What do the Iranian regime, the New York Times and Sen. Rand Paul have in common?
(By the haters National Security Advisor John Bolton has attracted – Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, the New York Times and Senator Rand Paul– John Bolton must be one super military advisor for our side!)
“I believe Mr. Trump does not seek war. But Mr. Bolton and Netanyahu have always sought war.” Thus spoke Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, at a Monday press conference in Tehran.
It’s not the first time Mr. Zarif has tried to drive a wedge between President Trump and his national security adviser, John Bolton—or between the president and his most steadfast international ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But for Mr. Bolton, Mr. Zarif implies, we could have peace in the Middle East tomorrow.
Iran’s foreign minister has plenty of support for his argument. Scarcely a week goes by without some article warning the president that Mr. Bolton is leading him to war. The same folks who pound the president for being soft on the world’s worst thugs then oddly side with the thugs against the White House official who takes them on.
There can be no doubting Mr. Bolton’s unpopularity in Dictatorsville.The North Koreansblame Mr. Bolton (along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo) for the “atmosphere of hostility and mistrust” that fouled the Hanoi summit in February.
In Moscow last year, Vladimir Putin asked Mr. Bolton whether he’d removed the olive branches on the American seal.
Venezuela’s besieged dictator, Nicolás Maduro, charges Mr. Bolton with trying to have him assassinated. Cuba’s foreign minister calls Mr. Bolton a “pathological liar” for accusing the Communist island of fomenting revolution in South America.
China denounces him for slander for saying Beijing’s behavior toward its Southeast Asian neighbors threatens peace. Along with the New York Times and the Rand Paul/Pat Buchanan axis of the Republican Party, the dictators would all love to see Mr. Bolton run out of the West Wing.
But if war isn’t what’s guiding Mr. Bolton, what is? At bottom it’s the conviction that diplomacy and multilateral organizations are fine—as long as they serve American interests. In the Bolton version, America First means the U.S. Constitution takes precedence over the U.N. Charter.
For all the talk about Mr. Bolton’s wish to go to war with Iran, the actual policy has been more limited: pulling out of a bad nuclear deal, applying economic sanctions, isolating Tehran diplomatically, designating the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and, more recently, building a coalition to protect oil tankers in the Persian Gulf from Iranian aggression.
One way of interpreting Mr. Zarif’s increasing complaints is as an admission that Iran’s regime is feeling the pinch—and that it longs for the days when it was dealing with the malleable (read – “stupid” ) John Kerry.
Ditto for North Korea. Before joining the administration, Mr. Bolton wrote a piece on these pages called “The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First,” so naturally his critics assume that’s the game plan. But again the actual policy has been maximum pressure short of war, along with summits.
Notwithstanding Mr. Trump’s skepticism about using massive military force, moreover, surely he would side with Mr. Bolton over Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who announced a no-first-use nuclear policy during the last Democratic debate. In practice this would entail a willingness to sacrifice Los Angeles or Chicago to a nuclear strike before responding in kind.
It’s true that the Trump-Bolton relationship has its bumps. A recent Axios profile relayed an anecdote from the Irish prime minister’s St. Patrick’s Day visit to the Oval Office. “John,” Mr. Trump asked his national security adviser, “is Ireland one of those countries you want to invade?”
But the article didn’t report Mr. Bolton’s rejoinder, which suggests a healthy give and take: “It’s still early in the day, Mr. President.”
Plainly Mr. Bolton is aware that he’s more hawkish than his president. But plainly, too, Mr. Trump finds his national security chief useful. One reason might be that—unlike so many others, even within the Trump administration—Mr. Bolton knows who makes the decisions and doesn’t regard the president as stupid.
In making his case to his boss, Mr. Bolton emphasizes both U.S. interests and Mr. Trump’s instincts. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.
But the idea that a warmonger is leading an unsuspecting president around by the nose is ridiculous. Mr. Trump was elected on a platform that rejected both what he called the “endless wars” of the George W. Bush era and the pusillanimity of the Obama years. Could it be the president appreciates having around him a national security adviser who puts the fear of God into America’s enemies?
Meanwhile the critics carp, from the right as well as left. “I fear that he’s a malignancy, a malignant influence on the administration,” said Sen. Rand Paul, speaking for the right-wing claque of those who regard Mr. Bolton as a warmonger. While over on the left the New York Times publishes pieces such as “Yes, John Bolton Really Is That Dangerous.”
Which is pretty much the same complaint from the autocrats in Caracas, Moscow and Tehran (and all of the above).
II Courageous Brigette Gabriel presents 1400 years of Islam, Religion of Peace, in 15 minutes – A fearless wake-up call to those who prefer denial
Muhammad is the founder of Islam. Born in Mecca (now within current Saudi Arabia) in 570 CE. Most of his early life was spent as a merchant. At age 40, he began to have revelations from Allah that became the basis for the Koran and the foundation of Islam.
(He was originally not accepted as a prophet by the Arabs of Mecca and elected therefore to move to Medina which was populated by Jews and hopefully gain acceptance by them of his revelations. They did not accept him as a prophet. He then created a Treaty of Hudaybijjah with the Jews that was to have lasted 10 years. After only 2 years, Muhammad felt strong enough to defeat the Jews, abrogated the Treaty and slaughtered the Jews of Medina.
You may remember the famous photo-op handshake on the White House lawn, Sep 13, 1993 between Yasir Arafat and Yitschak Rabin with Bill Clinton as witness. This was supposed to have been the beginning of a mutually acceptable peace process. Within hours, Yasir Arafat secretly advised his followers not to be concerned and told them, remember the Treaty of Hudaybijjah, mentioned above, wherein Muhammed killed all the Jews after two years.
This slaughter was quickly followed by Muhammed’s return in triumph to Mecca and the beginning if his reign of terror and conquest that continued until his death in 632. By 630 he had unified most of Arabia under a single religion – his. He died in 632 CE
His followers were amazingly successful in their ongoing conquests that continue in one form or another to this very day. As of 2015, there are over 1.8 billion Muslims in the world who profess, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.” “Allah Akbar” remains the universal battle cry the Islamic terrorists declare right before killing themselves and as many non-believers as possible. The Arab leaders seem to by-pass this particular part of the ceremonies.) jsk
A few examples of the peaceful nature of Muhammed’s conquests include the following:
▶ Tortured & killed unbelievers – beginning in 628 AD
1. To find the treasure hidden by the Jewish Banu an- Nadir tribe, Muhammad personally ordered the torture of three Jews: Saʼyah ibn-ʻAmr (The Origins of the Islamic State, p. 43), Kinanah bin al-Rabi (The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), p. 515), and Ibn Abi l- Huqayq (The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al- Maghazi, p. 331). Muhammad then personally ordered the killing Ibn Abi.
2. After a raid on the settlement of Wadi al- Qura about 100 miles from Medina in 628, Zaid (Muhammadʼs adoptive son) by Muhammadʼs authority ordered that a “very old woman” Umm Qirfa be tied by her legs between two camels and ripped in two. (The Life of Muhammad, page 665)
When Muhammad raided the Jewish town of Khaybar in 629, their treasure had been hidden. To extract its location, Muhammad ordered that a fire be kindled on the chest of the leader, Kinana bin al-Rabi. When he was nearly dead, Muhammad delivered the man to a fellow-raider who beheaded him. (The Life of Muhammad, page 515).
What is Islam?
Islam is defined by the holy texts of its religion – not by the beliefs, actions or virtues of a Muslim.
▶ Muhammad is Islam – Islam is Muhammad The importance of Muhammadʼs example in Islamcannot be over-stated. The Quran establishes in Surah 33:21, “There is a good example in Allahʼs apostle [Muhammad] for those of you who look to Allah and the Last Day and remember Allah always.” Sharia Law insists that the moral scale of good and evil is NOT what reason considers good or bad, but rather what Muhammad indicated by what he did or what he forbade or permitted. (Reliance of the Traveler, paragraph a1.4)
This is further emphasized by a reliable Hadith, Bukhari Book 9, Number 391, “If I [Muhammad] forbid you to do something keep away from it. And if I order you to do something, then do it as much as you can.
Muhammad, at about age 50, married Aisha in 620, when she was six years old, and he consummated their marriage in 623, when she was nine. She remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
There are numerous authoritative reports in whichMuhammad was personally involved in possessing, buying, selling, or giving away slaves:
As we saw in the section dealing with slavery, Muhammad engaged in the slave trade and possessed slaves of his own. And after a Muslim victory, Muhammad was involved in distributing the captured non-Muslim women among his Muslim warriors, and taking some for himself. Islamic Doctrine is based on the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad. What did this Doctrine allow to happen to these non-Muslim women?
Captured non-Muslim women then, and still today, fall under the category of those “whom your right hands possess.”Such a woman becomes a slave to her Muslim captor, has all previous marriages annulled (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.13) and it then becomes “legal” for him to have intercourse with her. This is authorized by 4:24 of the Koran, which begins by stating:
Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you…
Who is a Muslim?
