For those under the misconception that the Israelis are “on Arab land”. “Nothing could be further from the truth.” 

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 Middle  East 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 the  Resolution 242 means. 

Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from “all” the territories were defeated in the  Security 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 from  deporting 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 occurred  during 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 the  local 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: Web Page: “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Questions about the House Committee Investigation of President Trump

Questions about the House Committee Investigation of President Trump

Redacted from an article by Aaron Klein

Jerusalem Bureau Chief for Breitbart News

The Jewish Press,    May 24, 2019

Now that Attorney General William Barr has appointed a U.S. attorney to examine the origins of the Russia collusion investigation targeting President Trump, these suggestions, in no particular order, may be helpful in divining possible wrongdoing in the sordid Russia affair.

1. Was a false crime deliberately reported to the FBI?

pastedGraphic.pngFormer British spy Christopher Steele reportedly met on July 5, 2016 with a Rome-based special agent, where he turned over the unsubstantiated, largely-discredited anti-Trump charges listed in his infamous dossier alleging collusion between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The controversial Fusion GPS firm hired Steele to do the anti-Trump work that resulted in the compilation of the dossier. Fusion GPS was paid for its anti-Trump work by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee via the Perkins Coie law firm.

The dossier contents were so unverified that numerous major media outlets briefed on the document refused to publish stories on the salacious material.

2. Did Steele know key dossier claims were false when he reported them to the FBI?

3.Were Obama administration officials involved in passing dossier charges of questionable political origin to the FBI or bolstering Steele’s credibility to the bureau?

David Kramer, a long-time adviser to late Senator John McCain, revealed in testimony that he met with two Obama administration officials to inquire about whether the anti-Trump dossier authored by former British spy Christopher Steele was being taken seriously.

In a deposition on Dec. 13, 2017 that was recently posted online, Kramer said that McCain specifically asked him in early December 2016 to meet about the dossier with Victoria Nuland, a senior official in John Kerry’s State Department, as well as an official from the National Security Council.

Nuland’s specific role in the dossier episode has been the subject of some controversy for her.

In their book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump, authors and reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn write that Nuland gave the green light for the FBI to first meet with Steele regarding his dossier’s claims. It was at that meeting that Steele initially reported his dossier charges to the FBI, the book relates.

Another former official from Kerry’s State Department, Jonathan M. Winer, admitted to interfacing with Steele. Winer authored a Washington Post oped in which he conceded that while he was working at the State Department he exchanged documents and information with Steele.

Winer further acknowledged that while at the State Department, he shared anti-Trump material with Steele passed to him by longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, whom Winer described as an “old friend.” Winer wrote that the material from Blumenthal – which Winer in turn gave to Steele – originated with Cody Shearer, who is a controversial figure long tied to various Clinton scandals.

4. Did James Comey withhold from the FISA court key information raising questions about the dossier, which was utilized as evidence in successful FISA applications to obtain successive warrants to conduct surveillance on Carter Page, a former adviser to President Trump’s 2016 campaign?

Comey signed the first of three FISA applications in late October 2016. The second and third were renewal applications since a FISA warrant must be renewed every 90 days. All three applications reportedly cited the dossier.

Comey cited the Steele dossier in the applications to monitor Page even though his own FBI determined the document was “only minimally corroborated.”

5. Who leaked a classified briefing about the dossier contents to CNN?

On January 10, CNN was first to report the leaked information that the controversial contents of the dossier were presented during classified briefings inside classified documents presented one week earlier to then President Obama and President-elect Trump. The classified briefings were presented by Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers. Comey reportedly briefed Trump alone on the most salacious charges in the dossier.

CNN cited “multiple U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the briefings” – in other words, officials leaking information about classified briefings – revealing the dossier contents were included in a two-page synopsis that served as an addendum to a larger report on Russia’s alleged attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Prior to CNN’s report leaking the Comey briefing to Trump, which was picked up by news agencies worldwide, the contents of the dossier had been circulating among news media outlets, but the sensational claims were largely considered too risky to publish.

All that changed when the dossier contents were presented to Obama and Trump during the classified briefings. In other words, Comey’s briefings themselves and the subsequent leak to CNN about those briefings by “multiple US officials with direct knowledge,” seem to have given the news media the opening to report on the dossier’s existence as well as allude to the document’s unproven claims.

Following the CNN report, the full dossier document was published hours later by BuzzFeed.  

(With no clarification as to it having been contrived and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DEM party, its creation by a former British Spy Christopher Steele and its apparent legitimization by former FBI Director James Comey, Director of  National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers)  jsk

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address  Web Page: “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Voters should ask, What exactly is the cost of “Free” under Socialism?

The GOP’s Duty: Explain the Cost of ‘Free’

Republicans can’t outbid Santa Claus, but they can make the case for honesty, liberty and aspiration.

Redacted from article by Bobby Jindal

Wall Street Journal May 30, 2019

Progressives are changing the Democratic Party’s focus from building stronger safety nets for the disadvantaged to subsidizing everything for everybody. Whereas Barack Obama once appeared radical for subsidizing health-care costs for the middle class as well as the poor, Democrats now promise free college, free health care and more—for everyone. 

Republicans can’t outspend Democrats, but they can make the case for freedom and against the idea that everything is “free” without sounding like Scrooge.

The Republican ideal isn’t penny-pinching but an aspirational society. The American Dream is to get a good job and live better than one’s parents; becoming dependent on government is the American nightmare. Even Howard Schultz, the man who brought America $5 coffee, realizes promises like Medicare for All are unrealistic and too expensive.

