed to have put away: bishops charging other bishops with heresy, or with schismatical disobedience to the Roman pontiff. Douthat sensitively navigates the generational, political, and geographical features of this conflict: In general, the older, richer, and more European parts of the Church insist on change. The younger, poorer, and African parts insist on orthodoxy.

The Church’s liberal reformers often say that if the great mass of Catholics are failing to practice one of the Church’s teachings or recognize its authority in their lives, then they have not “received” that teaching, and that the teaching itself is to be blamed. The People of God can’t be so wrong, can they?

Reformers apply this to the Church’s prohibition on artificial contraception: Catholics flout the teaching. If the sheep do not recognize the voice of the shepherd, they reason, perhaps it isn’t the shepherd speaking. (For reasons I cannot grasp, they rarely apply this logic to the Beatitudes.)

The reformers, seeking to get their new policy’s nose under the tent, sought a “pastoral” change, not a doctrinal one: They claimed to be changing not the teaching but its application. But the theories undergirding their approach ultimately rewrote the moral law into a system of beautiful but unreachable moral ideals that could be only approximated in the lives of believers, not fully obeyed with the generous help and grace of God.

The practical effect of this change is to seek for signs not of repentance or holiness in believers but of stability and sincerity in their purpose. Instead of reaching out to wretches begging forgiveness, and falling down before the godliness of saints, this approach hallows the respectable and the bourgeois. The Church used to make mistakes in mystifying the authority of kings and potentates; now it is reduced merely to flattering remarried stockjobbers.

The greatest strength of Douthat’s book is the way he draws out how this supposedly “merciful” reform ultimately hollows out the authority of the Church — not because it is merely inconsistent with a previous paradigm, but because it contradicts the ultimate authority.

“This is where Francis-era liberal Catholicism has so often ended up,” Douthat writes: “in arguments that imply that the Church must use Jesus to go beyond Jesus, as it were, using his approach to the ritual law as a means to evade or qualify the moral law, which means essentially evading or qualifying his own explicit commandments, and declaring them a pharisaism that the late-modern Church should traffic in no more. To fulfill Jesus’s mission, to follow the Jesus of faith, even the Jesus of Scripture must be left behind.”

Francis’s men apparently thought that conservative bishops could be steamrolled on these points, believing that they were all spineless timeservers, morally compromised mediocrities, or at least sufficiently conditioned to accept and implement the documents that poured out of the Vatican.

In fairness to the conservative bishops, I should point out that, for some three decades, these Roman documents had been polished like gems by the exacting Joseph Ratzinger, first as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then as pope; and they stood out against the pious political dribble that is produced by most national conferences of Catholic bishops.

Further, Francis and his allies knew that the sacramental approach to the divorced and remarried, and even homosexuals, that they want to institute de jure is often the de facto way of the world even in many conservative dioceses. But it turned out, when the chips were down, that the conservatives were capable of putting up at least a little fight on behalf of the orthodoxy, at least on paper.

And ever since Francis’s fulminations, conservatives seem to have stopped boosting Francis, and instead, when possible, have passively resisted these reforms with simple noncompliance or nonrecognition. But their relatively feeble, disorganized, and hesitant resistance seems to have resulted in a stalemate, and the impression now is that this pontificate has stalled out and that Francis is playing a longer game.

Douthat outlines several possibilities for the Church’s future. He correctly locates Francis’s influence in his ability to shape the College of Cardinals and to choose bishops — but he asks whether this power can possibly overcome the generational conflict within Catholicism: “The real Francis legacy might be less a swiftly unfolding progressive revolution than a new impasse.

He could leave liberal Catholicism with control of the most important levers of power within the Church — but without having solved its longstanding manpower-and-enthusiasm problem. There might be fewer cardinals equipped to stop his would-be heirs — but also too few priests enthusiastic about following them.” This generational conflict is a staple of Francis’s own parables, which frequently pit young, fire-breathing priests who want to protect tradition and orthodoxy against wise old clerics who know how to be merciful. …

 Michael Brendan Dougherty is a senior writer at National Review Online

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

israelcommentary@comcast.net

Facebook: Israel Commentary: https://www.facebook.com/schmice/

Web Page: https://israel-commentary.org

Google: https://plus.google.com/collection/EfhSZE

pastedGraphic.pngpastedGraphic_1.pngpastedGraphic_2.pngpastedGraphic_3.png