The Pseudo-Jewish Fetish with the concept Tikkun Olam (“Healing the World”)

As usual, we had one our heated family discussions over Judaism, its laws and their observance. This time the subject was Tikkun Olam. The debate reminded me of the excellent article below by Professor/Journalist/Political commentator, Steven Plaut, (obm) formerly of the University of Haifa, Haifa Israel


We miss him and his irrefutable, unerring logic. jsk

www.israel-commentary.org

The redacted article was published in Israel Commentary, Jan 10, 2014.

Subject: The Pseudo-Jewish Fetish with “Tikkun Olam”
 


Redacted from a badly needed epiphany by Professor Steven Plaut

“The central mitzvah or commandment for our era is the mitzvah of Tikkun Olam.   It is the defining mission of Jews to strive for the repair of the world by making society more just, fair, egalitarian, and sensitive.  Judaism demands that we repair the world by striving for social justice. It is the mission of Jews in the Divine Plan for the universe to repair the world by repairing man, by improving and advancing mankind.”
 


The above paragraph is a fair representation of what has become the defining raison d’être of Judaism as conveyed by non-Orthodox liberal Jewish organizations and synagogues in America.  It is not a direct citation from any, but is an accurate paraphrase of what has become the canon of non-Orthodox Jewish liberalism, in essence the orthodoxy of the non-Orthodox.  It is the “modernized” and contemporary “reinterpretation” of “Jewish ethics” as defined and inculcated by much of the Reform and Conservative movements. 

So just what are we to make of the above “Tikkun Olam” proclamation and manifest?
 
The most important thing that must be understood about the Tikkun Olam catechism of non-Orthodox Judaism in the United States is that each and every sentence in the above proclamation is false.

First of all, there is no such thing as a mitzvah or commandment of “Tikkun Olam.”   Jews are nowhere commanded to “repair the world.”  In all the authoritative or traditional compilations of the commandments of Judaism, none list “Tikkun Olam” as one of them. The expression itself does not appear anywhere in the Torah or in the entire Bible.

Those assimilationist liberals who insist that the entire “ethics of the Prophets” can be reduced to the pursuit of “Tikkun Olam” will have to explain why none of the Books of the Prophets use the term. “Tikkun Olam” is used sporadically in the Talmud, but as a technical term for resolution of certain judicial problems that arise before rabbinic courts. 

The only place where the expression appears in Jewish prayer is in the Aleinu and there it clearly has nothing at all to do with social justice.  In the “Aleinu,” Tikkun Olam is explicitly explained in the prayer text itself as the quest to eliminate pagan superstition and to see God’s rule of the universe implemented. In other words, it is a theological notion, not a social or political or environmental one.  In Judaism, the world does not get repaired by redistribution of income and wealth nor by cutting carbon emissions but by humans subordinating themselves to God’s will.  
 
Secondly, “Tikkun Olam” does not mean that Jews are obligated to strive to make the earth a more just, clean, fair and equal place.  Nowhere in Judaism are Jews commanded to restructure or re-engineer the societies of the nations.  Jews have a certain obligation to participate in the Jewish community and to assist other Jews, especially Jews living in hardship, including through Tzedaka or charity.
 
Even within the Jewish community, there is no religious imperative or justification for coerced schemes of income or wealth redistribution, aside from payments to the Levites and priests. And while there is no prohibition as such upon Jews using their resources to assist the downtrodden among the non-Jewish nations, there is also no Judaic imperative to do so and such generosity would be considered morally inferior to the assisting of other Jews.
 


The idea that it is somehow the religious duty of Jews to “repair mankind” is not only complete nonsense, but it is a manifestation of the ignorant megalomania of assimilationist Jewish liberals.  The simple fact of the matter is that in actual Judaism, it is none of the business of Jews to fix or repair humanity.  More generally, in Judaism it is the job of Jews to repair the Jews, not to repair the world. 

Non-Jews are not in need of being “repaired” by Jews, at least as long as they observe the seven “Noahide Commandments,” the rules of living that Jews interpret to be conferred upon all humans, all descendants of Noah, by God.  Beyond that, what the gentiles do and how they do it is none of the business of Jews, and Jews simply have no religious standing to interfere.  It is certainly not the job of Jews to instruct non-Jews about matters such as income and wealth distribution, abortion, environmentalism, health care provision, or discrimination. 

Jews are commanded to speak up only if they witness non-Jews tearing off limbs from live animals and eating them, and in a very small number of other cases.
 
Indeed, the very notion that Jews are so ethically superior that they are entitled to instruct non-Jews in ethnics is completely foreign to the Torah.

The self-image of Jews in the Torah/Bible is that of a group of people awash in their own moral failures and foibles, from the Golden Calf to the paganism of the era of the kings of Judah and Israel. The moral imperative of the Torah is for the Jews to improve and reevaluate their own behavior, not to pretend to have the moral superiority to preach to the entire non-Jewish world.
 


Jews are in general not obligated to oppose or reform unjust laws of the nations, at least as long as those laws do not require Jews to bow down to idols. It is the religious moral imperative of Jews to obey the law and that is all.   In democracies in which Jews may vote and express ideological positions, there is no Torah-based objection to their doing so.   

But at the same time there are generally no Torah-based ideological positions when it comes to the same policy questions. A Jew is free to favor or oppose Obamacare, shale oil extraction, and Quantitative Easing for any reason he or she sees fit. 

It would be a sacrilege and disrespectful to drag the Torah into the debate as the basis for the Jew’s opinion.   The Torah has more important matters on its theological plate.
 


As for the insistence by the “Eco-Judaism” groups that vegetarianism is the highest form of “Tikkun Olam,” the REAL position of the Torah on the subject needs to be mentioned.  The Torah completely prohibits vegetarianism at least once a year, on the evening of Passover, and, while it does not exactly prohibit it for other holidays, eating meat on those holidays is strongly recommended. 

As for the recruitment of “Tikkun Olam” as the moral basis for other trendy political positions, some of the clearest ethical positions in all of Judaism are the SUPPORT by the Torah for capital punishment and its strong OPPOSITION to homosexual relations.
  
 

The bottom line is that, at the hands of the assimilationist liberals, “Tikkun Olam” has become a nonsense mantra representing nothing more than the replacement of actual Judaism with a pseudo-theology consisting entirely of the pursuit of liberal political fads

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

Rabbi Jonathan Sachs: “Corbyn is an existential Anti-Semite, II The Socialism of Fools

I Former UK Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn is a dedicated, dangerous Anti-Semite (Jew Hater)
Sep 2, 2018 Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) Sep 2 2018

II Jeremy Corbyn and the Socialism of Fools
By Walter Russell Mead Wall Street Journal Sep 11, 2018

I Former British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, warned in an interview that Jewish people are making plans to leave Britain over fears of an anti-Semitic backlash precipitated by Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Sacks said  Sunday on the BBC’s “Andrew Marr Show” that “when people hear the kind of language that has been coming out of Labour, that’s been brought to the surface among Jeremy Corbyn’s earlier speeches, they cannot but feel an existential threat.”

He also said: “Jews have been in Britain since 1656 — I know of no other occasion in these 362 years when Jews, the majority of our community, are worrying, ‘Is this country safe to bring up our children?’”

In an interview last week, Sacks labeled Corbyn an “anti-Semite” and called his rhetoric “dangerous.” He compared Corbyn’s speech from 2013 in which he said that “Zionists” were unable to understand British ways of thinking despite growing up in the country to the anti-immigration “Rivers of Blood” speech made in 1968 by Conservative British lawmaker Enoch Powell.

On Sunday, Sacks said he has not issued a party political statement in his 30 years in public life. “I had to issue a warning — anti-Semitism has returned to mainland Europe within living memory of the Holocaust,” the rabbi said.

“Anyone who befriends Hamas and Hezbollah, anyone who uses the term ‘Zionist’ loosely without great care, is in danger of engulfing Britain in the kind of flames of hatred that have reappeared throughout Europe and is massively irresponsible.”

II Jeremy Corbyn and the Socialism of Fools

At the root of his bigotry is a Marxist hatred of capitalist U.S. ‘imperialism.’

By Walter Russell Mead

Wall Street Journal Sept. 11, 2018

That Jeremy Corbyn, who hopes someday to occupy the office previously held by Winston Churchill, Benjamin Disraeli and William Pitt, is an anti-Semite seems no longer in question.

No anti-Israeli terrorist entity is too drenched in Jewish blood for him to cheer on. Hamas, Hezbollah, the mullahs of Iran—their sins against freedom of speech, against freedom of assembly, and against women and gays may be crimson, but if they hate the Jewish state enough, Labour has a leader who will wash them as white as snow.

But not all anti-Semites are alike. Different forms of anti-Semitism can have very different consequences. What kind does Jeremy Corbyn profess, and how does it relate to the rest of his worldview?

Mr. Corbyn and his colleagues in the hard-left Labour elite are, above all, modern. They don’t hate the Jews for killing Christ as medieval Christians did. They don’t think the Jews use the blood of gentile children to make matzoh. Whatever some of the less enlightened members of Mr. Corbyn’s base among the British Muslim community may think, the secular Labour elite doesn’t blame the Jews for rejecting Muhammed.