Yet Republicans have to do more than mock the Green New Deal’s bans on air travel, targeting of flatulent cows and subsidies for those unwilling to work if they want to persuade young voters of the case for limited government and personal freedom. Many Americans remember the Great Recession but not the Reagan Revolution, and they may find the false promise of government-provided economic security tempting, not having seen a better alternative.

In reality, “free” means more government control at the expense of consumer autonomy. When progressives promise government will pay for health care and college, they are really saying government will run medicine and higher education. Medicare for All explicitly calls for the abolition of private health insurance. Whereas Mr. Obama falsely promised that Americans who liked their plans could keep them, progressives now say if you like your plans, too bad.

Progressive health, education and energy policies would result in government interference in larger parts of the economy, affecting more people’s lives in profound ways. Consumers have a hundred choices of coffee but won’t be able to choose their health plans. Government paying for college would result in even more political interference with academic freedom. Progressives admit they want government to take ownership stakes in the projects mandated by their energy plan.

pastedGraphic.pngpastedGraphic.pngIt is one thing for Ford to tell consumers they could have any color Model T, as long as it was black, and quite another for government to tell citizens they cannot choose their health plans. Consumers and workers rightfully resent their decreasing bargaining power against large, sometimes oligopolistic companies, but the answer is not to consolidate power further in the hands of an even less responsive government bureaucracy. 

The correct response to reduced competition is more capitalism, not less. The way to resist consolidation in corporate America is to enforce existing antitrust laws and, especially, to reduce the regulatory pressures that cause consolidation in the first place.

“Free” means less efficiency, more expense and lower quality. While progressives highlight the unpopular aspects of private insurance, they won’t tell voters the private sector is more likely to promote innovation without concern for lobbyist-armed special interests and rent-seekers. Think of how long it took for the federal government, via Medicare, to pay for prescription drugs, ambulatory surgery and other outpatient services. It already takes tens of thousands of pages of regulations to administer Medicare, whereby the government sets thousands of prices in thousands of counties for millions of beneficiaries.

The top-down, one-size-fits-all Industrial Age approach is especially ill-suited to the constantly changing health care and education sectors. Hence the popular support for Medicare Advantage, charter schools, Veterans Choice and other programs that empower consumers with more control and harness the efficiency and creativity of the private economy to deliver public benefits.

“Free” means robbing from America’s children. It is one thing to take money from the present-day wealthy. It’s another to take it from future generations. Despite proposed marginal rates as high as 70% or even 90%, none of the tax plans Democrats have put forward would raise nearly enough revenue to pay for the promised spending. It is immoral for adults to force their children to sacrifice their quality of life and pay higher taxes to subsidize today’s spending. Good parents sacrifice to give their children more opportunities. This is the opposite.

Progressives aren’t willing to let America’s $22 trillion debt slow them down. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez objected to Congress’s pay-as-you-go rule, already honored more in the breach than in the observance; and progressives have conveniently discovered a monetary theory that allows them to ignore deficits and simply print whatever they want to spend.

Republicans have lost credibility on fiscal responsibility. Spending vastly increased on their watch. Even so, Medicare for All’s $32 trillion price tag makes even today’s appropriators look miserly. Republicans must remind voters—and themselves—that deficits are a drag on the economy, with interest payments crowding out private investment and government spending. It wouldn’t hurt for the GOP to act as if deficits matter when they govern, not merely when they’re in the minority.

Republicans can’t outbid Santa Claus. Americans are willing to work hard and sacrifice for a better life but need to know how pro-growth policies benefit them. Voters may be tempted by progressives’ crazy plans because they desperately want more affordable health care, reasonable tuition costs and a sustainable environment. They will embrace effective market-based solutions that promote freedom if Republicans offer them, but voters will only wait so long.

Mr. Jindal served as governor of Louisiana, 2008-16, and was a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to:  

Web Page: 

“Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

President Trump trying to deal with long neglected lethal Chinese threat despite mindless, partisan opposition

By Kate O’Keeffe 

Wall Street Journal    Dec. 2018 (but more pertinent than ever)

The two global powers have grabbed headlines over trade tensions, but confrontations are flaring up on other fronts as well. Washington is seeking to counter Beijing’s moves to expand influence around the world through investment and infrastructure loans.

U.S. warships and planes routinely patrol the South China Sea to challenge Beijing’s claims to the disputed territory, just as China ramps up military spending. And the Trump administration is taking measures to thwart the tactics China uses to acquire technology, particularly from U.S. companies.

Both sides accuse the other of aggression, but the Trump administration has gone out of its way to assert that its strong stance against China is a significant departure from previous U.S. administrations, and that its tough new approach will continue for the foreseeable future.

At the core of the tensions between the world’s two largest powers is President Trump’s belief that U.S. trade deficits are tantamount to the loss of American wealth. China has the greatest trade advantage among all U.S. trading partners, with an annual surplus in merchandise trade of $375 billion.

The Trump administration has placed ever increasing tariffs on Chinese imports to address the imbalance, and China has retaliated with its own levies on U.S. exports. U.S. businesses are generally unhappy with the tariffs, seen as a blunt instrument that hurts U.S. markets and consumers more than it helps.

Meanwhile, the U.S. business community—long seen as a natural ally to China among U.S. interest groups—has grown much less willing to defend it in the face of the Trump administration’s efforts, in large part because of mounting discontent with Beijing’s policies to acquire coveted U.S. technology, sometimes with military applications.

Chinese policy makers, through a variety of means, require foreign businesses to share technology with domestic counterparts as a condition of gaining access to their huge markets. In other cases, Chinese entities steal U.S. technology or attempt to circumvent processes that would prevent them from buying it.

China’s loss of support among the business community, to some observers, is another sign that the tensions between the two countries could extend well into the months and years ahead.