A Muslim is one who is obedient to the commands of Allah and examples of Muhammad.
▶ Beheaded 600 Jews in one day
For twenty-five nights in March 627, the Muslims besieged a Jewish enclave within Medina until they surrendered. Some within the enclave had been accused of aiding Muhammadʼs enemies. In an act of collective punishment, Muhammad ordered all of the men – some 600 to 900 in total – beheaded and the women and children sold off as slaves. The entire clan was disseminated. As it was later described:
The Messenger of God [Muhammad] breakfasted at the market and gave instructions for a furrow to be dug there [in which to bury those to be killed]…The Messenger of God sat with the distinguished among his companions. He called for the men of the Banu Qurayza, and they came out at a leisurely pace, and their heads were cut off.
It is generally accepted that Muhammad consummated marriages with eleven women during his life. During the time of his first marriage, he had only one wife, Khadija. During the last three years of his life, he had nine wives at one time. Here are a few of his eleven wives:
Khadija bint Khuwaylid b. Asad – Married to Muhammad in 595. Died in 619.
Sawdah bint Zam’ah b. Qays – Married to Muhammad in 619 after Khadija’s death.
Aisha bint Abi Bakr al-Siddiq – Married to Muhammad in 620, when she was only six years old, and he consummated the marriage in 623, when she was nine.
Hafsa bint ‘Umar b. al-Khattab – Married to Muhammad in March 625.
And, this is only the beginning of the lurid tale of this “Perfect Man of Peace.”
From: Jarvis Williams * For a complete list of references
http://perfectmantruth.com The Perfect Man
Article written in part and compiled by Jerome S. Kaufman
To subscribe to Israel Commentary:Send your email address to: firstname.lastname@example.orgWeb Page: www.israelcommentary.org“Like” on Facebook @ 1. Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman
The direct result of another runaway government collapsing under the weight of the gimme people – uncontrolled immigration, no work, more pay, more unearnedbenefits and Voila — national bankruptcy. jsk
The budget “deal” cobbled together over the last couple of weeks is a win for every vested interest but one: the U.S. taxpayer. It provides proof about what can be accomplished, even by Congress, when the motivation is sufficiently strong.
That motivation was provided by a letter from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on July 12 that his “extraordinary measures” being employed since the debt ceiling was reached in early March were about to be “exhausted.” This move allowed him to conduct budget negotiations directly with Pelosi, sidelining Trump’s budget director Mick Mulvaney and resulting in a deal that was a win for nearly every vested interest in Washington.
First and foremost it solves the number one problem politicians face when they leave Washington for their six week “recess”: unhappy constituents quizzing them on big spending Washington. It gives President Trump a victory: more spending for the military and “his” vets.
It gives Pelosi and her Democrat counterpart in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, a win by increasing domestic spending by even more than that granted the military.
It gives a win for Mnuchin who is now free to borrow without limit the sums increasingly needed to pay Congress’ bills. It provides a chance for establishment politicians to claim improved “stability” without the threat of another government shutdown, while touting the kind of pragmatism and compromise that Washington is famous for but largely missing until now.
It also funds Planned Parenthood, provides nothing for Trump’s wall, fails to loosen budgetary constraints on the Border Patrol, and, best of all for big spending politicians, it finally and completely obliterates any remainder of the highly touted but rarely followed Budget Control Act of 2011 and its “sequester” caps.
As House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) celebrated: “I am proud that this agreement ends the senseless austerity imposed by the Budget Control Act.” (‘Senseless’ — Huh?)
The deal includes extending the budget ceiling until June 2021, a convenient eight months after the November 2020 elections.
It increases government spending by nearly a third of a trillion dollars over the next two years, part of which goes to the military and part to domestic spending.
As Pelosi and Schumer chortled, the deal “will enhance our national security and invest in middle class priorities that advance the health, financial security and well-being of the American people.” (Who the F are they kidding?)
It predictably engages in phony bookkeeping maneuvers to show an attempt at cutting spending. The White House sought $150 billion in faux “cuts.” The deal provides supposed cuts of $77 billion by — ready? — extending cuts to Medicare beyond fiscal year 2027(!), and by “extending” fees being collected by Customs and Border Protection. That $77 billion in cuts is less than two percent of the government’s total budget and just one quarter of the increased spending provided in the agreement.
This is the same stunt engaged in by Presidents Reagan and the elder Bush. In 1982, President Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, but the spending cuts did not materialize. President Reagan later said that signing onto this deal was the biggest mistake of his presidency.
In 1990, President George H.W. Bush agreed to $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, and we are still paying them today. Not a single penny of the promised spending cuts actually happened.
At present the federal government borrows a quarter of every dollar that it spends, with that percentage increasing in the next few years thanks to this budget deal and as boomers retire and interest rates increase.
The “deal” — humorously being called a “compromise” — is expected to be voted on and passed by Congress on Thursday, a day before the summer recess begins.
When it is signed into law by the president it might, as Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said, “end up being the worst budget agreement in our nation’s history, proposed at a time when our fiscal conditions are already precarious.”
Author Bob Adelmann is an Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at email@example.com.
To subscribe to Israel Commentary:Send your email address to:
Walter Disney (1901-66), a worldwide cultural icon, was an animator, film producer, and entrepreneur credited with pioneering the American animation industry. His films, which are beloved worldwide, include “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” (1937), “Pinocchio” (1940), “Fantasia” (1940), “Dumbo” (1941), “Bambi” (1942), “Cinderella” (1950), and “Mary Poppins” (1964). He was nominated for 59 Academy Awards, winning 29 – both enduring records.
Even half a century after his death, Walt Disney’s iconic images, stories, and characters continue to leave an indelible mark on culture, and the multimedia conglomerate he built remains a formidable giant in the entertainment industry. His amusement parks, which began with Disneyland in 1955 and now include Disney World, EPCOT, and many others overseas, draw millions of visitors each year. Disney’s TV shows – including “The Wonderful World of Color” and “The Mickey Mouse Club” – are still favorites amongst children around the world.
Considerable evidence exists to support the proposition that Walt Disney was an anti-Semite, although, as we shall see, the record is decidedly muddled and, Neal Gabler, Walt Disney’s personal biographer, vehemently denies the charge. It is sometimes difficult to isolate fact from fiction; for example, the allegation that Walt had a private meeting with Hitler and developed a relationship with him is sheer nonsense, but it is true that he went out of his way to meet Mussolini.
Even Gabler concedes that Walt “willingly, even enthusiastically, embraced [anti-Semites] and cast his fate with them,” and The Walt Disney Family Museum acknowledges, as it must, that Disney included ethnic stereotypes in some of his early cartoons.
When Walt visited Munich in 1935, Nazi newspapers warmly welcomed him as a hero who stood up to the Jews of Hollywood. (Interestingly, the Sleeping Beauty Castle that Walt later built at Disneyland closely resembles the Neuschwanstein Castle he saw in Bavaria during his trip.)
Walt never met with Hitler, but it is beyond dispute that the Fuhrer adored Disney’s work. Goebbels is said to have presented 12 Disney short films to Hitler as a Christmas present in 1937, which the latter treasured. Hitler was determined – and ordered Goebbels – to create a Nazi animation studio and production company that would rival Disney, but the result was Deutsche Zeichenfilm GmbH, which ultimately produced only a few Nazi propaganda cartoons.
In 1938, just a few weeks after Kristallnacht, Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler’s personal filmmaker and propagandist, came to the United States seeking an American studio to work with her. Famous – or infamous – for glorifying the Nazis, and best known for “Triumph of the Will” (1935), a revolting propaganda film that chronicled the 1934 Nazi Party Congress at Nuremberg, she was boycotted by all Hollywood studio leaders, except one – Walt – who expressed admiration for her work and gave her a personal tour of his studio.
According to Riefenstahl, Walt ultimately turned down her offer to work with him because he was afraid that doing so would tarnish his reputation. Returning to Germany, she publicly thanked Walt for having received her, declaring that it was “gratifying” to “learn how thoroughly proper Americans distance themselves from the smear campaigns of the Jews.”
In an infamous “Three Little Pigs” cartoon (1933), part of Disney’s “Silly Symphonies” series, the Big Bad Wolf is drawn with a Der Sturmer-like exaggerated depiction of a Jewish nose, a long scraggly black beard, and a Jewish hat. Dressed like a Jewish peddler, the Wolf speaks with a thick Yiddish accent as he tries to cheat the homeowner pig. (Pigs, of course, metaphorically represent everything repulsive to Jews, although it’s unclear if the producers specifically intended viewers to make this association.)
In “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” (1937), the evil witch’s hooked nose, hunched bearing, and general demeanor of seduction are wholly evocative of the anti-Semite stereotype prevalent at the time. In “Pinocchio” (1940), the cunning puppet-master who manifests a total lack of any moral imperative and is interested only in amassing great wealth is the unambiguous incarnation of the Jewish skinflint.