Nor is their hatred racial. Mr. Corbyn’s worldview is blinkered and sadly skewed, but he is neither wicked nor delusional enough to imagine that the Jewish “race” is competing with the “Aryan” Anglo-Saxons to dominate the world.

It is Zionism that drives Mr. Corbyn’s anti-Jewish passion. He is not anti-Israel because some or even many of Israel’s policies are wrong. He is existentially anti-Zionist. He does not believe that the Jewish people are a nation. From this point of view, the notorious U.N. Resolution 3379 of 1975 got it exactly right: Zionism is racism, and the Jewish state is racist to the core.

What elevates the Jewish state from an irritation to an obsession in the Corbynite world is Israel’s relationship with the U.S. The U.S. is the center of international capitalism. Destroying American capitalism and the imperialist system it imposes on the world is the overarching goal of the Marxist zealotry that drives Mr. Corbyn’s worldview and justifies his sympathy for otherwise dubious regimes.

The Iranian mullahs may hang homosexuals and stone the occasional adulteress, but in the all-important struggle against American imperialism and its Zionist sidekick, they are a natural and necessary part of the Resistance.

It’s a short step for hard-left Labour from hating Israel to finding “Zionist” conspiracies on every side. Marxism typically rejects liberal democracy as a sham. Rich and powerful capitalists make all the big decisions: They control the political parties, they control the press, and they use the facade of democratic politics to amuse, befuddle and ultimately control the masses. From this standpoint, conspiracy thinking isn’t a sign of ignorance or emotionalism; to the contrary, perceiving the hidden plots of our true rulers is a necessary and vital step in seeing through the myth of liberal democracy.

The hard-line Marxist and the classic anti-Semite agree that the world is really run by a cabal of greedy men behind closed doors. But where the Marxist sees capitalist string-pullers, some of whom may happen to be Jewish, the anti-Semite sees only Jews. This is the meaning behind the famous statement, once popular on the European left, that anti-Semitism is the “socialism of fools”: the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are too narrow and miss the real point.

But for Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour colleagues, the perceived special relationship between American imperialism and Zionism collapses the distinction between the socialism of fools and the “real” thing. The urban legend that “the Jews” control America’s Middle Eastern policy and that Jewish power forces the U.S. to march in lockstep with right-wing Israeli governments is also an organizing principle of the Corbynite worldview. The supposed control exerted by Zionist Jewish billionaires over American politics makes the fight against imperialism also a fight against a powerful Jewish conspiracy.

Those ideas, as any serious student of American politics or of the American Jewish community knows, are nonsensical. In every presidential election of the 21st century, (Uninformed, naive self-destructive) American Jews have given significantly more money and votes to Democratic than to Republican candidates. If the American Jewish community controlled American politics, President Trump would still be hosting a television show and there would be no U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem.

Yet myths are no less powerful because they are false. Mr. Corbyn’s outlook will lead any government he forms into deep trouble and frustration, but that in itself won’t keep him out of Downing Street. Liberalism today may face its deepest crisis in the country that gave the liberal tradition to the world.

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

Putting the Israel/Palestinian “Peace” Process out of its misery

Taking an Axe to the “Peace Process”

Shoshana Bryen • August 29, 2018 • American Thinker

www.israel-commentary.org

Under new American parameters, Palestinians have something to lose.

The Trump administration has restored the United States to the position of honest broker – emphasis on “honest” – and taken a hatchet to a series of fantasies underlying the notion of an Israeli-Palestinian “peace process.” Twenty-five years after the Oslo Accords ushered in radical, despotic, kleptocratic Palestinian self-government, the Accords are dead. And that’s good.

The new construct is as follows:

The U.S. is not neutral between Israel, America’s democratic friend and ally, and the Palestinians, who are neither. Everybody has a “narrative,” a national story. Not everyone’s narrative is factual. The U.S. will insist that there are facts, and that history – both ancient and modern – is real and knowable.

The American government’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel is simply the acceptance of the truth of history. The city was the capital of the Jewish people and never, ever the seat of government for any other. In this assertion, the president was joined by many members of the U.S. House and Senate, irrespective of party – although some had more trouble saying so than others.

The U.S. will not pay for fraud, mismanagement, or support of terrorism by the Palestinians or the United Nations. Repeat the comment about congressional support.

Neither will we fund two Palestinian governments simply because it is easier than figuring out what to do with Hamas and Fatah, who are fighting a civil war and agree on little besides the need for Israel’s ultimate demise. Repeat the comment about congressional support.In the new game, the Palestinians have something to lose – the sine qua non of successful negotiations.

The Washington rumor mill believes that President Trump’s next move will be to change the definition of Palestinians as “refugees” in the American lexicon. Palestinians will cease to be the only population in the world in which refugee status is handed down generationally through one’s father, which ensures permanent geometric growth in the refugee population. Palestinians will become like every other group. If you lose your home and can’t go back – think Rohingya or Montagnard – you are a refugee. Settled in a country that will have you, you are no longer a refugee, nor will any of your future generations be. Think Vietnamese.

In tandem, then, comes the proposition that the descendants of refugees have no “right” to go and settle in places their parents, grandparents, or great grandparents claim to have lived. This, again, will make the Palestinians just like every other refugee population. Time moves forward only. Israel is here, Israel will remain, and Israel can determine who lives within its borders.

On the other hand, and there is always another hand, much of the discussion is driven by money. Although money is fungible, it isn’t always easily so, and contrary to the professional refugee-managers, the goal is not to punish Palestinians whose only crime is the misfortune of living under Hamas or the P.A.

The American Taylor Force Act – passed and signed – will have the United States withhold money from the P.A. in the amount of the stipends the P.A. pays to terrorists and their families. The Palestinian Authority paid out approximately $350 million in 2017. The knowledge that their families will be taken care of financially has, in fact, led to a number Palestinians choosing what we, in the U.S., call “suicide by cop.”

Palestinians who feel hopeless and for one or another reason figure that they can best provide for their families by killing Jews are encouraged by their own government. That’s an easy one. If P.A. strongman Mahmoud Abbas doesn’t spend the money on terror stipends, he can replace the American shortage and spend the money on other things.

The Trump administration has also announced that it will stop the flow of U.S. taxpayer funds to the U.N. Human Rights Council – a bastion of anti-Israel sentiment. “We’ll calculate 22 percent of the Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner’s budget, and our remittances to the UN for this budget year will be less 22 percent of those costs – and we’ll say specifically that’s what we’re doing,” NSC adviser John Bolton said. “We expect that impact to occur on the Human Rights Council.” Again, not much of a problem. One might hope the UNHRC will produce 22 percent less hot air, but that is not certain.

Then comes a more difficult issue. The administration has cut $300 million from UNRWA, leading to the expected wails about starving babies. UNRWA has, for almost seven decades, been the prison guard of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, as well as running shanty towns for Palestinians in Jordan, where many hold both citizenship and refugee status. It has also hired Hamas and Hezb’allah operatives and shielded their weapons in UNRWA schools.

Babies won’t starve unless the Palestinians want them to for a photo op. (Don’t be huffy – it was Gaza leader Yaya Sinwar who praised “the sacrifice of” Palestinian children “as an offering for Jerusalem and the right of return.”) On the other hand, it behooves the United States to work closely with Israel – the Israelis being most acutely sensitive to the connection between money and terror – to manage the change in available funds for the short term. Otherwise, it is possible that Hamas and the P.A. can gin up even more unhappy souls to engage in terrorism.

If “peace” is a bridge too far, a long-term stabilization process is not out of reach based on President Trump’s new foundations for American policy. At a minimum, the United States can be sure that the policies that it pursues are consonant with American interests and American allies. President Trump has done well.

Jewish Policy Center · 50 F ST NW · Suite 100 · Washington · DC · 20001

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

A Beautiful Explanation of the Intended Sacrifice of Isaac to G-d by his father, Abraham

www.israel-commentar.org

Bound to God

By RABBI MEIR Y. SOLOVEICHIK
COMMENTARY magazine
AUG. 15, 2018

And he shall place his hands on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted as an atonement for him.
Leviticus 1:4

Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Genesis 22:4

One Friday morning in London, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks took Penelope Leach, one of Britain’s most prominent child psychologists, to visit a Jewish primary school. There she witnessed children playacting the rituals of the Shabbat meal to take place that evening:

Young boys blessed the wine, little girls kindled candles, songs were sung. Leach was struck by all she saw, including one very moving moment: the reenactment of a tradition in many Jewish homes, where before the Sabbath meal begins, the father extends his hands to cover the head of each of his children, and blesses them.

Leach, Rabbi Sacks reports, marveled as she witnessed “the five-year-old mother and father blessing the five-year-old children with the five-year-old grandparents looking on.” She left overcome by the centrality of family life to traditional Judaism.

The ritual of Jewish parents blessing their children is indeed moving, but it is easily misconstrued. Properly understood, it stresses first and foremost not the bond between parent and child, but rather between the child and God. The standard form of showing love to our children is through an embrace: The act is possessive in nature, drawing them close to us.
To bless our children by extending our hands is the opposite; rather than draw them close, we set them apart, indicating that they belong to someone other than ourselves. In the Bible, the one ritual comparable to the Jewish act of blessing is sacrificial in context.