The Trump administration has tapped into this shift, recently launching a new plan to use export controls, indictments and other tools to counter China’s theft of intellectual property.

The opening move in the new strategy came in the form of a recent crackdown by the Commerce and Justice departments on a Chinese state-owned chip maker, which the U.S. administration accused of stealing trade secrets from Idaho-based Micron Technology Inc. as part of China’s quest to build its own semiconductor industry, the people familiar with the matter said.

Meantime, an interagency committee led by the Treasury has also been playing a key role in stopping Chinese technology deals that it deems a threat to national security. That even includes deals that don’t involve Chinese companies but hold potential implications for U.S.-China relations.

Earlier this year, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. cited the dominance of China’s Huawei Technologies Co. in the telecommunications-equipment industry when it advised President Trump to block Broadcom Ltd.’s $117 billion bid for U.S. semiconductor giant Qualcomm Inc.

The U.S. and China are also increasingly at odds over political issues including human rights. Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), chair of the bipartisan Congressional-Executive Commission on China, and Bob Menendez (D., N.J.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, introduced the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act in response to China’s internment of some one million Uighurs, a largely Muslim minority group, as well as Chinese Communist Party intimidation of U.S. citizens and permanent residents on U.S. soil.

Tensions between the two countries’ militaries are also escalating, especially in the South China Sea. China’s Central Military Commission earlier this year took direct control over the country’s coast guard, adding reinforcements to the region.

Some of the U.S.-China issues cut across multiple themes. For example, the U.S. administration is struggling with policy options to protect U.S. universities, where Chinese Communist Party initiatives target technology and threaten academic freedom. It is a particularly difficult problem because the American academic system prides itself on its openness, and many Chinese scholars bring both expertise and funding.

A new report by a nonpartisan think tank backed by the Australian government found that scientists from China’s military—at times obscuring their military affiliation—are significantly expanding research collaboration with scholars from the U.S. and other technologically advanced countries in areas like quantum physics, cryptography and autonomous-vehicle technology.

“America had hoped that economic liberalization would bring China into greater partnership with us and with the world,” Mr. Pence said in his speech. “Instead, China has chosen economic aggression, which has in turn emboldened its growing military.”

Ms. O’Keeffe is a Wall Street Journal reporter in Washington. 

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address  Web Page: “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman


By Joseph Pruder 

Front Page Magazine

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, Web Page:  “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

The Democrat Green New Deal

How the Green New Deal avoids ‘green eye shades’

By Todd Tiahrt 

The Washington Times  April, 2019

Pipelines are a key link for our families and our country. They fuel the electrical power grid that keeps our lights on, the farms that feed us, the trucks that deliver what we need, and the transportation we use to pick up our kids from school. Yet pipelines are the bane of the radical environmentalists that support the Green New Deal.

The Green New Deal has been praised by not only environmental activists but also by some in the national media, non-traditional liberals, Democratic Socialists and a few presidential candidates, all without regards to the “green eye shades.” 

A opinion piece about the 2013 Budget Committee hearings in Washington refers to the “green eye shades” as the individuals who are excessively concerned with financial matters or small and insignificant details. 

It is those very details, however, that underscore the impracticality of the Green New Deal and reiterate the role that pipelines play in safely transporting fuel to a growing, successful economy.

Consider just the first of the five goals of the Green New Deal, which is to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years! Greenhouse gasses are primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) all of which are related to the production, transportation, refinement and use of fossil fuels. So, for the radical Green New Deal advocates their goals include stopping the use of pipelines.

That is why we have seen radical “green” opposition not only to fossil fuels but to one of the safest and most economical means of moving those resources, our pipelines. 

Stymying the construction and operation of this infrastructure not only crushes our economy, but it puts the environment at risk by moving fuels by truck or train both of which add to the risk of spills and are more carbon-intensive transit options.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “the pipeline network has about 3 million miles of mainline and other pipelines that link natural gas production areas and storage facilities with consumers.” Further, the U. S. Department of Transportation Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration reports that the natural gas delivery system is the safest form of energy delivery in the nation.

Ironically, without these pipelines the goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, which essentially relies on solar and wind power, is completely unachievable. Simply said, you cannot have solar or wind power without the use of fossil fuels, natural gas in particular.

The green eye shades know that the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine so to maintain base load electrical power requires electricity on demand to fill the power gaps. Electrical power on demand is increasingly provided by electrical generators fueled by natural gas transported through our energy infrastructure network. Paradoxically, blocking a pipeline blocks the Green New Deal.

Further, in 2018 our country became the largest energy producer in the world and we are on track to become the largest oil and natural gas exporter within the next five years. The green eye shades know that means growth to our economy, the creation of more jobs and a significant impact on our trade deficit. Key to this growth and job creation is transporting oil and natural gas through pipelines. Hindering pipelines obstructs our future economic growth.

It is no wonder the “green eye shades” are avoided by the proponents of the Green New Deal. Those individuals — and those details — keep the pipelines operating safely, fueling an exciting growing economy, creating more jobs and they are shedding light on the destructive Green New Deal.

Todd Tiahrt is a former member of Congress from Kansas who served on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to Web Page:  Please “Like” on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Scientists Making War on Traditional Masculity by Ben Shapiro

The American Psychological Association proved once again that it is a political body rather than a scientific one.

This isn’t the first time a major mental health organization has favored politics over science—in 2013, the American Psychiatric Association famously reclassified “gender identity disorder” in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, calling it “gender dysphoria” and then explaining that living with the delusion that you are a member of the opposite sex is not actually a mental disorder at all.

That ruling was based on zero scientific evidence—much like the original DSM-5 classification of pedophilia as a “sexual orientation” before it was renamed “pedophilic disorder” under public pressure.