In “The Opry House,” Mickey Mouse dresses up and performs a caricature of a dancing chassidic Jew, comparable to a blackface portrayal of African Americans. And, in “The Wayward Canary” (1932), Minnie Mouse, for some inexplicable reason, owns a cigarette lighter bearing a swastika.
Not surprisingly, Walt respected auto-industry tycoon Henry Ford, a notorious anti-Semite and union-buster who reciprocated his esteem and said he admired him for being “a successful self-made protestant in a field dominated by Jews.” Peter Bart, the editor of Variety, reported that when he once asked Walt a question, he responded, “Let me check that with my Jew.”
Walt was known to have actively supported many Jewish charities, including the Hebrew Orphan Asylum of the City of New York, Yeshiva College, the Jewish Home for the Aged, and even the American League for a Free Palestine (the “Bergson Group”). The Beverly Hills Chapter of B’nai B’rith also named him its Man of the Year in 1955.
However, this argument is weakened by reports that Walt is reputed to have claimed that he had been forced by “that Jew” – i.e., Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury – to use Mickey Mouse to support the American war effort. Other commentators note that “Der Fuehrer’s Face” may address the topic of a “Master Race” but conspicuously fails to mention Germany’s systemic anti-Semitism.
When Jewish animator Dave Swift announced that he had accepted a new position at Columbia Pictures, Walt responded in a fake Yiddish accent: “Okay, Davy Boy, go work for those Jews. It’s where you belong.” Moreover, when Disney artists tried to unionize in 1941 (they were ultimately successful after a brutal and prolonged battle), Walt tried to ruin the careers of the union organizers, most of whom were Jewish; he often insisted that the unions, which he despised, were run and controlled by “the Jews.”
Even the earliest Nazi propaganda depicted Jews as vermin and parasites. The narrator in the infamous anti-Semitic propaganda film “The Eternal Jew,” explains, “Just as the rat is the lowest of animals, the Jew is the lowest of human beings.” A German newspaper article from the 1930s establishing a link between Jewish vermin and Mickey Mouse could not be clearer.
That the Nazis viewed Mickey Mouse as Jewish is also evident in their banning of “The Barnyard Battle” (1929), a cartoon in which Mickey and his fellow mice defend their farm against German cats. The Germans considered the cartoon “offensive to national dignity” because Jewish vermin, unambiguously represented by Mickey and his fellow mice, had dared defend themselves against the German military, represented by cats wearing German military helmets.
Palestinian children also grow up watching Mickey Mouse, but on PA national television, a Mickey Mouse clone may wear an explosive belt, encourage children to become suicide bombers, and sing “Death to America and death to the Jews.” While carrying grenades and an AK-47, “Farfur” has urged children to return the Islamic community to greatness by liberating Jerusalem with the blood of Jews (who, in one episode, are shown beating Farfur to death to silence him).
Saul Jay Singer serves as senior legal ethics counsel with the District of Columbia Bar and is a collector of extraordinary original Judaica documents and letters. He welcomes comments at firstname.lastname@example.org.
To subscribe to Israel Commentary:Send your email address to: email@example.comWeb Page: www.israelcommentary.org“Like” on Facebook @ 1. Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman
The biggest conclusion I reached after watching Robert Mueller in front of Congress was that he clearly did not have a detailed knowledge of the report issued in his name.
He failed to answer nearly 200 questions.
He frequently was not familiar with citations from his own report.
On several key points, he contradicted his own report and his own letters to Attorney General Barr.
When he said he never asked his team their political views I believe him.
It also signals that the most charitable conclusion you could reach was that Mueller had come of age in an era of professional responsibility and did not realizehe now lived in an era of harsh, even vicious, partisanship.
My first reaction to his assertion that he did not ask the political opinions of his staff was that it was laughable that he could randomly assemble a hard line anti-Trump group of Democratic prosecutors without a single pro-Trump Republican lawyer in the room.
However, the more I watched him, the more I came to the conclusion that he had been a figure head. The tough, younger Trump-hating Democrats had networked with each other and assembled a legal team dedicated to destroying Trump and protecting the Clintons.
Seen from this perspective, it is a tribute to President Trump that despite their best efforts these deeply hostile prosecutors simply could not find any evidence of serious wrongdoing.
They could write innuendo — and huff and puff — but in the end the Trump wall of obeying the law withstood the best these smart, tough, widely-experienced Democratic prosecutors could do.
Wednesday’s stunningly inadequate performance by a widely respected career civil servant (my own tweet on his appointment had been entirely positive and it was only while watching the team he assembled that I grew hostile to his project) raises its own new questions.
If Mueller has been as out of touch with his report over the last two years as he was yesterday, then who was driving the team and who was writing the report?
It is clear Mueller does not know the details of his own report or of the two years of investigations behind the report.
Who then does know all those details?
Who masterminded putting Paul Manafort in solitary confinement for months?
Who made the decision to not look into the Steele Dossier, the company that paid for it, or the links to the Clinton campaign?
After yesterday’s disastrous performance by the so-called leader of the Mueller investigation and report, the attorney general should ask for a thorough internal review of how that system worked, who made the decisions, and how internally hostile to the president they were.
There was no Mueller Report. There was a report signed by Mueller, but it was really someone else’s work. This was the biggest lesson from Wednesday’s hearings.
The author: Newton Leroy Gingrich is an American politician, author, and historian who served as the 50th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. A member of the Republican Party, he was the U.S. Representative for Georgia’s 6th congressional district from 1979 until his resignation in 1999.
To subscribe to Israel Commentary:Send your email address to: firstname.lastname@example.org Web Page: www.israelcommentary.org“Like” on Facebook @ 1. Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman
Redacted from an article by Elaine Rosenberg MillerTimes of Israel, JUL 19, 2019
Here are some suggestions for her itinerary:
If she visits Gaza she should go during the hours they have electricity and avoid the flaming kites.
Maybe she can travel to the shore to see the beautiful Mediterranean and visualize the hotels and other improvements that could be constructed if the Palestinian Authority (PLO) and Fatah would stop their internecine warfare and their mutual attempt to eliminate Israel.
Perhaps she can visit a Gaza school and check out the marching five years olds with mock knives and guns. Or, maybe not. Terrorists hide their rockets and ammunition within schools and hospitals.
A day trip to Ramallah is a good idea. She might find out that residents there don’t actually want the Israelis to withdraw and leave them to fall under the control of despots, both domestic and foreign.
A tour of Islamic archaeological sites is in order. Huh! What archeology of what? What history?
And in the afternoon she can go to the 120 member Israeli legislative body, the Knesset, where 12 Arabs and 3 Druze are full members representing their constituency.
She could visit the Israeli Supreme Court and see the Arab legislators and jurists.
(PS How many Jews are found in the Legislative body and Supreme Court of the 21 Arab nations surrounding Israel? What Jews? What Legislative body? What Supreme Court? The Jews were all driven out upon the re-birth of the State of Israel in 1948, penniless, all their wealth and possessions seized after centuries of living there as second class citizens (dhimmi). jsk
Not too far away are the Israeli medical centers where medical personnel of all backgrounds work side by side treating patient of all backgrounds and she will find most of the people waiting in the queue for treatment are Arabs paid for by the Israeli government
Moving on … visit:
Tel Aviv! New high rises, Israel as global leader of start-ups. She just missed Tel Aviv Pride Day where 250,000 participants marched down the avenues celebrating their human rights for which death is ordered by Muhammed.
What is a trip to the Israel if incomplete without a stop at the Western Wall, the remaining remnant of the ancient Hebrew Temple dating back 3000 years
She will incidentally run into Nigerians, Koreans, Russians reverently praying at that Wall.
A call at an African embassy is in order. There she might learn about how Israel is the leader in smart water management including advanced water technology and desalination and how it exports the technology to developing nations, especially in Africa.
When she leaves Israel she will be flying near the Leviathan natural gas fields and may learn that by “conservative estimates the fields contain enough natural gas to meet Israel’s domestic needs for 40 years”.
Luckily, she will not fly over war-devastated Syria or Lebanon.
It would be a buzz-kill.
(You don’t really expect her to report her trip with the facts above. Israel is, at the moment, in a bind feeling obligated to allow an elected American Congressperson to visit, despite her declared enmity. And… there is no question she will return to the US loaded with malicious lies and propaganda right out of the mouth of her hero, Mahmoud Abbas.) jsk
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Elaine Rosenberg Miller writes fiction and non-fiction. Her work has appeared in numerous print publications and online sites, domestically and abroad, including JUDISCHE RUNDSCHAU, THE BANGALORE REVIEW, THE FORWARD, THE HUFFINGTON POST and THE JEWISH PRESS. Her book. FISHING IN THE INTERCOASTAL AND OTHER SHORT STORIES will be published by Adelaide Books in 2019.
To subscribe to Israel Commentary:Send your email address to:
Democrats debate a discarded desegregation scheme decades later.