The worshipper in the Temple placed his hands on an animal’s head before the ritual occurred, thereby renouncing his own claim to the offering and dedicating it to God. In a similar sense, to place one’s hands on a child is to recall the Temple and consecrate the child to divine service.

The parallel between biblical blessing and sacrifice is rarely considered. Few scriptural stories are as shocking as that known as the Sacrifice of Isaac, known to Jews as the Akeidah (Binding). The liturgy of Rosh Hashanah is dominated by the Bible’s most haunting words: “Take thy son, thy only son.” But the Akeidah is, in a sense, re-created every Friday evening in many Jewish homes all over the world, where parents place their hands on their children’s heads, as their ancestors did over offerings in Jerusalem millennia ago.

Can this be so? Have Jews, for generations untold, placed the reenactment of one of the most petrifying tales about parent and child at the heart of their most sacred familial experiences? They have indeed.

In the 1950s, in a spirit similar to Leach’s, a Roman Catholic priest was intrigued by a Jewish ritual involving parents and children: the pidyon ha-ben, in which the father of a firstborn son, a month following the baby’s birth, presents the child to a kohen, a descendant of Aaron. The parent then redeems the child by giving several silver coins to the kohen, and the child is returned to him. The priest wrote to Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik inquiring about the ritual. The Rav responded by linking Jewish parenthood to the agonizing Abrahamic tale.

At the heart of the religious worldview, he suggested, is the absolute ownership of the divine; man is merely “a guardian in whose care the works of God have been placed as a precious charge.” This is especially true for that of which we are most possessive. “Children are the greatest and most precious charge God has entrusted to man’s custody,” Rabbi Soloveitchik wrote, but the “irrevocable though bitter truth” is that they are not ours.

The Akeidah, he suggested, must be understood in this context. For Abraham to deserve fatherhood, he had to prove his acceptance of this theological truth and acknowledge that he was merely a custodian of the child for whom he had longed.

God’s intended result at the Akeidah was not Isaac’s death but Abraham’s recognition of the true nature of parenthood, and that is precisely what is recognized by Jewish parents throughout the generations in the ritual that so piqued the curiosity of the priest:

The ceremonial redemption of the first born son re-enacts the drama of Abraham offering Isaac to the  Lord, of the knight of faith (using Kierkegaard’s term) giving unreservedly away his son to God….The father of today, as Abraham of old, acknowledges the absolute ownership of the child by God. He renounces all his illusory rights and urgent claims to the child.…

When the Kohen returns the child to the father and accepts the five shekels, he presents him on behalf of God with a new child; something precious is re-entrusted to him. The dialectical drama of Mt. Moriah consisting in losing and finding a son is re-staged in all its magnificence. After receiving the child from the Kohen, the father must always remain aware that it was only through God’s infinite grace that this infant was returned to him in sacred trust.

For many modern Jews, the story of the Akeidah is an embarrassing anachronism, and the Torah’s descriptions of animal sacrifice are seen as utterly irrelevant to our lives. The haunting possibility, however, is that these passages are painfully relevant.

As Leon Kass has noted, “all fathers devote (that is ‘sacrifice’) their sons to some ‘god’ or other, to Mammon or Molech, to honor or money, pleasure or power, or, worse, to no god at all.” It is true, Kass concedes, that “they do so less visibly and less concentratedly, but they do so willy-nilly, through the things they teach and respect in their own homes; they intend that the entire life of the sons be spent in service to their own ideals or idols, and in this sense they do indeed spend the life of the children.”

A father who attempts to instill devotion in his son to godly ways must be willing “to part with his son as his son, recognizing him—as was Isaac, and as are indeed all children—as a gift and a blessing from God.”

More than any other, ours is an age that has lavished love on children; they are coddled, cherished, and protected, denied nothing. Yet as Ben Sasse has noted, this has produced a generation of Americans locked in perpetual adolescence, a result of the “creature comforts to which our children are accustomed, our reluctance to expose young people to the demand of real work, and the hostage-taking hold that computers and mobile devices have on adolescent attention.”

It is possible that what we need is less embracing and more blessing; less parental possession and more parental consecration. We must consider, in other words, whether our children are merely extensions of ourselves, or whether they were given to us in sacred trust. Every parent might prefer to ignore the Akeidah story. But especially today, and with Rosh Hashanah near, the Akeidah continues to call out to us.

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

Most Muslim Candidates for Political Office continue a devotion to Centuries-old destructive Ideology

August 23, 2018

By Janet Levy

According to an Associated Press report issued in July this year, close to 100 Muslims filed to run for federal or state offices in the current election cycle, and nearly half made it through to the primaries. Meanwhile, numerous other Muslim candidates are campaigning for seats on local planning commissions, school boards, library committees, and other positions of influence at the county and city levels.

www.israelcommentary.org

The proliferation of Muslim candidates may appear to some as positive and benign participation in American democracy by an emerging minority, but it cannot be denied that a Muslim plan to usurp American democracy has existed for decades. Careful scrutiny of this new wave of Muslim candidates yields a number with questionable backgrounds, motivations, and support groups, whose motives may be to implement the plan.

The plan to infiltrate and take over American democracy is explained in a 1987 strategic document, “An Explanatory Memorandum,” written and approved by the Muslim Brotherhood, a political organization with ties to the fundamentalist terrorist organization Hamas. The Muslim Brotherhood has itself been designated a terrorist organization by seven nations, including Egypt, where the Brotherhood began in 1928.

The memorandum calls for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution and its replacement with an Islamic government under sharia law. It spells out its “process of settlement” as a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within. It calls for the establishment of political organizations designed to train and promote the Muslim Brotherhood goal of establishing the Quran as the sole authority for the Muslim family, individual, community, and state.

Several organizations – primed specifically to assist, support, and increase the number of U.S Muslim candidates for office – are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. They include the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), Project Mobilize, Jetpac Inc. and Engage.

The USCMO, a political party for Muslims and the first religion-based political party in U.S. history, formalized its commitment to Muslim candidates at its founding in 2014. Conspicuously absent from the USCMO website are references to U.S. laws or a pledge to uphold the Constitution. Instead, featured prominently is this statement: “The Council places premium importance on defining the common good based on the Quran and the model of the Prophet (P.B.U.H.), and coordinating a cooperative striving among Muslims and their institutions to implement that common good in American society.”

Further, the USCMO website explains that it will implement this mission by:

“Promoting Islam’s core universal principles to benefit American society,”
“Reviving Islamic scholarship that helps guide the American Muslim community through its tests and strivings[.]”
“Harnessing the imaginative energy of Muslims and their organizations, reconnecting it with our heritage of inspired knowledge and putting this to work with the good will of the Muslim community for the betterment of both our community and American society.”
Project Mobilize, a USCMO precursor, stated on its website, “And finally, the political climate is ripe for an organization that will pave the way for concentrated advocacy efforts in the name of the Muslim American community.” It is dedicated to the political advancement of the Muslim-American community at the local, state, and federal levels.

Jetpac, an organization “committed to empowering American Muslims in the democratic process,” laments the “lack of political representation,” “discriminatory policies,” “Islamophobic rhetoric,” and an alleged “600% increase in hate crimes against American Muslims since 2014.” It provides a six-week political consultancy program on campaigning, mobilizing local support, countering Islamophobic attacks, and securing resources.

Engage’s mission is to promote the political careers of “engaged Muslims.” It was formerly known as Emerge USA, founded and led today by alumni from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has ties to Hamas. Engage got its start raising campaign funds for former Democratic representative Keith Ellison, who supported racist and anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, worked on behalf of Nation of Islam, and received political contributions by CAIR officials. Engage has held events at terror-linked mosques and seeks to “create an infrastructure of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian Americans who are empowered and can directly impact public policy.”

These organizations are plainly dedicated not to American principles of democracy, but to Muslim ideals. Meanwhile, some of the recent Muslim candidates also hold questionable allegiances and motivations, specifically a Florida attorney general candidate and congressional candidates for Michigan and Minnesota.

Amira Dajani, a GOP candidate running for Florida attorney general under the name “Amy Fox,” was recently discovered to be part of a family with deep ties to the PLO, a terrorist group pledged to destroy Israel and led from 1969 to 2004 by Yasser Arafat, the father of modern terrorism. Dajani’s father wrote an anti-Israel, anti-Jewish book and dedicated it to his daughter. He advocates Israel’s destruction and, contrary to reality, accuses the Jewish State of using Arabs as human shields. The uncle of Dajani, AKA Fox, has served in high-level PLO leadership positions. Thus far, the candidate has been mum about the activities of her father and uncle.

Dajani’s background was revealed this month by her opponent, Gulf War veteran Chris Crowley, who objected to the media’s failure to question Ms. Dajani about her family affiliations and her opinion of her father’s writings. Crowley was subsequently arrested Aug. 6 and briefly incarcerated for an unwitting campaign violation – accepting $670 raised from a raffle, which is considered a lottery and is illegal. He accused Dajani of instigating the arrest in reprisal for his raising serious concerns about her background.