The latest example of the American Psychological Association’s political hackery concerns the topic of “traditional masculinity.”

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

In the American Psychological Association journal, it announced that it had released new guidelines to “help psychologists work with men and boys.” Those guidelines suggest that “40 years of research” show that “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.”

The American Psychological Association explains that “traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful. Men socialized in this way are less likely to engage in healthy behaviors.”

Never mind that traditional masculinity—a masculinity geared toward channeling masculine instincts of building and protecting, rather than tearing down—built Western civilization and protected it from the brutalities of other civilizational forces. Never mind that traditional masculinity protected femininity and elevated women to equal status in public policy.

Traditional masculinity is actually just men sitting around and eating burgers while grunting at one another about football, all the while crying on the inside because they have been prohibited by society from showing their feelings.

And it’s worse than that.

According to the American Psychological Association, traditional masculinity bumps up “against issues of race, class, and sexuality,” maximizing both interior and exterior conflict.

Dr. Ryon McDermott, a psychologist from the University of South Alabama who helped draft the new American Psychological Association guidelines, suggested that gender is “no longer just this male-female binary.” Rather, gender is a mere social construct that can be destroyed without consequence.

Here’s the American Psychological Association making the extraordinarily dishonest statement that gender differences aren’t biological at all, in contravention of all known social science research: “Indeed, when researchers strip away stereotypes and expectations, there isn’t much difference in the basic behaviors of men and women.”

Destroy masculinity in order to destroy discrimination and depression. Feminize men, and indoctrinate boys.

In order to reach this conclusion, the American Psychological Association has to define traditional masculinity in the narrowest, most negative terms possible—and then other those who disagree as part of the patriarchy. But as a political body, the American Psychological Association has little problem doing this.

All of this is not only nonsense; it’s wildly counterproductive nonsense.

Buried beneath the reams of nonsense in the American Psychological Association report is this rather telling gem: “It’s also important to encourage pro-social aspects of masculinity. … In certain circumstances, traits like stoicism and self-sacrifice can be absolutely crucial.”

But we must never suggest that such traits ought to be included as part of a “traditional masculinity,” because that would make some people feel excluded.

Here’s the truth: Men are looking for meaning in a world that tells them they are perpetuators of discrimination and rape culture; that they are beneficiaries of an overarching, nasty patriarchy; that they are, at best, disposable partners to women, rather than protectors of them. Giving men purpose requires us to give them purpose as men, not merely as genderless beings.

There’s a lot to be said for the idea that our culture has ignored the necessity for men to become gentlemen. But that’s a result of a left-wing culture that denigrates men, not a traditional masculinity built on the idea that men were born to defend, protect, and build.

One thing is certainly true, though: The American Psychological Association has destroyed itself on the shoals of politics. And there’s no reason for honest-thinking people to take its anti-scientific pronouncements seriously simply because it masquerades as scientists while ignoring facts in favor of political correctness.


Poland cancels Israeli delegation’s visit to discuss Holocaust reparations

Poland cancelled the visit of an Israeli delegation scheduled to arrive to discuss the return of Jewish property stolen during the Holocaust.

By David Isaac, World Israel News,  May 13, 2019

Poland’s Foreign Ministry announced on Monday that it was cancelling the visit of a senior Israeli delegation to Warsaw to discuss Holocaust reparations.

The ministry said that it had made the decision after “Israel made last-minute changes in the composition of the delegation, indicating that the talks will focus mainly on issues related to the return of Jewish property during the Holocaust.

The issue of returning property to Jews who suffered during the Holocaust has become a bone of contention between Israel and Poland recently. The issue has led to a wave of protests in Poland.

On Saturday, thousands of Polish nationalists marched to the U.S. Embassy in Warsaw, protesting that the U.S. is putting pressure on Poland to compensate Jews whose families lost property during the Holocaust.

“Why should we have to pay money today when nobody gives us anything?” said 22-year-old protester Kamil Wencwel. “Americans only think about Jewish and not Polish interests.”

Poland views itself as a victim of the Holocaust and not a perpetrator. In 2012, then President Barack Obama caused a diplomatic incident when he referred to a Nazi death camp as a “Polish death camp,” bringing a blistering rebuke from Poland’s prime minister at the time, Donald Tu

“When someone says ‘Polish death camps,’ it’s as if there were no Nazis, no German responsibility, as if there was no Hitler,” Mr. Tusk said at the time. “That is why our Polish sensitivity in these situations is so much more than just simply a feeling of national pride.”

Yesterday, Israel’s Ministry for Social Equality announced the coming departure of the delegation, which would be led by the ministry’s director-general, Avi Cohen Scali.

The announcement read, “The government of Israel views the restoration of the Jewish property and the promotion of Holocaust survivors’ rights as a moral imperative of the Jewish state. No factor, political or anti-Semitic, will stop us from carrying out this important order … The hourglass is running out, and we must act more vigorously before it is too late.”

According to the Walla! news site, Labor Knesset Member Itzik Shmuli took the opportunity to blame the Netanyahu administration. MK Shmuli, who chairs the Pensioners and Holocaust Survivors Caucus, said following the news of Poland’s cancellation, “Anyone willing to negotiate with the Poles about the very memory of the Holocaust should not be surprised that in the end we will be humiliated by the Poles.”

“The entire responsibility is on the government, which instead of fighting in the first place, has put the historical Jewish narrative up for sale,” he said.

Blue-and-White Party co-leader Yair Lapid, tweeted, “Once again the Polish government embarrasses the government of Israel regarding the memory of the Holocaust. It started with the Holocaust-denial law, and has now reached the issue of property restitution (about which one could say ‘you murdered and inherited’).”