Redacted from a smashing article by Lance Morrow
Wall Street Journal July 8, 2019
In the second Democratic presidential debate, hosted by NBC News, Kamala Harris made judgments over the former Vice-President’s stance on busing. Biden called it a “mischaracterization of my position across the board.”
On a sunny day in May 1954 the Warren court handed down its 9-0 decision in the case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. The 58-year-old Plessy doctrine of “separate but equal” was dead—though only on paper.
A lifetime later. Sixty-five years have elapsed. We are well into the never land of the 21st century. A black president has come and gone. On my flat-screen TV, I watch as a female U.S. senator of Jamaican and Indian descent stands and berates a white-haired white man—the black president’s former vice president—on the matter of his record concerning something that happened 40 or 50 years earlier. That something was busing, a policy that was designed to accomplish what the Warren court intended: to abolish racial segregation from the country’s public schools.
It seemed a little odd that Kamala Harris brought up the long-ago subject of busing during a 2019 Democratic debate. Presidential candidates usually wish to deal in new ideas. Busing is a period piece.
Ms. Harris spoke of it as having been an unambiguous good. It was not. Older Americans recall the busing days as contentious, complicated and divisive.
The idea was to try to solve the problem of de facto segregation by busing black children to public schools in white parts of town while transporting white children in the opposite direction. Almost no one was satisfied with the scheme, although it did succeed in some places, such as Charlotte, N.C.
Some blacks who rode the buses as children say now that they benefited from it. But in the worst light, it seemed a piece of brutalist social engineering that placed hard burdens on the kids (long rides twice a day to strange neighborhoods, away from friends and community). The policy offended many blacks with its implication that a black child cannot learn without sitting next to a white child.
No matter. Ms. Harris’s mind wasn’t on justice anyway. Busing was the McGuffin. She invoked it as a way of proving that she could take down the powerful white male front-runner, Joe Biden.She staged the scene in order to establish, early in the first round, that she was capable of ruthless and creative effrontery. She sucker-punched Mr. Biden. Next morning, she was the coming thing—the psychological front-runner. As she intended, people began to imagine her in the ring with President Trump, toe to toe.
One of the interesting things about Ms. Harris is her swagger—the sly and private half-smile, the dare in her eye, a hint of the reckless. On the night of the debate she showed off an instinct for the cynical uses of sentimentality. “That little girl was me,” she said, her body torqued poignantly toward Mr. Biden.
She conjured herself as a heroic but vulnerable child on her way to future glory despite the efforts of then-Sen. Biden and his Southern segregationist pals to stop her—a prequel glimpse of predestined greatness. She was Moses in the bulrushes.
Her childhood occurred, mind you, not in Mississippi or the Chicago projects but in Berkeley, Calif., where her father was a professor of economics.The Harris household was intellectual, accomplished and, at the very least, solidly middle-class.
There was so little spontaneity in her stunt that, just afterward, her campaign offered commemorative merchandise—T-shirts showing the image of “that little girl.” All this was unfair to Mr. Biden, but his complacency no doubt needed a jolt.
Besides that, the dangerous thing now is hate’s half-brother, sentimentality—and the cynicism with which it is manipulated for purposes of gaining or keeping power. Everything in the politics and policy-making of 2019 is processed (by both the woke and the Trumpists) in those idioms: raw emotions cynically manipulated, especially on social media. It is true on the issue of immigration, for example, and especially true on the related issue of race.
Sentimentality is the traditional style of American politics. At one time, it was endearing, in the antique Norman Rockwell way. But the dark side of sentimentality is shallow and thoughtless and volatile and dangerous. At its worst, it is the style of mobs and dictators.
Mr. Morrow is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
From archives of brilliant retired Harvard Professor Ruth R. Wisse
And …. more pertinent than ever
October 18, 1992
The New York Times Archives Book Review
“If I Am Not for Myself . . .: The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews.”
By Ruth R. Wisse. 225 pp. New York: The Free Press. $22.95.
“WE fell victim to our faith in mankind, our belief that humanity had set limits to the degradation and persecution of one’s fellow men.” So wrote Alexander Donat, a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto and Treblinka and the author of “The Holocaust Kingdom,” a book about the Jews of Europe at the time when the Nazis and their collaborators began herding them into cattle cars.
Mr. Donat’s words capture the thrust of Ruth Wisse’s new book, “If I Am Not for Myself . . .: The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews.” It is her contention that liberalism, the very political ideology that would seem to provide shelter and promise for the Jews, was their undoing in the 1930’s and 40’s — and is in our day as well.
By liberalism, Ms. Wisse, who teaches English and Yiddish literature at McGill University in Montreal, means a belief in progress, rationality, freedom, cultural pluralism and the rule of law. “Liberals trust that all human problems are amenable to negotiated solutions, that all people are united in a spirit of brotherhood,” she writes.
“They detest the use of force, not only for the damage it causes but because in admitting the limits of reason it throws humankind back to a more primitive stage of civilization. The pure liberal spirit precludes the possibility of intractable hatred or intransigent political will.”
For this reason, she says, liberalism could not protect Jews from the Nazis. By necessity, she continues, liberals had to be unsympathetic to the fate of the Jews, “not because of any personal antipathy but because the national fate of the Jews contradicted their view of the world and called into question their deepest assumptions.” Because of the Jews’ political vulnerability, they had no allies in Europe, “not even in such opponents of anti-Semitism as the Marxists.”
In our day, Ms. Wisse writes, the Arabs, recognizing the remarkable political durability of repudiating the Jewish people and their religion, have joined the campaign. The Arab success in the world arena actually increased, she contends, when they “exchanged the language of the right for the language of the left, presenting Israel as the bloodthirsty exploiter of impoverished innocent Arab masses.”
“Since democratic society does not want to perceive itself as heartless or collaborationist,” she continues, “those who court favor with the Arabs have to deny the war against the Jewish state or else justify their betrayal of the Jews in a language of moral convenience. The tilt toward the Arabs has the code name of evenhandedness.”
According to Ms. Wisse, as long as Israel brought Jews outside Israel “the dowry of international good will,” the relationship was untroubled. But when those Jews were faced with Arab propaganda against Israel, they grew nervous, their insecurities blossomed and, as avowed liberals, they turned their backs on the Jewish homeland.
There are large holes in her argument. “In contending with so relentless an assault [ as the campaign mounted by the Arabs ] ,” she writes, “many Jews grow weary, and the very mention of anti-Semitism draws a yawn.”
This is an astonishing claim to make. The majority of Jewish institutions in America successfully continue to appeal to Jews for funds through no other issue than the threat of anti-Semitism.
Ms. Wisse also creates something of a straw man to bolster her thesis. She speaks of the nervous Jew “who feels his Jewishness to be a burden or knows very little about it, or who in marrying a non-Jewish wife and moving into higher business or banking circles gradually left his Jewishness behind, like an old skin.”
“It must be stressed that [ the ] split in the Israeli population is not between secular and religious Jews,” she writes, “since some of the most idealistic recruits for the defense forces come from the ranks of the modern Orthodox yeshivas.”
“Despite the unparalleled success of anti-Semitism, few university departments of political science, sociology, history or philosophy bother to analyze the single European political ideal of the past century that nearly realized its ends.”
This book should be read not only for its potent indictment of liberalism’s failings. The work also stands as a warning to all Jews of a clear and ever-present danger.
Ruth R. Wisse is the retired Martin Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature and Professor of Comparative Literature at Harvard University. She is the sister of David Roskies, professor of Yiddish and Jewish literature at the Jewish Theological Seminary.
To subscribe to Israel Commentary:Send your email address to email@example.com
The Fourth of July, American Independence and the Jews
Two hundred forty-three years ago, a new nation was inspired by the Old Testament.
By William McGurn
Wall Street Journal July 1, 2019
Rabbi Meir Soloveichik explains how Jonas Phillips was a religious Jew and an American patriot, and how his life is a testament to the Jewish significance of the uniquely American tradition of religious freedom. Image: The Tikvah Fund
Since that fateful July 4 when the Second Continental Congress invoked the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to declare independence from King George III, an argument has raged over the Christian roots of the American Founding. Now a group of scholars suggest that if we are looking only to the Gospels to understand the new American nation, we may be arguing over the wrong testament.
“The American Republic,” they write, “was born to the music of the Hebrew Bible.”
The book is called “Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land: The Hebrew Bible in the United States: A Sourcebook.”
The title comes from Leviticus and is inscribed on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. The book comes courtesy of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University, where it was pulled together by Meir Soloveichik, Matthew Holbreich, Jonathan Silver and Stuart Halpern.
These men are not arguing that America was founded as a Jewish nation. Nor is their subject Jews in America, or the role of Jews in the American Founding. Their proposition is more supple and profound: that at key moments in the national story, Americans have looked to the ancient Israelites to understand themselves, their blessings and their challenges.
The evidence, they say, is all around us.