In the Midwest, two Democratic congressional candidates have been endorsed by Engage USA: Ilhan Omar, seeking Minnesota’s 5th District seat, and Rashid Tlaib, running for Michigan’s 13th District post. The two women have also been endorsed by sharia advocate and anti-American, anti-Israel Muslim Brotherhood operative Linda Sarsour, who has spoken in support of al-Qaeda, been instrumental in curtailing critical NYPD counter-terrorism measures, and called for a jihad against President Trump. Sarsour refers to Siraj Wahhaj, unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, as a mentor.

Somali Muslim refugee Ilhan Omar, who verbally attacked America as a hateful, bigoted country, served in the Minnesota House of Representatives. During her term of office, she voted against a state bill to terminate insurance payments for individuals who commit or aid terrorist attacks against Americans. In addition, she opposed a state bill that would have made the Islamic practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) a felony and included provisions to penalize parents who perform the procedure on their children.

Omar is vehemently anti-Israel; supports the Hamas-inspired initiative to boycott, divest from, and sanction (BDS) Israel; and has referred to the Jewish State as an “apartheid regime.” She has been a featured speaker at CAIR events and received honorariums from several of their state chapters. Although she has denied allegations that she committed bigamy and immigration fraud by marrying her brother, ample evidence exists that this is the case. She may also have committed perjury by attesting in family court in 2017 that she had not seen her second husband for six years, a statement belied by a personal Instagram photo, since removed from her account when her marital history became an issue.

Rashida Tlaib, the Michigan congressional candidate, is the daughter of Arab-Palestinian immigrants. She recently called for a one-state solution and subsequently lost the endorsement last week of J Street, a radical, George Soros-funded organization highly critical of Israel. Tlaib supports the BDS movement and the cutting of U.S. military aid to Israel. Although she derides Israel for promoting injustice, she has remained mute on the issue of continuing aid to Muslim-majority countries that discriminate against Christians and Jews.

In 2008, Tlaib was the first Muslim woman elected to the Michigan state legislature. She criticized Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) for meeting with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Tlaib accused of “racism.” In addition, she supported convicted Arab-Palestinian terrorist Rasmeah Odeh in her bid to fight deportation after Odeh lied to U.S. immigration officials about her involvement with Hamas. In 2014, Tlaib served on a panel, “The Outer Dimensions of Zakat,” at the 51st annual Islamic Society of North America conference and was as a keynote speaker for CAIR Los Angeles on the topic of “Islamophobia.” She plans to propose civil rights legislation to file punitive lawsuits based on disparate impact, without requiring proof of racial bias or ill intent.

As can be seen by just this short review of only a handful of candidates, enough questions and doubts exist to compel close scrutiny of all Muslim candidates who are seeking to break through as American political “firsts.” Without a close examination, our political process and systems could be infiltrated with increasing numbers of Muslim candidates of questionable background and motivation who will follow the insidious civilizational jihad according to plan and at a dizzying pace.

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

Straight talk to the Palestinian Heroine and the Rest of the PA Frozen in Delusion

www.israel-commnemtary.org

By Daniel J. Arbess

Wall Street Journal
Aug. 14, 2018

Israel released 17-year-old Ahed Tamimi last month after she spent eight months in prison for assaulting an Israeli soldier. She immediately met with Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, who lionized her as a “model of Palestinian resistance,” and others have since hailed her as an “Icon of Palestine.”

Ten days before her release, Israel’s Knesset had enacted a law reaffirming that Israel is “the national home of the Jewish people” and that “the right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.”

These two otherwise unrelated developments point to essential questions: Will the Palestinians finally accept Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people and help fashion Israel’s democracy to serve better all who live there? Maybe — if Ms. Tamimi’s generation is willing to help make it happen. But they, and well-meaning Palestinian sympathizers in Israel and abroad, will need to move on from the past, accept the present ad work toward the future.

In her first post release interview, the young icon inauspiciously says that the Palestinians’ problem “was never with the Jews, it’s with Zionism.” This is the familiar mantra of rejecting Israel’s right to exist, yet expecting to enjoy its economic and political benefits as if it were an ordinary secular liberal democracy like Canada or Sweden—where demographics might one day make the Jewish vote a minority.

This narrative of rejection is Ms. Tamimi’s family legacy. Her father, Bassem Tamimi, describes himself as a follower of Gandhi, but in 2012 an Israeli military court convicted him of “sending people to throw stones.” Ahed’s cousin Ahlam Tamimi was behind the 2001 Sbarro Massacre, in which a suicide bomber murdered 15, including seven children and a pregnant woman. Another cousin, Rushdi Muhammed Sa’id Tamimi, murdered an Israeli man near Ramallah in 1993. Ahed herself professes nonviolence, despite being jailed for assault and still pledging that “the resistance will continue until the end of the occupation.”

It’s a self-defeating attitude. Palestinian Arabs, and self-styled progressives everywhere, need to realize it’s time to stop fighting lost battles and accept reality.

The Hard Cold Truth — whether the Arabs fantasize or not is that:

Israel is the ancestral and legal homeland of the Jewish people. Its capital is Jerusalem, as the U.S. has belatedly recognized, with other countries following. Israel’s enemies lost the Six Day War more than 50 years ago and Israel regained its biblical Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and the ancient city of Jerusalem. The 1967-borders-and-land-swaps formula of the 1993 Oslo Accord is an artifact of history, overtaken by developments on the ground. The Palestinians rejected it, and they have never initiated any proposal to achieve peace with Israel, before and since.

A broad alignment is coalescing among Israel and its treaty partners, Egypt and Jordan, and the consensus now informally includes Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, among others. With this Israeli-Arab détente, the Palestinians in Israel are finding that they are the last holdouts of an Arab world that has accepted Israel and will make peace with it.

Next-generation Saudi and Emirati leaders are notably losing patience with Palestinians’ rooting for Iran or supporting the West against the Gulf Arabs’ interests. Arab leaders who truly want to help their people know the path is through creativity, negotiation and compromise, not violent “resistance”—a euphemism for terrorism—and war.

Nonetheless, the Palestinians and their sympathizers have a legitimate argument that the status quo is unsustainable. Nobody seems truly satisfied with the unresolved status of Palestinian Arabs. Polls show the Israeli public wants a dignified outcome that integrates the Palestinian people into Israel’s thriving economy and culture of innovation. But security comes first. How could Israel ease security restrictions while Palestinian leaders are indoctrinating and inciting new generations to resist the so-called occupation with violence?

As the “two-state solution” fades and Palestinian “resistance” lingers, the Jewish people’s standards and aspirations still anticipate Zionism’s complete reconciliation with the ideal of equality for all of Israel’s “inhabitants,” expressed in the nation’s 1948 Declaration of Independence. It would seem appropriate for Jews, Christians, Druze and forward-looking Muslims to start discussing how democratic rights may be preserved for everyone while still guaranteeing the Jewish character of the state under any demographic circumstances.

Might the answer point toward an arrangement that grants local communities self-determination while sustaining Jewish control of immigration and other policies of national identity and security? We in the U.S. know very well that decentralized democracy can be highly legitimate and effective.

Ahed Tamimi and her cohort shouldn’t be content as the next generation of cannon fodder. They’re capable of breaking free from their elders’ calcified thinking, as their millennial counterparts are doing around the world. Information-savvy young Palestinians should find the courage to move on, or Israel and the world will keep passing them by.

Ahed says she’s considering law school and a political career, and she’s a passionate and telegenic teenager with the potential to make a difference. Let us hope she will follow this path and help develop an arrangement that benefits all peoples of Israel. Such an order would promote democratic local self-determination, while preserving Israel’s eternal Jewish identity.

An Israeli nation free of the burden of this conflict—Christians, Jews, Muslims and Druze together—would be a beacon of democratic light, leadership and healing for the entire Middle East and world. Ahed Tamimi’s involvement in that project would render her a true icon.

Author: Mr. Arbess is CEO of Xerion Investments and a co-founder of No Labels.

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

The Frightening Perversion of our Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

FBI TAKES ON ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’

White nationalism is seen by the FBI as a bigger threat than jihad terror. Huh!

(A neglected article By Leo Hohmann just became far more pertinent. A neophyte politician with virtually no name recognition who practices Sharia Law and proudly declares he wants to make Michigan a Sanctuary State, garnered 340,560 (30.2%) votes in the Michigan Democrat Party primary, August 7, 2018!

Unfortunately, we have not seen the last of Abdul El Sayed. Please put him on your radar screen and remember who he is the next time you see him on a voting ballot. No question he will be there. That is part of the national master plan to create another Barack Obama!

Even more frightening is the fact that El Sayed was running against a quality opponent, Gretchen Whitner. Fortunately, she obtained 546,074 (52% of the vote) and was recommended by one of Michigan’s leading newspapers, the Detroit News,which editorialized the following:

Gretchen Whitner has been leader of the Michigan Senate during Governor Snyder’s first two years. Of the four Democrats running in the primary, (Including Abdul El Sayed) she is by far the best choice and has exhibited on the campaign trail a broader understanding of what it takes to govern. And like her GOP foes, Whitner is also an experienced Lansing hand.

Her major opponents, Shri Thanedar and Abdul El-Sayed, are full-throated socialists who trace every ill in society to profit-making corporations. Neither is fit to lead an industrial state (or anything else in this country, for that matter – jsk)

Jerome S. Kaufman August 12, 2018)
www.israel-commentary.org

Returning to Leo Hohmann’s article

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269161/fbi-takes-islamophobia-leo-hohmann

January 31, 2018

Two Michigan residents attended a quarterly BRIDGES meeting hosted by the Detroit office of the FBI recently that left them stunned by the blatant Islamist infiltration of the Bureau.