The Holocaust-Denial law to which MK Lapid referred was passed by the Polish parliament last year and criminalized any accusation that Poland was complicit in the Holocaust. The law was later amended to make any offenses civil, and not criminal, offenses.

In June, 2018, the Netanyahu administration came under criticism for a joint statement with Poland about the Holocaust. Yad Vashem, the official memorial to the Holocaust in Israel, issued a statement in its wake, saying “A thorough review by Yad Vashem historians shows that the historical assertions, presented as unchallenged facts, in the joint statement contain grave errors and deception”

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to Web Page:  “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

William Barr confirms expanded Justice Department probe of Russia-Clinton links

– The Washington Times – May 1, 2019

Huma Abedin, who has been at Hillary Rodham Clinton's side as her personal assistant or "body woman" since the 2008 presidential race, faced criticism for standing by her husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner, after sexting scandals that damaged his political career. (Associated Press) ** FILE **
Huma Abedin, who has been at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s side as her personal assistant or “body woman” since the 2008 presidential race, faced criticism for standing by her husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner, after sexting scandals that damaged his political career.

Hillary Clinton, The Steele Document Fiasco and Finally Facing the Music

Hillary Clinton Projection Syndrome

By Victor Davis Hanson

By May 2, 2019 6:30 AM

© 2019 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Her political power is waning, and her attempts to suggest indictment of Trump show her personal fears.

Hillary Clinton recently editorialized about the second volume of special counsel Robert Mueller’s massive report. She concluded of the report’s assorted testimonies and inside White House gossip concerning President Trump’s words and actions that “any other person engaged in those acts would certainly have been indicted.”

Psychologists might call her claims “projection.” That is the well-known psychological malady of attributing bad behavior to others as a means of exonerating one’s own similar, if not often even worse, sins.

After 22 months of investigation and $34 million spent, the Mueller report concluded that there was no Trump–Russia collusion — the main focus of the investigation — even though that unfounded allegation dominated print and televised media’s speculative headlines for the last two years.

While Mueller’s report addressed various allegations of Trump’s other roguery, the special counsel did not recommend that the president be indicted for obstruction of justice in what Mueller had just concluded was not a crime of collusion.

What Mueller strangely did do — and what most federal prosecutors do not do — was cite all the allegedly questionable behavior of a target who has just been de facto exonerated by not being indicted.

What Mueller did not do was explain that much of the evidence he found useful was clearly a product of unethical and illegal behavior. In the case of the false charge of “collusion,” the irony was rich.

Russians likely fed salacious but untrue allegations about Trump to ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who was being paid in part by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to find dirt on Trump.

The Russians rightly assumed that Steele would lap up their fantasies, seed them among Trump-hating officials in the Barack Obama administration and thereby cause hysteria during the election, the transition, and, eventually, the Trump presidency.

Russia succeeded in sowing such chaos, thanks ultimately to Clinton, who likely had broken federal laws by using a British national and, by extension, Russian sources to warp an election. Without the fallacious Steele dossier, the entire Russian collusion hoax never would have taken off.

Without Steele’s skullduggery, there probably would have been no Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court–approved surveillance of Trump aide Carter Page. There might have been no FBI plants inserted into the Trump campaign. There might have been no subsequent leaking to the press of classified documents to prompt a Trump collusion investigation.

Given the Steele travesty and other past scandals, it is inexplicable that Clinton has not been indicted.

Her lawlessness first made headlines 25 years ago, when she admitted that her cattle-futures broker had defied odds of one in 31 trillion by investing $1,000 from her trading account and returning a profit of nearly $100,000. Clinton failed to report about $6,500 in profits to the IRS. She initially lied about her investment windfall by claiming she made the wagers herself. She even fantastically alleged that she mastered cattle-futures trading by reading financial newspapers.

To paraphrase Clinton herself, anyone else would have been indicted for far less.

The reason that foreign oligarchs are no longer donating millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, and that Bill Clinton is not being offered $500,000 for speaking appearances in Moscow, is simply that Hillary Clinton is not secretary of state. She is no longer in a public position to hector her colleagues into approving pro-Russian commercial deals, such as the one that gave Russian interests access to North American uranium.

As secretary of state, Clinton also sidestepped the law by setting up a home-brewed email server. She transmitted classified documents over this insecure route and lied about it. And she destroyed some 30,000 emails that were in effect under subpoena. Anyone else would have been indicted for far less.

In truth, Clinton was at the heart of the entire Russian-collusion hoax. Even after the election, she kept fueling it in order to blame Trump–Russia conspiracies for her stunning defeat in 2016. Unable to acknowledge her own culpability as a weak and uninspiring candidate, Clinton formally joined the post-election “resistance” and began whining about collusion. That excuse seemed preferable to explaining why she had blown a huge lead and lost despite favorable media coverage and superior funding.

For much of her professional life, Hillary Clinton had acted above and beyond the law on the assumption that as the wife of a governor, as first lady of the United States, as a senator from New York, as secretary of state, and as a two-time candidate for the presidency, she could ignore the law without worrying over the consequences.

For Clinton now to project that the president should be indicted suggests she is worried about her own potential indictment. And she is rightly concerned that for the first time in 40 years, neither she nor her husband is serving in government or running for some office, and therefore she could be held accountable.

NRO contributor VICTOR DAVIS HANSON is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Case for Trump. @vdhanson

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

Web Page:  

“Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

The Democrat Party Is Dead — Unfortunately

The Democrat Party Is Dead

Will Alexander,

The Democrat Party is so unrecognizable today because it’s gone.  The name is still there.  Some of the old faces are there.  But the party of John Kennedy, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Barbara Jordan and Zell Miller is dead.