The American landscape is dotted with town names that reflect this understanding, from the Zions, Canaans and Shilohs to the Goshens, Salems and Rehoboths. And whether it is John Winthrop invoking a “covenant” to characterize the order the Puritans established with Massachusetts Bay Colony, or Martin Luther King more than three centuries later talking about having been to the mountaintop, Americans have long looked to the biblical Israelites for the “political and cultural vocabulary” to explain the American proposition.
Though this American affinity for the Israelites pre-dates the Revolution, the war for independence intensified the parallels. In their revolt against George III, the men of the 13 colonies saw themselves as modern Israelites escaping a latter-day Pharaoh. So when the Second Continental Congress created a committee to design a seal for the new United States, also on July 4, 1776, it was only natural that two of the committee members—Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin—turned to Exodus.
Jefferson proposed the seal feature the Israelites in the wilderness, led by a cloud during the day and a pillar of fire by night. Franklin suggested Moses extending his hand over the Red Sea, causing the waters to overwhelm Pharaoh in his chariot. These days, you could call these examples of cultural appropriation.
As the subtitle indicates, this is a sourcebook and not a sustained argument. But it is no less compelling. As the authors note, all these American allusions to the Israelites didn’t come from Jews. They came from Christians, low-church Protestants in particular.
With the possible exception of Martin Luther King, no American leader integrated the imagery and language of the Hebrew bible into his own speech as seamlessly as Abraham Lincoln, who as president-elect in 1861 spoke of his fellow Americans as the Almighty’s “almost chosen people.”
From the cadence of Psalm 90 in the opening of his Gettysburg Address (“four score and seven years ago”) to his letter telling the mayor of Philadelphia “may my right hand forget its cunning and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I ever prove false” to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, to his invocation of Psalm 19 in his Second Inaugural (e.g., “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous forever”), when Lincoln spoke the moral language of liberty, his words echoed the Hebrew Bible.
This was a double-edged sword when it came to slavery. Abolitionism found much to embrace: “I have heard their cry” (Exodus 3:7), “Let my people go” (Exodus 5:1), “Break every yoke” (Isaiah 58:6) and so forth.
But relying on Scripture for denunciations of slavery had its problems, beginning with Noah’s curse against the Canaanites in Genesis 9.
Jews describe Passover as zeman cheiruteinu, or “the time of our freedom.” Independence Day might thus be thought of as America’s Passover. And that magnificent second stanza of “America the Beautiful” ends with a line that could have been delivered by Moses: “Thy liberty in law.”
Across the land this July 4, American homes will play host to backyard barbecues, the company of family, friends and neighbors, maybe all topped off with fireworks. You might say it is the American version of what the Hebrew prophet Micah had in mind when he wrote that “they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and none shall make them afraid.”
Which also happens to have been George Washington’s favorite way to describe the blessings of liberty we celebrate this and every Independence Day.
They’ve rejected every peace initiative. Their no-show this
week in Bahrain should be the last.
By Eugene Kontorovich
This week’s U.S.-led Peace to Prosperity conference in Bahrain on the Palestinian economy will likely be attended by seven Arab states—a clear rebuke to foreign-policy experts who said that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the Golan Heights as Israeli territory would alienate the Arab world.
Sunni Arab states are lending legitimacy to the Trump administration’s plan, making it all the more notable that the Palestinian Authority itself refuses to participate.
The conference’s only agenda is improving the Palestinian economy. It isn’t tied to any diplomatic package, and the plan’s 40-page overview contains nothing at odds with the Palestinian’s purported diplomatic goals.
Some aspects are even politically uncomfortable for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Given all that, the Palestinian Authority’s unwillingness to discuss economic opportunities for its own people, even with the Arab states, shows how far it is from discussing the concessions necessary for a diplomatic settlement. Instead it seeks to deepen Palestinian misfortune and use it as a cudgel against Israel in the theater of international opinion.
This isn’t the first time the Palestinians have said no. At a summit brokered by President Clinton in 2000, Israel offered them full statehood on territory that included roughly 92% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, along with a capital in Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority rejected that offer, leading Israel to up it to 97% of the West Bank in 2001.
Again, the answer was no. An even further-reaching offer in 2008 was rejected out of hand. And when President Obama pressured Israel into a 10-month settlement freeze in 2009 to renew negotiations, the Palestinians refused to come to the table.
After so many rejections, one might conclude that the Palestinian Authority’s leaders simply aren’t interested in peace. Had they accepted any of the peace offers, they would have immediately received the rarest of all geopolitical prizes: a new country, with full international recognition.
To be sure, in each proposal they found something not quite to their liking. But the Palestinians are perhaps the only national independence movement in the modern era that has ever rejected a genuine offer of internationally recognized statehood, even if it falls short of all the territory the movement had sought.
The best example is Israel itself, which jumped at a 1947 United Nations proposal for a Jewish state, even though it was noncontiguous and excluded Jerusalem and much of its present territory. The Arab states rejected the proposal, which would have also created a parallel Arab country.
India and Pakistan didn’t reject independence because major territorial claims were left unaddressed. Ireland accepted independence without the island’s six northern counties. Morocco didn’t refuse statehood because Spain retained land on its northern coast.
While there have been hundreds of national independence movements in modern times, few are fortunate enough to receive an offer of fully recognized sovereign statehood. Including 1947, the Palestinians have received four. From Tibet to Kurdistan, such opportunities remain a dream.
Several lessons must be drawn from the Palestinians’ serial rejection of statehood—and this week, even of economic development. First, the status quo is not Israeli “rule” or “domination.” The Palestinians can comfortably turn down once-in-a-lifetime opportunities because almost all Palestinians already live under Palestinian government. Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, they’ve enjoyed many of statehood’s trappings, particularly in foreign relations. Israel undertakes regular antiterror operations, but that’s different from overall power. For instance, the U.S. doesn’t “rule” over Afghanistan.
Second, statehood and a resolution to the conflict is not what the Palestinians truly seek. This is what economists call a “revealed preference”: To know what consumers truly want, look at what they choose. The Palestinians have repeatedly chosen the status quo over sovereignty.
Finally, throw out the assumption that when Palestinians reject an offer, it stays on the table and accrues interest. If offers will only improve with time, the Palestinians have an incentive to keep saying no.
The Palestinian Authority cannot be forced to accept a peaceful settlement, and Israel doesn’t wish to return to its pre-Oslo control over the Palestinian population. But rejectionism, culminating this week in Bahrain, must have consequences.
For more than 50 years, the future of Jewish communities in the West Bank—and the nearly half a million Jews who now live there—has been held in limbo pending a diplomatic settlement. While the authority rejects improved hospitals, port arrangements and employment centers, many of the benefits for Palestinians could still be achieved by locating them in parts of the West Bank under Israeli jurisdiction.
But to do that, the question mark over these places, which include all of the Jews living in the West Bank and a much smaller number of Palestinians, must be lifted. Washington should support Israeli initiatives to replace military rule with civil law in these areas, normalizing their status. The Palestinians’ no-show in Bahrain should end their ability to hold development and growth hostage.
Mr. Kontorovich is director of the Center for International Law in the Middle East and a law professor at George Mason University, and a scholar at the Kohelet Policy Forum.
Redacted from remarks by Katie Hopkins with additional italicized commentary by Jerome S. Kaufman
The showing of the documentary, Homelands in Israel was originally denied — the result of collusion between the Muslims in the UK and deluded, useful idiot, Jewish organizations in the UK and Israel, who joined with the Muslims to prevent the showing.
Despite this opposition the documentary was eventually shown in Jerusalem as a result of the direct action of Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, Jerusalem’s deputy mayor. She explained:
“I helpedKatie Hopkins because I believe in debate. People with more extreme views and more unsavory friends than her sit in the Knesset. That’s freedom of speech.
Ms. Hopkins’s documentary chronicles anti-Semitism and growing Islamic fundamentalism in Europe and examines how Israel offers protection and shelter to European Jews.
One might assume that showing this kind of film would not be an issue, but given the current conflicted reality of British Jews, it was.
On the one hand, the community is fighting the terrible plague of anti-Semitism coming from both Islamic fundamentalism and from the liberal left, in the form of Jeremy Corbyn and his band of Jew-hating communists.”
And, on the other hand these “conflicted” Jews trying to shut down the revealing of Muslim fanatical anti-Semitism throughout Europe have elected to return to their sick shtetl mentality, hide in their ghetto cellars, try to disappear into the woodwork and not make any waves.
French Jews are rapidly coming to a far more realistic conclusion — one violently thrust upon them.It is painfully obvious to them that “French pessimists at the time of Adolph Hitler ultimately escaped to swimming pools in Southern California while optimists as to Hitler’s intentions, ended up in Auschwitz.”
