How to spoil a perfectly good lunch – Invite an Israeli diplomat to speak

By Jerome S. Kaufman

The Jewish Community Relations Council of Metropolitan Detroit, that purports to be the public affairs voice of the Jewish community here, which, of course it is not, asked the Zionist Organization of America, Michigan Region to help with an event. The ZOA was to obtain an audience and sponsor a luncheon for an Israeli diplomat the Council had brought in for a tour of the local Jewish community. The ZOA-MI did so and had a nice turnout.

Generally it has been our experience that Jewish Community Councils, Federations, the American Jewish Committee, Hillels and many other establishment Jewish organizations nationwide, have a propensity for a particular political point of view and almost invariably, a speaker is hired that not so subtly proclaims it.

We were therefore not surprised with the delivery of the diplomat who addressed us. She was Orli Gil, Israel Consul General for the Midwest based in Chicago. Ms. Gil was well spoken and had a list of diplomatic credentials attained over the years. She also had a history of appearing at gatherings sponsored by such organizations as listed above.

She assumed her post as Israeli Consul General to the Midwest region in July 2008 and is a career diplomat who has served in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 22 years. Ms. Gil holds a BA in English and Hebrew Literature from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem – hardly an education, by the way, directed toward political expertise.

Ms. Gil spoke well enough. Unfortunately, the Israeli Government message that she presented was disappointing, to say the least. It was sometimes difficult to determine whose view was being presented – the Israeli or the Arab.

The terminology used by Ms. Gil was shocking. She had somehow learned to use the pro-Arab version. She spoke of Israel having “conquered” much Arab territory in 1967 and was “occupying” it to this day. She spoke of Israel “giving back” land that Israel had “conquered” and was fully prepared to “give back” more for peace.

Never did she seem to understand and certainly did not verbalize the fact that Israel had simply regained territory that should have been the Jewish Homeland in the first place. Never did she remind the audience that the Jewish claim to the land goes back over 3000 years. Never did she state that there is no genuine legitimate Arab claim to the land and that at no time was there an Arab nation on that land. In fact, the term “Palestinian” always referred to the Jews living there.

Arabs were simply designated as Arabs who had migrated into the area when the Jews began to drain the swamps, make the land habitable, utilized Jewish genius to bolster the entire economy and thus create jobs for these Arab immigrants. They streamed in from Iraq, Egypt, Syria and surrounding areas only because in Palestine and then Israel, they finally had a chance to make a decent living and to obtain the huge benefits of a democratic nation that they do not have in their own Arab countries to this very day.

If Consul General Gil and the entire Israeli diplomatic corps had read, From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine published in 1984 book by Joan Peters and describing, in great detail, the origins of the Arab population of Palestine, they would learn these basic facts. These facts have been studiously ignored by an Israel government too obtuse to understand their public relations significance.

Furthermore, Judea and Samaria (not “West Bank”), Gaza and the Golan Heights never “belonged” to Arabs and certainly not Jordan, Syria and Egypt, who themselves conquered them in 1948. At that time, these bordering nations invaded the newly “reborn” Jewish nation in an attempt to immediately abort its rebirth. To be perfectly accurate, these Arab nations were the “occupiers” from 1948 until they were finally expelled in 1967 by the Israelis in the Six Day war of self-defense.

But, this is all old hat and virtually beyond repair. What was even more depressing was Orli Gil’s discourse on the so-called “peace process” It appears that the Israeli Government under PM Netanyahu and his stalwarts Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres et al, who somehow, under the pathetic Israeli political system that keeps dinosaurs in power forever, are still pursuing a “peace process” which has been an unmitigated disaster.

Not one gesture of peace or huge swath of territory given to the Arabs has been reciprocated other than as a sign of weakness and a greater opportunity to enlarge their Arab terror bases against the Israelis.