Today’s Democrat Party is hollowed out by a chronic addiction to hyper-partisan controversies that mimic the feeling of being alive. Controversy gives Dems a constant drip of political dopamine they could never find in solving real problems. And they’re hooked now.

So, we’re witnessing a case of shared psychotic disorder that’s driving the party to self-medicate. Drug of choice? Donald Trump. Democrats are so impaired by their craving to “get Trump” that they imbibe day-in and day-out despite the deadly consequences to their party and to the country.

But while they trip out on Trump – seeing and hearing things that aren’t there – a mess of political misfits are filling the party void.  The new soul of the party is made up of a hodgepodge of misfits who team with rabid, left-leaning media and dark operators to push a pre-capitalist, post Judeo-Christian, anti-American revolution under a Democrat veneer.

Democrats are becoming America’s first “Manchurian” party.

At the slightest whiff of the old left-of-center odor, a Gestapo of tyrants is dispatched to keep fossilized Democrats like Biden and Feinstein whipped into submission.

But rather than killing the cancer in their party, the old Democrats let it go untreated.  Fearing retribution, traditional Dems’ mince their public words into such milquetoast, poll-tested blah-blah that they are unintelligible. Would-be presidents are falling over each other to out-socialist the socialists without calling it socialism.  They want murderers and illegals to vote, free college, free medical, a guaranteed income, reparations, no guns, sanctuary cities, legalized prostitution, a federal law to legalize pot, and they want a duly elected president to be impeached.

Given Biden’s sad Anita Hill apology and his revisionist history on the origins of the “rule of thumb,” he lacks the political magic to raise the party from the dead. To placate the Gestapo, Biden even launched his campaign on an outright lie.  He said Trump dignified white supremacy after Charlottesville.  He didn’t.  But it doesn’t matter that he didn’t.  Charlottesville is political cocaine – a potent white powder that perpetuates the delusion of white power.

Trump’s election didn’t cause the party’s demise, it exposed it.  Democrat derangement has been a problem for years.

Sen. Zell Miller, (D-Ga.) was so alarmed at his party’s scorched-Earth partisanship in 2004 that he openly criticized Sen. John Kerry, spoke at the Republican National Convention that year, and endorsed George W. Bush.  Back then, Democrats had Bush Derangement Syndrome, a condition discovered and diagnosed by Dr. Charles Krauthammer.

“Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?” Miller asked an enthused Republican crowd. “Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat’s manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

“Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today’s Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.  And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

“Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier …  It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

“No one should dare to even think about being Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn’t believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.  But don’t waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem not the solution.”

That warped thinking is even worse, today – especially on illegal immigration. Until Tom Friedman’s halting admission of America’s need for a strong border, no liberal of consequence has talked about what’s happening in plain sight with illegal immigration.

But for Texas Democrat Barbara Jordan, there was a big difference between legal and illegal immigration. President Clinton appointed her to chair the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (created in 1990) and asked her team to come up with recommendations that could be implemented into policy by 1997. Her recommendations on legal immigration were guided strictly by the national interest.  Recommendations on illegal immigration were guided strictly by the rule of law.

“The issue of immigration is not a partisan issue,” she said at the United We Stand America National Convention in 1995.  “Immigration is not a right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to everyone anywhere in the world who thinks they want to come to the United States.  Immigration is a privilege.  It is a privilege granted by the people of the United States to those we choose to admit.

“We must control illegal immigration before it erodes legal immigration. … The commission defines credibility in immigration policy by a simple yardstick: Those who should get in, get in.  Those who should be kept out, are kept out.  And those who should not be here, are required to leave.

“As a commission we denounce hostility toward immigrants. … But we are a country of laws.  For our immigration policy to make sense it is necessary to make distinctions between those who obey the law and those who violate it.  Therefore, we disagree with those who would label any effort to control immigration as somehow anti-immigrant.  Unlawful immigration is not acceptable.”

These were true Democrats; people who had ideological differences but had the knowledge and experience to articulate why they respectfully disagreed on policy without resorting to constant ad hominem attacks, hateful innuendo and outright lies.   When they felt members of their party were dead wrong on big issues, they had the political courage to unapologetically follow what they saw was in the best interest of the country.

Today, that party is gone.

In its place is a party who has declared war against the opposition party and has hijacked the apparatus of the old Democrat Party to fundamentally change America.  It’s their way, or the highway. It is apologetically capitalist, apologetically American and religiously secular.

 Raising the old party from the dead will take more than a candidate; it will take a miracle.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to, Web Page:  “Like” on Facebook @  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Yom HaShoah (Day of Rememberance of the Holocaust) for my Parents and Grandparents in Europe

 Yom HaShoah     (Just re-live this story 6 million times)

By Elaine Rosenberg Miller

The Times of Israel, APR 26, 2019

My father was born in Ulanow, Poland and my mother, in Ruscova, Romania.

The war started for him on September 1, 1939 when the Luftwaffe bombed their small town. A missile landed landed on their house, demolishing it.

Six weeks later, a Yiddish speaking Russian soldier knocked on the door of his maternal grandparents’ house where they had taken refuge and said “We’re leaving in the morning. If you know what’s good for you, you’ll come with us.”

The family, together with an aunt and her family, fled east to the U.S.S.R. with the retreating Soviet troops.

They lived in Lemberg for a few months and then were transported by cattle cars to Siberia where they were left to fend for themselves.

They lived in uninsulated wooden barracks, starving and lice ridden. After two years the Soviet authorities told them they could relocate to designated cities.

They had a family meeting. Someone said “We’ve been freezing for years.  Let’s go someplace warm.”

They chose Tajikistan.

They traveled by rail to the Urals, then on to Tajikistan.