At this very same moment, Non-Jewish English families, like those of Katie Hopkins, are also being forced out of their own towns by Muslim pressure and deliberate orchestrated violence. Mrs. Hopkins lamented to the audience that the Jews were fortunate in one respect, in that they had Israel to which to escape but, where were she and her family to go? Those British capable of leaving are looking at options to escape the UK by emigrating to places like Poland and Hungary where nationalism is a respected concept. (But, what un-British alternatives and surely a sign of their desperation)
Jews aliyah to France
As usual, the always vulnerable Jews are the main target of Muslim hatred and their centuries-old desire for world domination.
Jews, with terrifying memories, are escaping before the apparently inevitable next Holocaust while the inane toothless optimistic slogan, Never Again, goes down the sewer, where it belongs.
An attack in January 2015 at a Kosher market in Paris that killed four people just days after shootings at the Charlie Hebdo newspaper seemed to confirm just how dangerous France had become for Jews.
A few days after the attacks, the Jewish Agency said it was being flooded with calls inquiring about “aliyah,” the Hebrew term for moving to Israel. The Jewish Agency, an organization created by the Israeli government to encourage aliyah, projected that as many as 15,000 French Jews could leave for Israel in 2015.
The numbers of French Jews making aliyah increased to 3,293 in 2013 and 7,200 in 2014, according to the Jewish Agency.
The number of Jewish people who left France in 2015 remained relatively flat, at 7,328, according to the Jewish Agency. More recently, the Agency reported that immigration from France to Israel was 3,424 in 2017, down down another 28% from 2016.
This relative diminishment of emigration from France reminds me of the mindless chickens quickly forgetting yesterday’s invasion by the fox of the chicken coop, only to be quickly reminded by his return the very next day.
There continue to be hundreds of anti-semitic incidents in France each year. There were 385 incidents during the first nine months of 2018, two-thirds of which were threats and the other third were physical attacks on persons or property, a 69 percent rise compared to the same period the year before.
While in the Detroit area where she has visited several times, Mrs Hopkins was kind enough to comment on our own local situation. She unequivocally declared that Dearborn MI and Hamtramck MI are Sharia Law dominated areas, in fact, taken over by the Muslims, their mosques and their ideology.
What was a revelation from Ms. Hopkins and a very knowledgeable former Dearborn politico in the audience was that Democrat Party icon John Dingel, now deceased, long time Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, was firmly in the pocket of the Muslims of Dearborn. Upon his retirement in 2015, his wife Debbie successfully ran for election to succeed him in his Congressional district and was reported to have also taken over his place in the Muslim pocket. No wonder Dearborn, MI has come under virtual Sharia law.
The audience was, as usual, left with the elephant in the room question – What do we do about this unbelievably successful Muslim invasion? The only answer, in a genuine democracy, is to try to make our reluctant, blindly “liberal” population, acutely aware of the problem, its immediate danger and the very clever strategy of the enemy. We must then vigorously move against them with our police forces, our courts, our elections and in our naive, useful idiot Left wing media.
Wake up America before you go the way of fallen continental Europe and the UK.
Available at the lecture was a straight forward educational pamphlet, Sharia Law for Non-Muslimsby Dr Bill Warner, Ph.D The pamphlet is only $5.00 plus postage and can be ordered online at:
The Center for the Study of Political Islam: www.CSPIPUBLISHING.COM
Katie Olivia Hopkins is an English media person, award winning document maker, radio talk show host and best selling author.She was a contestant in the third series of The Apprentice in 2007, and following further appearances in the media, she became a columnist for British national newspapers.
By Eugene W. Rostow, former US Assistant Secretary of State, (1966-l969) and former Dean of the Yale Law School and primary producer of the pertinent UN Resolution 242
The True Story of the Israeli Settlements (The communities of Judea, Samaria and Gaza)
United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Resolution 242, adopted after the Six-Day War in 1967, set out criteria for peace-making by the parties to the conflict.
Resolution 338, passed after the Yom Kippur War in l973, makes resolution 242 legally binding.
Resolution 242, which as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969, I helped produce, calls the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in l967 until a just and lasting peace in the MiddleEast is achieved.
When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces”from territories” it occupied during the Six-Day War not from “the” territories, nor from “all” the territories, but some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert , the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip,
Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy made it perfectly clear what theResolution 242 means.
Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from “all” the territories were defeated in theSecurity Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the “fragile” and “vulnerable” Armistice Demarcation Lines, but to “secure and recognized” boundaries agreed to by the parties
THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION
Israel has established its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in accordance with international law. Attempts have been made to claim that the settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 which forbids a state fromdeporting or transferring “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” However, this allegation has no validity in law.
Israel maintains that the Convention (which deals with occupied territories) is not applicable to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. As there was no internationally recognized legal sovereign in either territory prior to the l967 Six Day War, they cannot be considered to have become “occupied territory” when control passed into the hands of Israel.
Article 49 would not be relevant to the issue of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. The Convention was drafted immediately following the Second World War,against the background of the massive forced population transfers that occurredduring that period.
Israel has not forcibly transferred its civilians to the territories and the Convention does not place any prohibition on individuals voluntarily choosing their place of residence.
Moreover, the settlements are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice. According to independent surveys, the built-up areas of the settlements (not including roads or unpopulated adjacent tracts) take up about 3% of the other territory of the West Bank.
Other communities, such as the Gush Etzion bloc in Judea, were founded before 1948 under the internationally endorsed British Mandate. The right of Jews to settle in all parts of the Land of Israel was first recognized by the international community in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
As the former US Under- Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Professor Eugene Rostow, has written: ” the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of thelocal population to live there.” (AJlL, 1990, volume 84, p.72). 84, p.72)
II Addendum from The Jewish Press, May 17, 2019
Over 400 rabbis, leaders of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace (RCP) issued the following statement of principle:
“The original sin and root or all problems is the delusional theory that withdrawing from territories brings peace and security to Israel.”
We have sounded the alarm repeatedly clearly showing that previous withdrawals from Gaza, a small section of south Lebanon and parts of the Golan have been a major mistake and must never be repeated.
These areas have only resulted in creating bases for terrorist strong-holds used to launch missile attacks against Israel. They are also used to create massive tunnels into Israel proper which are the groundwork for further direct invasion.
(Israelis and their leaders would have to be out of their minds to give up one more inch of territory and thus contribute to the centuries-old ambition of the Arabs to drive the Jews from their G-d given land.) jsk
Israel Commentary. To subscribe to Israel Commentary:Send your email address to: firstname.lastname@example.orgWeb Page: www.israelcommentary.org“Like” on Facebook @ 1. Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman
May 2, 2019, Israel observed Holocaust Remembrance Day. It was a good time to re-examine the Jewish state’s relations with the Federal Republic of Germany, formerly Nazi Germany, a nation that perpetrated the greatest crime in history against Europe’s Jews, known as the Holocaust.
Naturally, many Germans wish the memory of the Holocaust and its German perpetrators to go away and be forgotten. Young Germans do not wish to carry the burden of guilt for the most heinous crime in modern history.
Monetary reparation paid by the Germans to Holocaust survivors for the stolen properties of European Jews notwithstanding, reality today is that Berlin has not done more than lip service to “solidarity with Israel” and its claims of “Israel’s security being Germany’s raison d’état.”
Germany has been a major contributor to anti-Israel resolutions at the UN General Assembly and other UN agencies.Germany moreover, has aided and abetted the genocidal Islamic Republic of Iran in evading U.S. sanctions. Germany’s non-governmental agencies (NGO’s) supported by the German government fund various anti-Israel groups in the Palestinian Authority and in Israel itself.
According to the Gatestone Institute, Chancellor Angela Merkel has pressured other European Union states to refrain from moving their embassies from Tel Aviv to Israel’s capital – Jerusalem.
Merkel not only rejected the Trump administration’s move to relocate the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, she has authorized the allotment of $100 million to the Palestinian Authority’s allocated budget of $300 million, for payment to Palestinian terrorists to kill Jews.
Frank Muller-Rosentritt, a member of the German Bundestag (parliament) committee on foreign relations, representing the opposition Free Democratic Party (FDP) declared, “We must no longer let Israel down at the UN. It is madness that we are constantly on the side of countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Yemen, against Israel.”
It is not only with UN resolutions that Germany sides with Israel’s enemies. Berlin funds anti-Israel Non-Governmental Agencies (NGO’s). The +972 Magazine of the Heinrich Boll foundation, a think-tank associated with the German Green Party, regularly accuses Israel of “Apartheid.” According to NGO-Monitor, the German government funding is one of the least transparent in Europe.
Still, the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development funds Al-Haq through its program, the Civil Peace Service. Al-Haq, a Palestinian NGO, is the leader in the anti-Israel BDS (Boycotts, Divestments, and Sanctions) movement.
It engages in legal warfare against Israel. Israel’s Supreme Court identified Al-Haq’s Director General Shawan Jabarin to be a senior activist in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist group. The PFLP was designated as a terrorist organization by the European Union (EU).
Germany has increased its funding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which serves as an incubator for Palestinian terrorism.Moreover, Germany is undermining the Trump administration, which recently cut its support for UNRWA because it incites violence against Israel and harbors terrorists and their weapons. UNRWA is nurturing the notion of Palestinian “right of return,” which is incompatible with the idea of the Two-State solution that Germany allegedly supports.