Gil had the inane idea, as does her titular boss, Bibi Netanyahu, that the Arabs will eventually come to the table and give up their self determined right of return of millions of third generation “refugees”, they will agree to a demilitarized state, they will allow Israel to control the Jordan Valley, the Egyptian border, the Lebanese border, allow the IDF to police Judea and Samaria as needed to protect Israeli citizens, allow Jerusalem to remain undivided and remain only the capitol of the Jewish state and not make it the capitol of a “Palestinian” state, etc. and to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State.

To me, this last requirement is the greatest of the abominations. How I as a Jew or Israel as a Jewish nation has to ask anyone to grant them the “right to exist” when we have over 3000 years of such an obvious existence and G-d given at that, is beyond abomination.

It is abomination enough to make me ill and to yearn desperately for the day when, G-d willing, Israel finally has political leaders with genuine self respect, genuine pride in their people and their nation and are finally able to shed off their sick dependency upon others and feel the need to plead with them to recognize Israel’s very “right to exist.” Instead, hopefully one day, we will have leaders with the confidence and strength to tell the immediate world exactly where to get off.

Jerome S. Kaufman

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

May G-d Bless US Representative Ileana Ros Lehtinen

To protect Israel at the U.N., money talks.

BY ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN
The Miami Herald, August 27, 2011

The recent onslaught of violent attacks against Israel reminds us of the growing threats facing the Jewish state. But even as extremists from Gaza fire rockets and mortars at civilians in southern Israel and cause death and destruction, we must not forget about another danger facing Israel: a unilateral campaign by Palestinian leaders to secure recognition from individual foreign governments and from the United Nations for a self-declared Palestinian “State.” This anti-Israel, anti-peace scheme must be stopped.

Abu Mazen’s Palestinian leadership has announced that they will seek recognition from the United Nations in September. They will likely turn first to the U.N. Security Council, where the United States holds a veto and should use it, although the Obama administration has yet to pledge that it will.

The next step would be the General Assembly, which has an automatic anti-Israel, anti-American majority made up largely of member states that are not democratic and other governments that repeatedly vote with rogue regimes and against Israel and the United States.

The General Assembly cannot grant membership to a “Palestinian state” without the approval of the Security Council, but the General Assembly can grant the present Palestinian observer the upgraded U.N. status of “non-member state observer,” which is the same status granted to Vatican City. Other U.N. agencies and programs could also grant membership or other upgraded status to Ramallah.

Such U.N. actions would severely undermine opportunities for a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians. They would provide implicit recognition and legitimacy to a self-declared “state” and reward and reinforce the unilateral, rejectionist policies of the Palestinian leadership.

Restarting bilateral negotiations would become even more difficult. Ramallah could seize on the U.N.’s actions to escalate its efforts to demonize and isolate Israel internationally, including through seeking an International Criminal Court investigation in order to undermine Israel’s right to defend itself from attacks by violent extremist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah — including the very attacks that have killed several Israelis and wounded many others in recent days.

If the U.N. were to act in support of this unilateral Palestinian scheme, it would deal a blow not only to Israel and to the cause of peace, but to the U.N. itself. The U.N.’s obsession with castigating Israel — from the Human Rights Council and the Goldstone Report and the Durban conferences to the multitude of U.N. bodies created for the sole purpose of condemning Israel — has eliminated the U.N.’s credibility to aid in achieving peace and security in the Middle East.

The U.N.’s most infamous anti-Israel act came in 1975, when the General Assembly voted to declare that “Zionism is racism.” Over 35 years later and 20 years after the General Assembly repealed that resolution, the U.N. is still rightly discredited by that hateful act. Next month, if the U.N. again sides with Palestinian rejectionism and against Israel and peace, it will be “Zionism is racism” all over again. The U.N., not Israel, will lose whatever remaining legitimacy it holds, and it may never be able to recover.

Fortunately, we are not helpless in the face of this dangerous challenge. There is a historical precedent for how to stop it. In 1989, Yasser Arafat’s PLO also pushed for membership for a “Palestinian state” in UN entities. The PLO’s strategy looked unstoppable until the George H.W. Bush administration made clear that the U.S. would cut off funding to any UN entity that upgraded the status of the Palestinian observer mission in any way. The UN was forced to choose between isolating Israel and receiving U.S. contributions, and they chose the latter. The PLO’s unilateral campaign was stopped in its tracks.