They found themselves living among ethnic Russians, Tajiks and Bukharan Jews.

My father, a mechanic, was chosen from the motor pool to be a chauffeur and bodyguard for the First Secretary of Tajikistan, Dmitri Protopovov. He and his family relocated to an apartment in Stalinabad. He carried a firearm.

Protopovov would have him drive to the collective farms where he often told my father to fill up the trunk of the car with food for his family. In May, 1945 an announcement was broadcast on the outdoor loudspeakers.

The war was over.

Protopovov told my father, 25, “We like you very much and want you to stay in the Soviet Union.”

My father said “I have learned so much about the glories of communism, I want to go back and teach it to the Polish people.”

He let him go.

He and his family traveled west to Stettin, Poland.

After a few days, they moved on to the American Zone of Occupied Germany.

My father threw the Order of Stalin medal given to him by the First Secretary in a river.

My mother was 19  when the Germans invaded her bucolic northern Romanian village.

She had completed her apprenticeship in “schneideriai” (tailoring) and had purchased a sewing machine.

On the first night of Passover, 1944, a young Wehrmacht soldier knocked on the door of their stone house. Her father invited invited him in and explained the Passover settings. The soldier left.

Within days my mother, her parents and older sister were forced to relocate to Viseul des Sus. On Shavuoth they were transported to Auschwitz.  Her parents were gassed upon arrival.

Three months later, my mother and her sister were transported to Wustegiersdorf, a munitions factory in southeast Poland.

She was liberated on May 8, 1945 by the Soviets.

Next month (Iyar) is their yahrzeits. (Commemorative Day of their deaths)

They both died at 92, four years and four days apart.

My father died first.

We never told my mother.

She had memory loss by then.

Once or twice she asked “Where’s your father?”

“He’s not here”  I said slowly.

She said nothing further.


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 Web Page:  Please “Like” on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Why is Ilhan Omar’s Islamophobia dodge working?

Why is Ilhan Omar’s Islamophobia dodge working?

Her anti-Semite victimhood claim is based on a myth about a post 9/11 Muslim backlash that never happened.

By Jonathan S. Tobin

(April 12, 2019 / JNS – Jewish News Syndicate) 

Imagine if there was a member of Congress who openly supported an anti-Semitic movement, issued multiple statements promoting traditional themes of Jew-hatred and then gave a speech at a fundraiser for an organization founded as a front group for terrorists in which the 9/11 attacks were described as merely as “some people did something.”

And then imagine if the person who did all these things was embraced as a heroine and, more importantly, a victim of hate.

That’s the enviable position that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) finds herself in after doing all of the above in the space of just the three months since she was sworn in as a new member of Congress in January.

Her latest surge of publicity involved a speech she gave for the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the pushback about her 9/11 comments, whereby many Democrats embraced her as the victim of a hate crime because The New York Post published a cover reminding her about the horror that “something” entailed.

Omar has received death threats in recent months, and there is no excuse for that. No one should be threatened with hate or death for expressing their views, even when they are hateful as some of Omar’s have been. But what demands our attention here is not the contents of her CAIR speech or even the Post cover with its depiction of the iconic photograph of the World Trade Center towers in flames, but rather a curious process by which a person who has made a name for herself largely on the strength of anti-Semitic incitement has been transformed into a victim.

In doing so, those who have rallied to her defense have resurrected the myth of a post-9/11 backlash against Muslims. That has shifted the narrative of that trauma from one of an Islamist terror war against the West into one that focused on the victimization of Muslims.

But the ability of Omar and her defenders to use it to effectively deflect charges of anti-Semitism and to essentially legitimize her as a public figure is something that out to alarm everyone, no matter what your politics or religious beliefs.

Omar, like her fellow controversial members of the Democrats’ freshman class, Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have gotten far more publicity than they probably deserve for their meager accomplishments so far. Still, the trio of radicals have not only mesmerized the media, but also proven to have considerably more influence over their party than most political observers would have thought.

Nothing demonstrated their unexpected power more than the way that Omar’s allies—led by the ubiquitous AOC—were able to prevent the House of Representatives from condemning her after she slandered supporters of Israel and Jews by claiming that they were buying Congress (“It’s all about the Benjamins baby”) and exhibiting “dual loyalty.”

Omar refused to back down and found herself the object of much public sympathy for what supporters claimed was an attempt to single her out solely because she was black, Muslim and an immigrant. Omar emerged triumphant from that fiasco. If there was any doubt about that, it was removed by the way Democrats instinctively moved to protect her from criticisms of her 9/11 remarks, and instead condemned the Post and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) as racists for calling her out.

In one sense, the kerfuffle is a typical inside-the-Beltway absurdity, with AOC asking Crenshaw—a decorated former Navy SEAL who lost an eye fighting in Afghanistan—what he has ever done to fight terrorism. But this is more than just the usual political tit-for-tat on Twitter.

In her speech to CAIR, Omar claimed that the group had been founded after 9/11 in order to defend Muslims against a backlash after the attacks. This is patently false. CAIR was founded in 1994 as a political front for the Holy Land Foundation, a group that raised funds for the Hamas terror group that was eventually shut down by the Treasury Department. Her support for CAIR is consistent with her backing for the anti-Semitic BDS movement.

The debate about this mythical backlash has been going on for a decade, especially during the controversy over an abortive attempt to build an Islamic center within the shadow of the fallen World Trade Center towers. At that time, I wrote in Commentary magazine about the way false fears were being used to make Muslims appear to be the true victims of the slaughter. The mainstream media had accepted as truth the claims that Muslims had been the subjects of a wave of discrimination after 9/11, even though there was no objective proof to back up that assertion.