BRIDGES is an FBI outreach program whose roots can be traced back to the initial years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The acronym stands for Building Respect in Diverse Groups to Enhance Sensitivity (or brain-washing for Islamic terrorism) and involves FBI-hosted workshops for law enforcement and various immigrant communities.

The workshops have been held in Boston, Detroit, New York, Chicago, Houston, Minneapolis-St. Paul and other cities.

According to the FBI website, BRIDGES “brings together members of diverse communities and state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies to discuss issues and concerns within their communities.”

The outreaches can sometimes go to bizarre lengths to demonstrate the FBI’s respect for Islam.

In St. Paul, for example, the FBI boasted in its Oct. 7, 2014 edition of the Law Enforcement Bulletin that the local police department “hosted its first halal cookout” with the Somali Muslim community.  

The Jan. 10 BRIDGES meeting in Michigan serves as a fresh reminder of how the FBI has made a concerted effort to divert the eyes of law enforcement officers away from Muslim communities as potential breeding grounds for terror and refocus attention on “Islamophobic” American citizens.

The meeting, held at the Troy Police and Fire Training Center in Oakland County, an affluent suburb of Detroit, was described as “painful to watch” by two guests who attended.

Dick Manasseri, an activist with Secure Michigan and a resident of Oakland County, was one of about 80 people present. He and a friend were able to get in by way of a guest invitation from the American Middle Eastern Christian Congress, a regular attendee. But he said there was no emphasis placed on the plight of persecuted Middle Eastern Christians now living in Oakland County.

Instead, almost the entire hour-and-a-half meeting was spent focusing on Islamic religious and cultural practices and trying to debunk any derogatory information police officers may have about Islamic ideology.

The FBI’s point person for this task was Bushra Alawie, a young female Muslim wearing a full head covering, or hijab. Alawie served in the Army National Guard and upon leaving the Guard in September 2016 the FBI hired her to be its “community outreach specialist” in Detroit.

“I get that initial look like, ‘is that really Bushra’ because of my visibly Muslim attire,” Alawie told Detroit’s WXYZ-TV in 2016. “Immediately those rumors are dispelled and it’s business as usual.”  

Alawie admitted in the WXYZ interview that her real mission at the FBI is not to ferret out tips and information useful in the apprehension of terrorists but rather it is to “combat Islamophobia.”

That just happens to be the same exact mission of the Muslim Brotherhood– offshoot Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has an entire division called the Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia. And while he did not attend on Jan. 10, CAIR’s Michigan chapter head, Dawud Walid, has a standing invitation to the FBI’s quarterly BRIDGES meetings in metro Detroit. 

Alawie went to great lengths to dismiss any concerns about the phrase “Allahu Akbar,” so frequently shouted during the commission of Islamic terrorist attacks. “Allahu Akbar,” she said, is:

Said by Muslims 85 times a day

Was said by Jews and Christians before Islam began (I strongly doubt Jews would utter such a declaration against their Monotheistic G-d)

Would be used to celebrate the birth of a child or in the prayer of a sick person

It’s normal and not particularly associated with violent jihad.

She explained that “jihad” means: An inner struggle – for her it’s to “not eat cheesecake.”
Higher jihad – inner struggle Lower jihad – to defend one’s property.

She mentioned that “jihad” was even a name taken by Christian men on occasion and that there was an FBI employee of Palestinian descent whose name was Jihad.

(And, if you believe the above, like evidently so many gullible law enforcement agencies throughout this great country, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you — unless the Islamic Terrorists have already done so.) jsk

Philip Haney, a former armed Customs and Border Protection officer who became a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 and a member of the Advanced Targeting Team before retiring in July 2015, said the FBI did not get to rolling out Bushra Alawie as an expert on terrorism overnight. It took years.

When Haney tried to blow the whistle on Homeland Security ineptitude, he found himself investigated repeatedly before being exonerated and honorably discharged.

“She wouldn’t have been given that platform under the old rules,” Haney said of Alawie. “These concessions to Islam have been developing for a long time.” Haney said the campaign to sanitize Islam began right after 9/11 and was international in scope.

Since at least 2005, “Combatting Islamophobia” on a global basis has been a top priority of the United Nations and the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a 57-nation group of Muslim-majority nations that makes up the largest voting bloc at the U.N. 

The OIC adopted its 10-year Strategic Action Plan to Overcome Islamophobia in 2005, calling for nations to pass new laws “including deterrent punishments” for those guilty of Islamophobia. This crime was described as any speech that counters the OIC’s statement that “Islam is the religion of moderation and tolerance.”

This 10-year plan served as the basis for the 2011 U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18, which encourages every nation in the world to pass hate-speech laws making “defamation of religion” a crime. Many nations in Western Europe, including the UK, Germany and Sweden obliged, as did Canada, and passed hate-speech laws geared toward punishing “Islamophobes.”

It was also around this same time frame – 2010 to 2012 – that lesson plans in public schools across the United States started incorporating large sections on Islam, emphasizing it as a religion of peace and tolerance.
In 2013 the OIC opened an office in Brussels explicitly for the purpose of combatting Islamophobia in Europe.  

In February 2017 U.N. Secretary General Antonio Gutteres cited “Islamophobia” as the fuel that ignites global terrorism. This U.N. focus on Islamophobia came during the peak offensives of ISIS, al-Nusra and other jihadist groups in their genocide of Christian minorities in Iraq and Syria – exposing the global body’s agenda as more concerned about speech deemed offensive to Muslims than beheadings, rapes and mass-murdering of Christians.

One of the more crucial developments came in 2011 – the same year the U.N. adopted Resolution 16/18 – in the form of a letter sent by representatives of more than 50 Muslim organizations, many with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, requesting that Obama’s then-deputy national security advisor John Brennan remove all references to Islam from FBI training manuals that were deemed offensive to Muslims.

They also requested that the FBI and DHS rid themselves of all “biased experts” – people like Haney – and “immediately create an inter-agency task force to address the problem.”  

Brennan and then-FBI chief Robert Mueller (who have currently taken over the news with Mueller’s ? fell over like a stack of dominos. They immediately set about purging the Bureau of its best and brightest terrorism experts and scrubbing training manuals to the delight of CAIR and other offended Islamist organizations.

Instead of true terrorism experts, police cadets would receive training from people like Bushra Alawie. Since most local police chiefs get instruction from the FBI Academy, the same drivel that now passes for training at the Bureau has filtered down to police departments across the U.S. 

Other highlights from the BRIDGES meeting:

Troy Mayor Dane Slater welcomed the meeting attendees to the “most diverse city in Michigan.”

Troy Police Chief Gary Mayer, along with four of his senior officers, welcomed their federal counterparts from the FBI and witnessed the guidance provided by the FBI regarding the normalcy of “Allahu Akbar” and benevolent jihad.

Praise was offered for the Obama-appointed former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade who was fired by Trump.
Examples offered of domestic terrorism repeatedly focused on white supremacist groups, who are seen as more dangerous than Islamic terrorism according to the teaching of the previous administration and the United Nations-endorsed Strong Cities Network.

Mental health was injected as an explanation for violent activity per the Muslim Brotherhood playbook.
Celebration of the long-standing civil rights partnership between the FBI and the Muslim community was marked with recognition awards.

“Everything was about welcoming, welcoming, welcoming,” Manasseri said. “It was terribly discouraging, including when they talked about domestic terrorism and they kept coming back to white supremacism and how do you protect us from white nationalism? Stunning.”

To counter the watered-down message coming from the FBI, Manasseri said he has co-founded a project called Sharia Crime Stoppers with a retired police chief.

“In order to honor their oath, local law enforcement must demand expert Sharia training,” he said, adding that the Sharia Crime Stoppers training is free except for travel costs.

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

President Lyndon Baines Johnson — Un-appreciated and Maligned

www.israel-commentary.org

A few months ago, the Associated Press reported that newly released tapes from US president Lyndon Johnson’s White House office showed LBJ’s “personal and often emotional connection to Israel.” The news agency pointed out that during the Johnson presidency (1963-1969),”the United States became Israel ‘s chief diplomatic ally and primary arms supplier.”

But the news report does little to reveal the full historical extent of Johnson’s actions on behalf of the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

Most students of the Arab-Israeli conflict can identify Johnson as the president during the 1967 war. But few know about LBJ’s actions to rescue hundreds of endangered Jews during the Holocaust – actions that could have thrown him out of Congress and into jail. Indeed, the title of “Righteous Gentile” is certainly appropriate in the case of the Texan, whose centennial year is being commemorated this year.

Appropriately enough, the annual Jerusalem Conference announced this week that it will honor Johnson.

Historians have revealed that Johnson, while serving as a young congressman in 1938 and 1939, arranged for visas to be supplied to Jews in Warsaw and oversaw the apparently illegal immigration of hundreds of Jews through the port of Galveston, Texas ….