This example demonstrates a simple but needed lesson: At the UN, money talks, and smart withholding of money works.

With Arafat’s successors up to the same tricks today, the U.S. response must be as strong. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has consistently refused to use our strongest leverage — our financial contributions — to advance U.S. interests at the UN. If the executive branch will not demonstrate leadership on this issue, Congress must fill the void.

I will soon introduce the United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act,which will reflect the executive branch’s previous successful policies by cutting off U.S. contributions to any UN entity that grants membership or any other upgraded status to the Palestinian observer mission. This legislation will also leverage U.S. taxpayer dollars to make sure they do not fund biased or wasteful UN activities, and to achieve other much-needed reforms that will make the UN more transparent, accountable, objective, and effective.

It is time to use all our leverage to stop this unilateral Palestinian scheme — for the sake of our ally Israel and all free democracies, for the sake of peace and security, and for the sake of achieving a UN that upholds its founding principles.

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), is Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Another Obama Stimulus Pkg., “Green scheme” bites the dust with Taxpayer $$

Solar Firm Aided by Federal Loans Shuts Doors
Redacted from article by MATTHEW L. WALD
August 31, 2011

WASHINGTON —  A Silicon Valley maker of solar power arrays that was started with high hopes and $527 million in loans from the federal government said on Wednesday that it would cease operations. The failure of the company — and the loss to taxpayers — is likely to renew the debate in Washington about the wisdom of clean energy subsidies and loan guarantees

President Obama praised the company, Solyndra, for its advanced technology during a visit last year. But in a statement on Wednesday, Solyndra said its business had run into trouble because of difficult global business conditions, including slowing  demand for solar panels, and stiff competition.

The Energy Department, which approved the funding, said China’s subsidies to its solar industry were threatening the ability of Solyndra and other American manufacturers to compete. The price of a solar array, measured by cost per watt of capacity, has fallen 42 percent since December 2010, the agency said. Two other American solar companies, Evergreen Solar and SpectraWatt, also sought bankruptcy protection in August, and both said competition from Chinese companies had contributed to their financial problems.

In the case of Solyndra, some experts said that regardless of the competition, the company’s unique designs, which were expensive to manufacture, were to blame for its failure. Solyndra was promised loans of up to $535 million under a guarantee program authorized by Congress as part of the 2009 stimulus package.

The Energy Department has made more than 40 promises of guarantees, of which Solyndra was the first. It has committed $18 billion in guarantees and expects to allocate several billion dollars more by the time the program finishes at the end of September.The government calculates premiums for the guarantees, essentially a loan fee based on the risk of default, but it picks up the cost of the premiums for the companies in the subsidy program. By that yardstick, it has spent $2.4 billion in credit subsidies for the program. Solyndra’s troubles have been growing for some time. Republican budget-cutters in Congress have viewed it as a model of poor government investment.

“In an apparent rush to push stimulus dollars out the door, the Obama administration wasted $535 million in taxpayer funds in guaranteeing a loan to a firm that has proven to be unviable in the global market,” said Representative Cliff Stearns, the Florida Republican who is chairman of an investigative subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

He said the Energy Department might have authorized the guarantee because an Oklahoma oil man who was a donor to the Obama campaign, George Kaiser, was an investor in the project. In a joint statement, Mr. Stearns and Representative Fred Upton of Michigan, the chairman of the committee, said, “We smelled a rat from the onset.”

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

WHY GLENN BECK SCARES ISRAELI (and American) LEFTISTS

By Steven Plaut
Jewish Press, September 2, 2011

Israeli radical leftists have long had an intense hatred for American conservatives, who are almost all pro-Israel. Actually, Israeli leftists hate American conservatives precisely because conservatives are pro-Israel. As is the case in most other countries, radical leftists in the Jewish state are anti-Israel in addition to being anti-American.