The German police issued a report last August claiming that most of the anti-Semitic attacks in Germany were perpetrated by neo-Nazis. This report was undoubtedly directed by the German Federal government that seeks to hide the increasing jihadist terror attacks committed by many of the one million Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa that Angela Merkel invited into Germany.
This report was disputed by leaders of the German Jewish community who blamed the police for ignoring the vastly numerous anti-Semitic attacks by Muslims.
Another issue that reflects Germany’s hypocrisy is in dealing with Iran. Germany supports the Iranian regime in contravention with the U.S. efforts to isolate the murderous theocratic and oppressive regime. A regime that vows repeatedly to destroy the Jewish state.
Merkel has vowed time after time that “Israel’s security is not negotiable,” and yet, her government supports a regime that not only perpetrates terror worldwide, including Europe and Germany, but is also brutal toward its own people.
Under the so-called “2015 nuclear deal or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)” Iran is continuing to develop its military nuclear program as well as long range ballistic missiles that threatens Europe, and naturally Israel. Greed, rather than concern for global security, not to mention Israel’s security, motivates the German government.
In the meantime, anti-Semitism in Germany is raging. The Catholic daily La Croix headline (February 18, 2019) read, “Alarming rise of anti-Semitism in Germany.” The sub-heading stated that the “Arrival of thousands of immigrants from the Middle East evoked fears of a new anti-Semitism.”
]In their efforts to assuage their guilt and shake off the “stain on humanity” Nazi Germany committed, some of the younger generation Germans employ these days a shameful moral-equivalency. They are comparing Nazi-Germany’s treatment of Jews with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Such a comparison is not only outrageous, it is immoral.
Israel has never gassed or murdered innocent Palestinians, as the Nazis did with Jews. Israeli hospitals do not discriminate against Palestinian-Muslim patients, nor are Palestinians required to wear Yellow Star bands as the Germans forced Jews to do. Israel never had nor will have concentration camps, labor camps, and certainly not death camps as the Nazi Germans did.
Furthermore, Israel has been sensitive to Palestinian poverty, and seeks to elevate Palestinian quality of life. The Israeli government has pursued ways to provide employment for Palestinians. Unfortunately, Palestinian terrorism has undermined this effort to a large extent. It has required Israel to use check-points and a separation wall to save lives. This sort of German moral-equivalency is an insult to Jewish Holocaust survivors in Israel, and to the truth.
With Holocaust Remembrance Day, Israelis might want to consider whether today’s Germany is a friend or foe. One thing is clear, it is time to unmask Germany’s hypocrisy vis-à-vis Israel.
To subscribe to Israel Commentary:Send your email address to email@example.com, Web Page: https://israel-commentary.org“Like” on Facebook @ 1. Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman
(To just keep the record straight, please ignore the usual knee jerk sycophant praise from self-serving, primarily fund raising, power seeking,politically correct Jewish establishment organizations. Need I listAIPAC American Israel Public Affair Committee, American Jewish Committee, World Jewish Congress and Simon Wiesenthal Center and ADL (Anti-Defamation League) for starters.)
(I searched snopes.com for this video, Bush and Hitler, by John Buchanan and there was no negative comment found)
Jerome S. Kaufman
There is no question George H. W. Bush was a great man, a great American, a great soldier, a great leader and a fine President and deserving of the many plaudits. But, let’s for a moment, just stick to his relationship with Jewish Americans and Israel) jsk
George H.W. Bush will go down in Jewish History as the American president who forced Israel into a subservient position and endangered millions of Jews.
By Ariel Natan Pasko, 04/12/18
“Go to hell.” That’s what George W. answered a reporter, when questioned about what he planned to tell the Israelis, as he was about to leave on his 1998 Middle East trip. Was he joking? Let’s remember, George W. previously had said in 1993, “heaven is open only to those who accept Jesus Christ,” while discussing his decision to become “born again,” asr eported in the Houston Post at the time.
And let’s not forget his heavy campaigning in Michigan (home of the largest Arab-American community) before the 2000 election, his family’s oil interests, and deep ties with the Arab community in America and the Middle East. Then, there was George W’s open support for a Palestinian state during his presidency, the first American president to come out of the closet on the issue.
As the saying goes, “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.”
So, after a cursory look at George W. Bush’s attitudes to Jews, and Israel, let’s look at his recently deceased father, George H.W. Bush, his friends and family.
Well, for starters, there’s the company H.W. kept, for example James Baker who said, “F*** the Jews, they didn’t vote for us anyways.” James Baker was George H.W. Bush’s Secretary of State.
Why didn’t H.W. criticize Baker’s statement?
And H.W. let Baker publicly berate Israeli PM Yitzhak Shamir, “When you’re serious about peace, call us,” giving the number for the White House switchboard. Later, as a friend of the family, he acted as a political advisor to Jeb Bush, when he ran for governor in Florida.
George H.W. Bush will go down in Jewish History as the American president who forced Israel into a subservient position and endangered millions of Jews.
During the 1991 Gulf War, Shamir wanted the communication codes, so that Israeli pilots could contact their American counterparts, and avoid a friendly fire scenario. Bush refused, forcing Shamir’s hand, not to respond to Saddam Hussein’s scud missile fire on Israel. Bush sent patriot missiles, and insisted that Israel let America take care of it. That may be the main turning point, in the Israeli mentality, from “we fight our own wars,” to a growing sense of dependence on Uncle Sam.
As the late Rabbi Meir Kahane quipped, “Once we were people who had faith in the burning bush, and now we depend upon George Bush?”
H.W. also pushed off an Israeli $10 billion aid request for loan guarantees, to help settle the million plus Soviet Jewish refugees flooding Israel, after the fall of the Iron Curtain. He insisted Israel stop building “settlements,” and extorted from Shamir, an agreement that Israel would participate in the 1991 Madrid “peace” Conference. Which led to the Oslo Process, the Palestinian Authority, Arafat’s return, and the Death Machine, Israelis suffer with today. After a more cooperative prime minister was elected in Israel in 1992, Yitzhak Rabin, the loan guarantees went through.
But the George HW’s apple didn’t fall far either…
The accusations against HW’s father, Sen. Prescott Bush, go well beyond dislike for Jews and discriminatory practices that were typical of New England WASP culture back then. It seems his father was involved with Hitler’s financiers in the later 1920s and 1930s.
Prescott Bush was co-founder and a director of at a New York bank, Union Banking Corp. (UBC), where German businessmen who supported the Nazis, stashed away millions. According to documents from the US National Archives made public in 2003, Bush was still a director at the bank, when its assets were frozen under the Trading With the Enemy Act in 1942.
(Stark shades of Nazi lover, Joseph Kennedy and the Jack Fitzgerald Kennedy “Camelot” Mirage)
By the way, for those that pick on the Jews, it is not too good for the pickers. Just look at the terrible tragedies that have befallen these very prominent families. Maybe someone is taking a more in-depth look and acting accordingly?) jsk
It seems, the UBC was not so much a “bank” at all, but a “clearing house” for the many assets and enterprises, of German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, who later admitted to his role, in helping to finance the Third Reich.
The documents also reveal that Prescott Bush worked for, and was later a partner in, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH). By the late 1930s, both BBH, which claimed to be the world’s largest private investment bank, and UBC, had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Nazi Germany, feeding and financing Hitler’s military build-up.
On October 20, 1942, the alien property custodian, seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. After checking their books, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. In November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush’s ventures, was also seized.
Bush owned an interest in the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Jewish slave labor from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz.
Two former Jewish slave laborers, at Auschwitz, brought a class action petition to The Hague, for damages against the Bush family, “From April 1944 on, the American Air Force could have destroyed the camp with air raids, as well as the railway bridges and railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz. The murder of about 400,000 Hungarian Holocaust victims could have been prevented.”
Their argument: On January 22, 1944, Pres. Franklin Roosevelt signed an executive order, calling on the government to take all measures to rescue European Jews. The lawyers in the petition claimed the order was ignored, because of pressure brought by a group of large American companies, including BBH, where Prescott Bush was a director. The petition went nowhere.
John Loftus, a former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor in the 70s, who is associated with the Florida Holocaust Museum in St. Petersburg, said that Prescott Bush’s business dealings were similar to what other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.
They bought Nazi stocks.
“This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich’s defense industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted. The UBC was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen,” Loftus explained. Loftus has said that the late senator’s actions, should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
It seems that the money Prescott Bush made from all his business dealings with the Nazis, including benefiting from Jewish slave labor, helped to establish the Bush family fortune, and set up its political dynasty.
Connecting the dots.
You have George H.W. Bush’s father, Prescott, possibly a Nazi sympathizer, in the least, having accumulated a fortune working with them, financially benefiting from Jewish slave labor too. And this, even after the US enters the war against Nazi Germany. Post-war he runs for politics, gets elected senator, and can also set up his kids to run.