A key resource for uncovering LBJ’s pro-Jewish activity is the unpublished 1989 doctoral thesis by University of Texas student Louis Gomolak, “Prologue: LBJ’s Foreign Affairs Background, 1908-1948.”Johnson’s activities were confirmed by other historians in interviews with his wife, family members and political associates.

Research into Johnson’s personal history indicates that he inherited his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America . According to Gomolak, Aunt Jessi had nurtured LBJ’s commitment to befriending Jews for 50 years. As young boy, Lyndon watched his politically active grandfather “Big Sam” and father “Little Sam” seek clemency for Leo Frank, the Jewish victim of a blood libel in Atlanta

Frank was lynched by a mob in 1915, and the Ku Klux Klan in Texas threatened to kill the Johnsons. The Johnsons later told friends that Lyndon’s family hid in their cellar while his father and uncles stood guard with shotguns on their porch in case of KKK attacks. Johnson’s speech writer later stated, “Johnson often cited Leo Frank’s lynching as the source of his opposition to both anti-Semitism and isolationism.”

Already in 1934 – four years before Chamberlain’s Munich sell out to Hitler – Johnson was keenly alert to the dangers of Nazism and presented a book of essays, ‘Nazism: An Assault on Civilization’, to the 21-year-old woman he was courting, Claudia Taylor – later known as “Lady Bird” Johnson. It was an incredible engagement present.

FIVE DAYS after taking office in 1937, LBJ broke with the “Dixiecrats” and supported an immigration bill that would naturalize illegal aliens, mostly Jews from Lithuania and Poland. In 1938 Johnson was told of a young Austrian Jewish musician who was about to be deported from the United States. With an element of subterfuge, LBJ sent him to the US Consulate in Havana to obtain a residency permit. Erich Leinsdorf, the world famous musician and conductor, credited LBJ for saving his live.

That same year, LBJ warned Jewish friend, Jim Novy, that European Jews faced annihilation. “Get as many Jewish people as possible out of Germany and Poland,” were Johnson’s instructions. Somehow, Johnson provided him with a pile of signed immigration papers that were used to get 42 Jews out of Warsaw .

But that wasn’t enough. According to historian James M. Smallwood, Congressman Johnson used legal and sometimes illegal methods to smuggle “hundreds of Jews into Texas, using Galveston as the entry port.

Enough money could buy false passports and fake visas in Cuba, Mexico and other Latin American countries. Johnson smuggled boatloads and planeloads of Jews into Texas . He hid them in the Texas National Youth Administration. Johnson saved at least four or five hundred Jews, possibly more.”

During World War II Johnson joined Novy at a small Austin gathering to sell $65,000 in war bonds. According to Gomolak, Novy and Johnson then raised a very “substantial sum for arms for Jewish underground fighters in Palestine.” One source cited by the historian reports that “Novy and Johnson had been secretly shipping heavy crates labeled ‘ Texas Grapefruit’ – but containing arms – to Jewish underground ‘freedom fighters’ in Palestine .”

ON JUNE 4, 1945, Johnson visited Dachau . According to Smallwood, Lady Bird later recalled that when her husband returned home, “he was still shaken, stunned, terrorized, and bursting with an overpowering revulsion and incredulous horror at what he had seen.”

A decade later while serving in the Senate, Johnson blocked the Eisenhower administration’s attempts to apply sanctions against Israelfollowing the 1956 Sinai Campaign. “The indefatigable Johnson had never ceased pressure on the administration,” wrote I.L. “Si” Kenen, the head of AIPAC at the time.

As Senate majority leader, Johnson consistently blocked the anti-Israel initiatives of his fellow Democrat, William Fulbright, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Among Johnson’s closest advisers during this period were several strong pro-Israel advocates, including Benjamin Cohen (who 30 years earlier was the liaison between Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis and Chaim Weizmann) and Abe Fortas, the legendary Washington “insider.”

Johnson’s concern for the Jewish people continued through his presidency. Soon after taking office in the aftermath of John F.Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson told an Israeli diplomat, “You have lost a very great friend, but you have found a better one.”

Just one month after succeeding Kennedy, LBJ attended the December 1963 dedication of the Agudas Achim Synagogue in Austin. Novy opened the ceremony by saying to Johnson, “We can’t thank him enough for all those Jews he got out of Germany during the days of Hitler.”

Lady Bird would later describe the day, according to Gomolak: “Person after person plucked at my sleeve and said, ‘I wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for him. He helped me get out.‘” Lady Bird elaborated, “Jews had been woven into the warp and woof of all [Lyndon’s] years.”

THE PRELUDE to the 1967 war was a terrifying period for Israel, with the US State Department led by the historically unfriendly Dean Rusk urging an evenhanded policy despite Arab threats and acts of aggression. Johnson held no such illusions.

After the war he placed the blame firmly on Egypt : “If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other, it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision [by Egypt that the Strait of Tiran would be closed [to Israeli ships and Israeli-bound cargo].”

Kennedy was the first president to approve the sale of defensive US weapons to Israel, specifically Hawk anti-aircraft missiles. But Johnson approved tanks and fighter jets, all vital after the 1967 war when France (Mumzer Chas.DeGaulle imposed a freeze on sales to Israel). Yehuda Avner recently described on these pages prime minister Levi Eshkol’s successful appeal for these weapons on a visit to the LBJ ranch.

Israel won the 1967 war, and Johnson worked to make sure it also won the peace. “I sure as hell want to be careful and not run out on little Israel,” Johnson said in a March 1968 conversation with his ambassador to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg, according to White House tapes recently released.

Soon after the 1967 war, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson at the Glassboro Summit why the US supported Israel when there were 80 million Arabs and only three million Israelis. “Because it is a right thing to do,” responded the straight shooting Texan.

The crafting of UN Resolution 242 in November 1967 was done under Johnson’s scrutiny. The call for “secure and recognized boundaries” was critical. The American and British drafters of the resolution opposed Israel returning all the territories captured in the war.

In September 1968, Johnson explained, “We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be agreed to by the neighbors involved.”

Goldberg later noted, “Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem and this omission was deliberate.” This historic diplomacy was conducted under Johnson’s stewardship, as Goldberg related in oral history to the Johnson Library. “I must say for Johnson,” Goldberg stated.”He gave me great personal support.”

Robert David Johnson, a professor of history at Brooklyn College, recently wrote in The New York Sun, Johnson’s policies stemmed more from personal concerns – his friendship with leading Zionists, his belief that America had a moral obligation to bolster Israeli security and his conception of Israel as a frontier land much like his home state of Texas. His personal concerns led him to intervene when he felt that the State or Defense departments had insufficiently appreciated Israel ‘s diplomatic or military needs.”

President Johnson firmly pointed American policy in a pro-Israel direction. In a historical context, the American emergency airlift to Israel in 1973, the constant diplomatic support, the economic and
military assistance and the strategic bonds between the two countries can all be credited to the seeds planted by LBJ.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: Lyndon Johnson’s maternal ancestors, the Huffmans, apparently migrated to Frederick, Maryland from Germany sometime in the mid-eighteenth century. Later they moved to Bourbon, Kentucky and eventually settled in Texas in the mid-to-late nineteenth century.

According to Jewish law, if a person’s mother is Jewish, then that person is automatically Jewish, regardless of the father’s ethnicity or religion. The facts indicate that both of Lyndon Johnson’s
great-grandparents, on the maternal side, were Jewish. These were the grandparents of Lyndon’s mother, Rebecca Baines.

Their names were John S. Huffman and Mary Elizabeth Perrin. John Huffman’s mother was Suzanne Ament, a common Jewish name. Perrin is also a common Jewish name. Huffman and Perrin had a daughter, Ruth Ament Huffman, who married Joseph Baines and together they had a daughter, Rebekah Baines, Lyndon Johnson’s mother. The line of Jewish mothers can be traced back three generations in Lyndon Johnson’s family tree. There is little doubt that he was Jewish.

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

No Sharia Law in Michigan. No Mohamed El-Sayed and Sanctuary State

Big League Politics contributor Laura Loomer to Michigan with The United West to investigate Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, a Muslim candidate running for Governor in Michigan as a Democrat Socialist.

WATCH: Founder of Sharia Crime Stoppers Says ‘Sharia Law Is In Michigan’

Richard Manasseri is the co-founder of Sharia Crime Stoppers, an organization focused on training local law enforcement to understand the criminal behavior sanctioned under Sharia Law and what officers could encounter on the streets of America.

Loomer sat down with Manasseri and asked him about why it is important to know about Sharia and what people need to know about El-Sayed. Is El-Sayed practicing Taqiyya in order to become the next Governor of Michigan and advance Islam in the United States?

“There are 140 mosques in the state of Michigan…each of the Imams at these mosques is supreme,” according to Manasseri. “The mosque itself is a seed of government. Sharia law is in Michigan. We have had leaders of organizations like CAIR Michigan say that it is.”

Trending: Conservative Candace Owens Suspended from Twitter for Tweeting SAME THING as Racist New York Times Editor

Manasseri has three daughters and two grand daughters. For him, his biggest concern with Sharia Law is how it deems women as property. Like many, Manasseri worries that if El-Sayed is elected as Governor of Michigan, women in the state will begin to experience less rights under a Governor who practices a completely different legal code than the United States Constitution.

“We are concerned about the personal safety of individual people, and as we’ve said, that would primarily be women, who would be less safe under Abdul El-Sayed,” Manasseri said.