To the contrary, the U.S. government, the mass media and American popular culture had bent over backwards to avoid stigmatizing Muslims. As FBI hate-crime statistics in the years after 2001 showed, there had been no  discernable evidence of a backlash of hate. During those years and the following decade since the World Trade Center mosque debate, statistics consistently showed that Jews remained the prime focus of religious hate in this country with anti-Semitic attacks or incidents of any kind far outnumbering those against Muslims.

Decent persons—Jewish and non-Jewish, Republican or Democrat—cannot allow this big lie to stand unopposed.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to

Web Page:  Please “Like” on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman

As to the Mueller Report and Environs

Mueller’s Report Speaks Volumes

By Kimberley A. Strassel

Wall Street Journal

April 19, 2019, print edition.

By the fall of 2017, it was clear that special counsel Robert Mueller, as a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was too conflicted to take a detached look at a Russia-collusion story that had become more about FBI malfeasance than about Donald Trump. The evidence of that bias now stares at us through 448 pages of his report.

President Trump has every right to feel liberated. What the report shows is that he endured a special-counsel probe that was relentlessly, at times farcically, obsessed with taking him out. What stands out is just how diligently and creatively the special counsel’s legal minds worked to implicate someone in Trump World on something Russia- or obstruction-of-justice-related. And how—even with all its overweening power and aggressive tactics—it still struck out.

Volume I of the Mueller report, which deals with collusion, spends tens of thousands of words describing trivial interactions between Trump officials and various Russians. While it doubtless wasn’t Mr. Mueller’s intention, the sheer quantity and banality of details highlights the degree to which these contacts were random, haphazard and peripheral. By the end of Volume I, the notion that the Trump campaign engaged in some grand plot with Russia is a joke.

Yet jump to the section where the Mueller team lists its “prosecution and declination” decisions with regards the Russia question. And try not to picture Mueller “pit bull” prosecutor Andrew Weissmann collapsed under mountains of federal statutes after his two-year hunt to find one that applied.

Mr. Mueller’s team mulled bringing charges “for the crime of conspiracy—either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language,” or “under the general conspiracy statute.” It debated going after them for the “defraud clause,” which “criminalizes participating in an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the U.S. government.” It considered the crime of acting as an “agent of a foreign government”—helpfully noting that this crime does not require “willfulness.”

Up to now, the assumption was that Mr. Mueller had resurrected long-ago violations of the rarely enforced Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938 purely to apply pressure on folks like Paul Manafort and Mike Flynn. Now we find out that it was resurrected in hopes of applying it to campaign-period actions of minor figures such as Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.

Mueller’s team even considered charging Trump associates who participated with campaign-finance violations for the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. 

Was that meeting “a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban”? Was it “the solicitation of an illegal foreign source contribution”? Was it the receipt of “an express or implied promise to make a [foreign source] contribution”? The team considered that the law didn’t apply only to money—it could apply to a “thing of value.” 

Until investigators realized it might be hard to prove the “promised documents” exceeded the “$2,000 threshold for a criminal violation.” The Mueller team even credited Democrats’ talking point that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions had committed perjury during his confirmation hearings—and devoted a section in the report to it.

As for obstruction—Volume II—Attorney General Bill Barr noted Thursday that he disagreed with “some of the special counsel’s legal theories.” Maybe he had in mind Mr. Mueller’s proposition that he was entitled to pursue obstruction questions, even though that was not part of his initial mandate from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. 

Or maybe it was Mr. Mueller’s long description of what a prosecution of the sitting president might look like—even though he acknowledged its legal impossibility. Or it could be Mr. Mueller’s theory that while “fairness” dictates that someone accused of crimes get a “speedy and public trial” to “clear his name,” Mr. Trump deserves no such courtesy with regard to the 200 pages of accusations Mr. Mueller lodges against him.

That was Mr. Mueller’s James Comey moment. Remember the July 2016 press conference in which the FBI director berated Hillary Clinton even as he didn’t bring charges? It was a firing offense. Here’s Mr. Mueller engaging in the same practice—only on a more inappropriate scale. At least this time the attorney general tried to clean up the mess by declaring he would not bring obstruction charges. Mr. Barr noted Thursday that we do not engage in grand-jury proceedings and probes with the purpose of generating innuendo.

Mr. Mueller may not care. His report suggests the actual goal of the obstruction volume is impeachment: “We concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority.”

pastedGraphic.pngNote as well what isn’t in the report. It makes only passing, bland references to the genesis of so many of the accusations Mr. Mueller probed: the infamous dossier produced by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. How do you exonerate Mr. Page without delving into the scandalous Moscow deeds of which he was falsely accused? How do you narrate an entire section on the July 2016 Trump Tower meeting without noting that Ms. Veselnitskaya was working alongside Fusion? How do you detail every aspect of the Papadopoulos accusations while avoiding any detail of the curious and suspect ways that those accusations came back to the FBI via Australia’s Alexander Downer?

The report instead mostly reads as a lengthy defense of the FBI—of its shaky claims about how its investigation began, of its far-fetched theories, of its procedures, even of its leadership. 

One of the more telling sections concerns Mr. Comey’s firing. Mr. Mueller’s team finds it generally beyond the realm of possibility that the FBI director was canned for incompetence or insubordination. It treats everything the FBI or Mr. Comey did as legitimate, even as it treats everything the president did as suspect.

Mr. Mueller is an institutionalist, and many on his team were the same Justice Department attorneys who first fanned the partisan collusion claims. He was the wrong man to provide an honest assessment of the 2016 collusion dirty trick. And we’ve got a report to prove it.

Write to

To subscribe to Israel Commentary:  Send your email address to Web Page:  Please “Like” on Facebook:  1. Israel Commentary  2) Jerome S. Kaufman