Then, H.W., who weakens Israel’s defense posture, by forcing dependence on America. He withholds loan guarantees to help Israel absorb the massive wave of Soviet Jews (said to be the equivalent of America absorbing France). And, he pushes Israel into the false peace process, that began at the Madrid Conference in 1991, endangering Israel.
And HW’s son, George W. Bush, who doesn’t think Jews will get an after-life, and admits that America, Israel’s “ally,” the “even-handed broker,” wants the “peace process” to end with a Palestinian state, further endangering over six million Jews in Israel.
PS John Baker, Bush’s White House Chief of Staff and former US Secretary of State administered an American State Dept. replete with in fact, non-Jewish Jewish principals Dennis Ross and an anti-Israel force in the Senior Bush and Bill Clinton’s State Department including self-hating Jews – Martin Indyk, Aaron Miller, Richard Haase and of course,Madeleine Albright.
President Bush Sr. with the declared “assistance” of these stalwarts allbut brought Israel to its knees with their various “peace plans” that continue to this very day.
President Bush handed a $9 billion deal to sell advanced F-15 fighters to Saudi Arabia wherein their only possible target would be Israel. Israel’s vehement protest supported by AIPAC and the other main establishment organizations failed with Bush cleverly calling his opponents (referring specifically to the Jewish establishment ) “thousands of lobbyists” up against “one little lonely guy.”(Him)
Despite the wide-spread Jewish opposition, Bush prevailed and the F-15 fighter jet deal easily went through.Unfortunately, that was the last time AIPAC and the rest had the courage to oppose Presidential power. Instead they have simply taken the path of least resistance aided and abetted by the usual uninformed, shtetl-mindedAmerican Jews — continuing their primary objective — self-serving fund raising.
Many American Jewsrightfully felt that George H.W. Bush’s statement obviously fed into antisemitic myths of Jewish power. As a result, Bush’s support among American Jews cratered, with 90 percent of them voting for his opponent Bill Clinton in the 1992 election. And, Clinton quickly became the next undeserving, Jewish hero.
Unfortunately, nothing has changed with Jewish hero selection. They voted near 75% for Barack Obama and now are vehemently opposing a true Israel/Jewish supporter — Donald Trump.
Simon Levis Sullam reveals how Italian citizens were actively complicit in the extermination of Jews – and got away with it.
By Janet Levy, November 22, 2018
Contrary to the prevalent view that Italians were primarily among the so-called “righteous gentiles” who saved Jews during the Holocaust, Italy played a significant role in the genocide of its Jewish citizens.
Italians advanced blood libels, instituted persecutory racial laws, and later actively participated in the arrest and deportation of Jews to Auschwitz. In The Italian Executioners: The Genocide of the Jews in Italy, modern history professor Simon Levis Sullam explodes the myth of the “good Italians” promulgated after the war and exposes, for the first time, the cover-up of Italian responsibility.
As early as 1938, under the centralized authority of the Italian Social Republic (RSI), Italy introduced racial laws for its Jewish citizens that limited their economic activities, demonized them as inferior and enemies of the country, and persecuted them in employment, education and property ownership.
The Ministry of Popular Culture set up local centers to study the Jewish problem and crank out antisemitic propaganda for the media. A telling sentiment expressed on Radio Roma was the hope that “the Jews be burnt, one by one, and their ashes scattered in the wind.” All of this ultimately paved the way for Jewish annihilation.
Five years before any roundups began, Levis Sullam reveals, the Italian government conducted a complete census of the Jewish population and established an efficient bureaucracy to surveil and persecute this “disease of humanity.”
False and dehumanizing accusations about Jews, many promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church, were rampant.
Jews were viewed as deserving of segregation and persecution based on race alone. Officers in the Fascist National Republican Guard under Mussolini were well briefed in spiritual and biological racism theories.
From 1943 to 1945, a network of collaborators – police, militia members, customs officials and more – hunted Jews in their homes. They arrested, imprisoned and handed Jews over to the Germans for deportation to death camps. Jewish property and belongings were ransacked and stolen, often with impunity. Audaciously, Jewish victims of theft were charged an administrative fee for this confiscation of their assets, the book recounts.
To illustrate the depth of action undertaken by the complicit Italian population, the author describes the actions and involvement of three prominent community members. He shows how the sentiments of these people of note were representative of the general populace, helped create widespread hatred of Jews in the period leading to World War II and helped facilitate genocide.
Giovanni Preziosi, an RSI legislator, spearheaded the General Inspectorate of Race. He was responsible for identifying “racial status,” studying “racial questions,” disseminating antisemitic propaganda and devising solutions to the Jewish problem with full knowledge of the “final solution” adopted by the Germans. He was a willing and enthusiastic party to the joint Italian-German undertaking to perpetrate genocide. He was responsible for supervising the confiscation of Jewish property and infusing the educational system with antisemitic propaganda.
Giovanni Martelloni, a writer on the “Jewish question” and head of the Office of Jewish Affairs in Florence, joined the Inspectorate of Race in 1944 and carried out arrests and confiscations. An antisemitic writer who defined a “Jewish problem” that had plagued the world for 2,000 years, he was put in charge of coordinating anti-Jewish activities in Florence.
Physician and lecturer Giocondo Protti supported racist legislation and authored articles such as “The Jews as the Disease of Humanity” and “The Tragedy of Israel.” He ranted about the corrosive Jewish effect on society that he claimed was congenital and couldn’t be reversed by conversion.
The Italians proved useful to the Nazis.
They seized half of the country’s Jews and even ran their own concentration camp at Fossoli di Carpi, a way station for transport to Auschwitz. The camp was operated by Italian Fascist militias and strategically located close to a railway line. In his book, Levis Sullam, referring to an official document that called for a search for a second concentration camp, reasons that a network of labor camps likely existed in Italy. Operations against the Jews were carried out in Rome, Milan, Florence, Venice and other regions throughout the country.
The author describes many instances of Italians who served as informers and extracted large sums of money from Jews who wanted to cross the Swiss border.
Along the way, the guides, motivated by financial gain, personal vendettas or political convictions, betrayed the escaping Jews, alerted the authorities and collected a bounty for their capture.
At the close of the war, attempts were undertaken to recast the role of the Italian executioners. Remarkably, no one was ever prosecuted for carrying out Fascism’s antisemitic policies since persecution of the Jews was not considered a crime. By the summer of 1946, approximately 10,000 of the 13,000 people who had been convicted of wartime-related activities were granted amnesty and cleared of guilt and responsibility.
Italians who had engaged in enacting and carrying out racist legislation were fully able to flourish in their postwar careers, with some even going on to serve as judges and in political office.
The author discusses the peculiar “removal” of Italian responsibility and its replacement with historical accounts featuring the “good Italian” and their “tolerance and kindheartedness” toward Jews. Often, to move on with their lives, Jews accepted and supported this fallacious narrative.
Italians were falsely presented as opposing the German extermination policy and doing all they could to save Jews.
With the postwar whitewashing of their Holocaust role, Italians moved from the “era of the witness,” which highlighted the victims’ plight during genocide, to the “era of the savior,” in which Italy celebrates its role as alleged rescuer of Jews. The country has failed to recognize its own complicity in the murder of its Jewish citizens, bypassing the “era of the executioner.” That step would require the country to confront its woeful participation, faithfully described in this trailblazing book. Hopefully, Sullam’s account will begin this process with his uncovering of the Fascist regime’s role as a willing Holocaust perpetrator.
To subscribe to Israel Commentary: Send your email address to
Rome was the place where Church Father “Saint” Augustine’s instructions regarding what to do with the “deicide people” were carried out and became a model for elsewhere.
Unlike another Church Father, “Saint” John Chrysostom—who openly called for their slaughter in his homilies, Augustine wanted Jews kept alive……but in such a lowly condition that, when others looked upon them, they would recognize the deicide people.
The ghetto was the unhealthy iron foundry area, avoided for habitation—but perfect for the alleged G_d-killers. This ghetto came with locks and soon spread far beyond Italy.
Please open the following link to my earlier article about the above two Church Fathers and the Jews…
Right near Rome’s Colosseum stands the towering Arch of Titus. It was built soon after the first major revolt of Judea for freedom (66-73 C.E.). Contemporary Roman historians recorded the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Jews
during these attempts to regain independence from the conqueror of much of the known world. Scroll down here…
So, unfortunately, the Italians have had a long history of hostility towards Jews which preconditioned them to what Janet Levy writes about in her eye-opening review of this painful new book about Italian active complicity in the Holocaust.
Even Michelangelo placed what most folks will see as Devil’s horns on his famous sculpture of Moses—despite “rays of light”
claims by some folks. Centuries of the Church’s own demonization and dehumanization of the eternal wandering, deicide people had taken its toll on him and most others as well…even after they became atheists.
Thanks Janet and Jerry for all you do for matters dear to all our hearts…