WATCH:

While Democrats in Michigan will deny the negative impact Islamic immigration has had on the state, and while they vehemently deny that Sharia Law exists in Michigan communities, Dawud Walid, the Executive Director of CAIR Michigan, is on the record happily admitting that Sharia Law is alive and well in Michigan.

El-Sayed is not only a Sharia compliant Muslim, but he is a Democrat socialist running on a Marxist political platform as a self-proclaimed “justice Democrat”. Some of the campaign talking points El –Sayed is campaigning on include socialized healthcare, legalization of Marijuana, free college tuition, abortion, opposition to fossil fuels, pro-illegal immigration, and anti-Israel foreign policy. If elected Governor, El-Sayed has vowed to abolish ICE and make Michigan a Sanctuary state where illegal immigrants are protected from deportation and immune to the actions of law enforcement agencies.

El-Sayed, who is running on the Democrat ticket as a “Justice Democrat”, refused to answer questions about his personal practice of Sharia and how Islamic law contradicts key platform stances in the Democrat Party when he was confronted at a campaign event in Michigan last week.

El-Sayed practices Sharia law in his personal life, and has stated that his “head touches the floor 34 times a day” during his Islamic prayers. His true colors as a Muslim were revealed in May of 2018 while he was speaking to the Michigan Press Association at the Kellogg Center in East Lansing, Michigan. While speaking, El-Sayed yelled at Senator Patrick Colbeck and said, “You may not hate Muslims, but ALL Muslims hate you.”

Colbeck is a Republican member of the Michigan Senate, and he is currently a Republican candidate running to become the next Governor of Michigan.

On Sunday, self proclaimed socialists Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be in Michigan campaigning for El-Sayed, who has openly declared his support for the Muslim Brotherhood and has been endorsed by CAIR, both of which are designated terrorist organizations.

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

 

THE STATE OF ISRAEL IS THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE

Final text of Jewish nation-state law, approved by the Knesset early on July 19, 2018

The ‘Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People,’ passed by 62-55, with two abstentions

www.israel-commentary.org

By RAOUL WOOTLIFF

19 July 2018

Knesset members approved overnight Wednesday-Thursday a controversial and long-debated law that officially defines Israel as the Jewish nation-state, voting the bill through in its second and third plenary readings by 62-55, with two abstentions.

The law for the first time enshrines Israel as “the national home of the Jewish people.” The law becomes one of the so-called Basic Laws, which, like a constitution, guide Israel’s legal system and are usually more difficult to repeal than regular laws.

What follows is a full translation of the final version of the bill approved by the Knesset plenary:

Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People

1 — Basic principles

A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.

B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.

C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

2 — The symbols of the state

A. The name of the state is “Israel.”

B. The state flag is white with two blue stripes near the edges and a blue Star of David in the center.

C. The state emblem is a seven-branched menorah with olive leaves on both sides and the word “Israel” beneath it.

D. The state anthem is “Hatikvah.”

E. Details regarding state symbols will be determined by the law.

3 — The capital of the state

Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.

4 — Language

A. The state’s language is Hebrew.

B. The Arabic language has a special status in the state; Regulating the use of Arabic in state institutions or by them will be set in law.

C. This clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into effect.

5 — Ingathering of the exiles

The state will be open for Jewish immigration and the ingathering of exiles

6 — Connection to the Jewish people

A. The state will strive to ensure the safety of the members of the Jewish people in trouble or in captivity due to the fact of their Jewishness or their citizenship.

B. The state shall act within the Diaspora to strengthen the affinity between the state and members of the Jewish people.

C. The state shall act to preserve the cultural, historical and religious heritage of the Jewish people among Jews in the Diaspora.

7 — Jewish settlement

A. The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.

8 — Official calendar

The Hebrew calendar is the official calendar of the state and alongside it the Gregorian calendar will be used as an official calendar. Use of  the Hebrew calendar and the Gregorian calendar will be determined by law.

9 — Independence Day and memorial days

A. Independence Day is the official national holiday of the state.

B. Memorial Day for the Fallen in Israel’s Wars and Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day are official memorial days of the State.

10 — Days of rest and sabbath

The Sabbath and the festivals of Israel are the established days of rest in the state; Non-Jews have a right to maintain days of rest on their Sabbaths and festivals; Details of this issue will be determined by law.

11 — Immutability

This Basic Law shall not be amended, unless by another Basic Law passed by a majority of Knesset members.

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

Torah portion of week: Moses relays G-d’s instructions to the Jewish people poised to conquer Canaan

From the Hebrew Torah Parsha of this week, VA-ETHANNAN

(Moses relays to the Jewish people the instructions from their G-d introducing them to the land GOD has dedicated to them to eternity)

Deuteronomy 7:1-11

1  When the LORD your God brings you to the land that you are about to enter and possess and He dislodges many nations before you — the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations much larger than you.

2  And the LORD your God delivers them to you and you defeat them, you must doom them to destruction: grant them no terms and give them no quarter.

3  You shall not inter-marry with them: do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.

4  For they will turn your children away from Me to worship other gods, and the LORD’s anger blazes forth against you and He will promptly wipe you out.

5  Instead, this is what you shall do to them. you shall tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred posts, and consign their images to the fire.

6  For you are a people consecrated to the Lord your God: of all the peoples on earth your God chose you to be His treasured people

7  It is not because you are the most numerous of peoples that the Lord set His heart on you and chose you. Indeed, you are the smallest of peoples;

8  But it was because the LORD favored you and kept the oath He made to your fathers that the LORD freed you with a mighty hand and rescued you from the house of bondage, from the power of Pharaoh, King of Egypt.

9  Know therefore, that only the LORD your God is God, the steadfast God who keeps his covenant faithfully to the thousandth generation of those who love Him and keep His commandments,

10  But who instantly requites with destruction, those who reject Him — never slow with those who reject Him but requiting them instantly.

11  Therefore, observe faithfully the Instruction — the laws and the rules with which I charge you today.

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

 

What’s with this FISA Court hassle?

Abolish the FISA Court
The introduction of judges shields the executive branch from accountability.

www.israel-commentary.org

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes on Capitol Hill, June 7.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes on Capitol Hill, June 

On the gentle summer evening that was last Saturday night, the Justice Department finally made public the October 2016 application for a warrant to spy on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign official. The application’s release kicked off a furious effort by Democrats and their allies in the press to gaslight the American people into disbelieving what they could read with their own eyes. Yet notwithstanding all the sound and fury, its 412 pages—even in redacted form—largely vindicate the principal object of Democratic attack, as described by California’s GOP Rep. Devin Nunes.

Back in February, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, led by Mr. Nunes, issued a report stating that the Steele dossier, compiled by a former British spy, was “an essential part” of the application for a warrant on Mr. Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In this Mr. Nunes was supported by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who testified to Congress that without the Steele dossier there would have been no warrant.

The Nunes report further claimed the FISA application didn’t inform the judge that the Steele dossier was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Here too Mr. Nunes has been proved right.

Lost in the competing narratives, meanwhile, is the larger FISA scandal. The Page warrant confirms that a FISA court effectively insulates those who deploy the most formidable powers of the federal government from the consequences of what should be an extraordinary decision: spying on a fellow American.

Like so many other bad ideas, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act comes out of the 1970s. Senate hearings led by Idaho Democrat Frank Church exposed controversial domestic spying on Americans. Along with the general antipathy toward all things Nixon, it led Congress to enact FISA in 1978 and Jimmy Carter to sign it into law.

In the decades since, the nation has become accustomed to having oversight and accountability that should be imposed by the people’s elected representatives fobbed off on special counsels, inspectors general and the like.

We forget what a break FISA marked with our history, under which only the president, as commander in chief, was understood to have the power to surveil American citizens without warrants to gather foreign intelligence to protect the nation. The new idea aimed to temper that power by introducing another branch, the judiciary, into this process.

As even the redacted version of the document released this weekend ought to make clear, a FISA court is no guarantee against surveillance abuse. To the contrary, it can invite questionable assertions of this extraordinary power because no one is ever really on the hook. In this case, instead of vetting Mr. Steele’s specific allegations, the FBI got away with deeming him “reliable” because they’d found him credible in other cases.

Perhaps the redacted material includes some verification of Mr. Steele’s claims. But so far there’s no hard evidence, and Mr. Page hasn’t been charged with anything. Is this really the way an intelligence agency should declare an American citizen “an agent of a foreign power”?

When President Trump tweeted Monday morning that it was “looking more & more like the Trump Campaign for President was illegally being spied upon,” the common rejoinder was four judges had signed off on it.

Now ask yourself: Would Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (who signed one of the renewal applications) and others be so quick to put their names on something like this if they didn’t have a FISA judge to give them cover?

The argument is not new. Just before FISA became law, a Yale law professor wrote a prophetic article in these pages about the abuses to come. His name was Robert Bork, and among his worries were that judges would show undue deference to intelligence agencies, that congressional committees wouldn’t be able to summon judges to explain their warrant approvals, and, above all, that giving courts the last say would have “the effect of immunizing everyone, and sooner or later that fact will be taken advantage of.”

In the short term, Mr. Trump would serve himself better by forgoing tweets about witch hunts and instead ordering the declassification of documents that would show the American people just what the Justice Department and the FBI did in 2016.

In the longer term, Congress should consider getting rid of FISA courts altogether. Because without judges to hide behind, executive officials who order spying on their fellow citizens will have to own those decisions themselves.

Write to mcgurn@wsj.com.

Jews get out of Europe now. Leave Europeans to their own self-destruction with Islamic Terrorism and Sharia law

Time  to Leave

Redacted from an in-depth analysis by Melanie Phillips  

COMMENTARY JULY/AUGUST 2018

These are alarming times for Jews in Britain and Europe.

The British Labour Party is convulsed over the realization that it is riddled with anti-Semitism. Jeremy Corbyn, its leader and a friend to Hamas, has been exposed as belonging to Facebook groups hosting claims that the Jews were behind ISIS and 9/11, that the Rothschilds controlled the world’s finances, and other such paranoid theories. 

The backwash from the exposure of these groups revealed a tsunami of anti-Jewish insults, smears, and libels by Labour supporters. Corbyn’s responses, often truculent and insulting to the Jewish community, have only deepened the crisis.

Last year, according to the Community Security Trust, saw the highest number of anti-Semitic incidents in Britain since the CST started recording such data in 1984. Worse is happening in mainland Europe: 

Paris — an 85-year-old survivor of Shoah, stabbed to death and her body burned by a young Muslim. 

Last year, a man shouting “Allahu akbar” beat up Jewish schoolteacher Sarah Halimi and threw her to her death out of her Paris apartment window.

In January, a teenage girl in the Paris suburb of Sarcelles wearing the uniform of her Jewish school was slashed in the face with a knife.

Later that month, an eight-year-old boy was beaten in the same area because he was wearing a kippah. In February, two Jewish men in Paris were attacked with a hacksaw amid a volley of Jew-hating abuse.

In Amsterdam, a kosher restaurant long targeted for attack had its windows smashed in March by a man holding a Palestinian flag and shouting “Allahu akbar.”

Holland’s chief rabbi says that, on the street, curses or taunts of “dirty Jew” are now quite normal.

At the beginning of Chanukah last year, two Syrians and a Palestinian firebombed a synagogue in Gothenburg, Sweden. A few days later, a Jewish cemetery in Malmö was attacked. In Germany, the Israeli flag has been burned and Jewish pupils bullied by Arab schoolmates. And so on and on.

In May 2017, the Pew Institute conducted a survey of 2,000 residents in each country in Eastern and Central Europe. Twenty percent of respondents said that they didn’t want Jews in their country, and 30 percent didn’t want them as neighbors. 

In Romania, 22 percent wanted to revoke rights of citizenship for Jews, and 18 percent of Poles said the same. Across Europe, nationalist parties, some with disturbing anti-Semitic echoes and histories, are rising.

And, so, many Jews are asking: Isn’t this 1933 all over again? Or the Weimar Republic, which enabled the rise to power of German Nazism? 

The threats to Britain and Europe are coming both from within and without. From without, they are coming from Islamism and Islamization. From within, they are coming from an anti-Western view of the world that also refuses to correctly identify the Islamist threat from without and combat it.

The vast majority of terror attacks in Britain and Europe is the work of Islamic extremists. Intelligence officials say that 23,000 jihadists who pose some degree of terrorism risk are living in Britain, with 3,000—only!—under investigation or active monitoring.

There’s sexual violence. Britain has lived through grooming and pimping gangs, overwhelmingly composed of men of Pakistani Muslim heritage targeting young white girls as “trash.” 

Germany and Sweden have seen a huge rise in rape and sexual violence associated with Muslim migrants.

Then there’s the cultural attack, as in the “Trojan Horse” infiltration of schools in Birmingham by Muslim extremists aimed to force them to confirm to Islamic precepts. Similar infiltration of Labour Party constituencies, as attested by one or two brave Labour MPs, aims to force the party to conform to Muslim demands.

Anti-Israelism has exactly the same characteristics that make traditional anti-Semitism a unique derangement. Both are based entirely on falsehoods and malicious distortions; both single out Israel and the Jews for double standards and treatment afforded to no other nation, people, or cause; both accuse Israel or the Jews of crimes of which they are not only innocent but are in fact the victims; both dehumanize Israel or the Jewish people; both impute to Israel or the Jewish people demonic global conspiratorial power; both are utterly beyond reason.

WHY LEFT-WING ANTI-SEMITISM?

This is the new anti-Semitism. Trying to understand it, however, is like peeling a rotten onion: Beneath every rancid layer lies a yet more rancid layer.

So now every group that doesn’t conform to the left-wing definition of power—deemed to be pale, male, heterosexual, Western—claims victim status and that get-out-of-jail-free card. That’s our victim culture.

Yet Jews are in fact the most persecuted people on earth, who even now have to sacrifice their children in Israel to defend themselves year in, year out against genocidal fanatics bent on their extermination. So how can this not be recognized?

Support for Palestinianism is also innately anti-Jew. So-called Palestinian identity is a fiction invented to exterminate the uniquely historically and legally valid Jewish claim to the land of Israel. 

Mahmoud Abbas, viewed by the Western left as a moderate entitled to a state, has a doctorate in Holocaust denial, explicitly venerates the wartime Palestinian Nazi-ally Haj Amin al-Husseini, and uses his media outlets to transmit Nazi-style demonization of the Jews.

THE LEFT CAN’T ADMIT ITS ANTI-SEMITISM

Left-wingers, however, are constitutionally unable to accept that they can be racist or anti-Semitic because such an admission would undermine their self-image of unimpeachable moral purity and go right to the root of their entire political and moral personality. So they shelter behind the fiction that hating Israel is decent and moral while hating Jews is beyond the pale.. 

A German government study published in January found that male migrants may be responsible for more than 90 percent of a recent increase in violent crime. In Sweden, a leaked report last year revealed that there were now 61 Islamic “no-go zones” where Islamist extremists have taken over. Sweden’s National Police Commissioner, Dan Eliasson, pleaded, “Help us, help us!”—warning that the police could no longer uphold the law.

Now, there’s no doubt that there is an enduring strand of virulent, indigenous anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe. Research suggests that almost one in five Hungarians openly demands the emigration of the Jews. 

In Poland, the government is intent upon denying its anti-Semitic past. A new law criminalizes anyone who accuses Poland of having been complicit in the Holocaust. Those who deny their anti-Semitism are doomed to repeat it. 

In Britain, the government’s failure to identify correctly and tackle Islamist extremism is turning the Jewish community into collateral damage. Throughout Europe there are growing pressures to ban circumcision and ritual slaughter. This liberal secular intolerance poses a real threat to religious Jewish life.

More dangerous still, Jews on the left who promote multiculturalism and campaign loudly against Islamophobia are themselves helping to stoke anti-Semitism. 

In Britain, most Jews voted against Brexit. They are frightened by assertions of national identity. They think it leads to nationalism, and that means anti-Semitism. They think Europe protects against anti-Semitism and that Brexit is motivated by nationalism. Haven’t they noticed that the rise of the ethno-nationalist groups in Europe that frighten them so much has taken place under rule by, and precisely because of, the EU?

Why is anti-Semitism on the rise in the West? Broadly because the West is in trouble. And a society in trouble always turns on the Jews. So much general hatred and irrationality now course through the West. Anti-Semitism, though, is not just a prejudice or a species of bigotry or hatred. It’s much more than that. It represents a kind of moral and spiritual death.

Europe lost its soul in the Shoah: the soul that was created by Jewish biblical precepts. Turning against itself, Europe has turned on the Jews.

Without its Christian base, the West is nothing. 

But Christianity in Britain and Europe lost its way a long time ago. Losing their faith, many Christian churches turned instead to social and political activism, liberation theology, and the radical Marxist analysis of the World Council of Churches. 

Many Jews, especially those on the left, see no problem with mass Muslim immigration except for Islamophobia. Such Jews are either indifferent to Israel or they believe many of the lies told about it. Indeed, tragically, many of the leaders of the new anti-Semitism are themselves Jews.

Some people think Europe is over, that the demographics are against it and that it will become a majority-Muslim culture in a few decades. My guess is that Europe won’t go down without a fight. If that happens, the Jews are likely to get it in the neck from all sides. Whichever way it goes, it’s not a pleasant prospect.

So is it time to leave? It’s very personal, and I wouldn’t presume to advise anyone what to do. I can only speak for myself and say that for some years now, I’ve been spending a great deal of my time in Israel.

Because even with 150,000 Hezbollah rockets pointing at us from Lebanon, even with Hamas trying every day to murder us, and even with Iran working toward its genocide bomb to wipe us out, Israel is where I feel so much safer and the air is so much sweeter, and it’s where Jews are not on their knees and where no one will ever make me feel I am not entitled to live and don’t properly belong.

Israel is where we have astonishingly renewed ourselves as a nation out of the ashes of the Shoah. Israel is where all those who want us gone meet their nemesis in the political realization of the eternal people.

Israel is the ultimate, and ultimately the only, definitive and triumphant repudiation of anti-Semitism and the true vindication of the millions of us who perished in the unspeakable events that we memorialize on Holocaust Memorial Day. Me!  (Melanie Phillips)

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

 

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