Israeli leftists insist that overseas supporters of Israel who are conservative should be shunned. Israeli leftists insist that Israel should only allow itself to be befriended by foreign leftists. Never mind that the search for pro-Israel foreign leftists is about as productive as the search for human life on other planets. The left outside of Israel is almost entirely anti-Israel, and foreign liberals are by and large (though not entirely) anti-Israel as well.

Israeli leftists want foreign pro-Israel conservatives to be regarded as personae non gratae by Israel. A few years back, Amiram Goldblum, a professor at Hebrew University and a founder of Peace Now, called upon Israeli officials to prevent American evangelical Christians from entering Israel. He objected to them because they are too pro-Israel. The Israeli left is outraged that Israeli cable TV carries Fox News, because it is pro-Israel. The anti-Israel BBC and CNN, however, are fine.

The most dramatic manifestation of the Israeli left’s hatred of pro-Israel foreign conservatives was evident in the severity of the Beckaphobia we’ve seen in recent days.

Glenn Beck was in Israel last week (he has been here a lot in recent months) for one purpose only – to support Israel. He is an outspoken and well-spoken American conservative. His political opinions are solidly conservative and you cannot listen to his recent speech in Jerusalem without being convinced of the sincerity of his love for Israel and solidarity with Jews. You might even be moved to tears (from his citing the Book of Ruth, for instance).

The Israeli left has been jihading like crazy against Beck. Yossi Sarid, the ex-head of the semi-Marxist Meretz party, crayoned an op-ed demonizing Beck (just recently Sarid published an op-ed in Haaretz claiming Israel fought the Six-Day War out of a Nazi-like quest for Lebensraum – his word). Sarid was joined by lots of left-wing Haaretz writers in Beck-bashing. And even the normally sensible Maariv editor Ben-Dror Yemini decided to gripe about Beck. Naturally, Peace Now denounced the decision to allow Beck into the country.

The leftists demanding that Beck be regarded as persona non grata are almost without exception the same people who protested when Israel denied inveterate Israel bashers Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomskyand Richard Falkentry into the country. The lesson is clear – the left’s mantra is really this: Israel, hate it or leave it.

Meanwhile, Israeli patriots loved Beck and many attended his rallies. Caroline Glick wrote in The Jerusalem Post:

Beck is rare, because he refuses to bow to the intellectual intimidation and group-think that plagues the discourse on Israel in Israel itself and throughout the world . Unlike the leftist public intellectuals such as New York Times columnist, Tom Friedman (may he rot in gehenim – jsk) who are celebrated and obsessively covered by the Israeli media, Beck exerts real influence on public opinion in the U.S.

His calls for action are answered by hundreds of thousands of people. His statements are a guidepost for millions of Americans. Aside from radio host Rush Limbaugh, no media personality in the U.S. has such influence. It is highly significant that thousands of Beck’s supporters followed his call and came with him to Israel for a week to express their support for Israel and the Jewish people. It is similarly significant that millions more of his supporters followed his actions on Internet.

Beck, of course, is also the right-winger American left-wingers most love to hate. He is perhaps the only TV and radio personality who can upset the left even more than Rush Limbaugh does. But those who hate Beck, in almost all cases, also hate Israel. True, some liberal American Reform rabbis denounced Beck for criticizing George Soros, but if anything, Beck should carry their condemnation as a badge of valor.

Some American Jewish liberals squirm when Beck’s name is mentioned because they have a problem with Mormons. Give me a nice team of Mormons any day over liberal Jewish pseudo-clergypersons preaching that Judaism is really “social justice” and pursuing a liberal political agenda.

Mormons may invite you to join their faith and pray for you to do so. Liberal Reform rabbis often misrepresent Judaism and are guilty of chillul Hashem (sacrilege). I feel fine with the former. And I salute Glenn Beck.

Steven Plaut, a frequent contributor to The Jewish Press, is a professor at the University of Haifa. His book “The Scout” is available at Amazon.com. He can be contacted at steveneplaut@yahoo.com.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Eric Holder’s Dept. of Justice activity again under Congressional investigation

Dept. of Justice must release its financial links to Muslim Brotherhood

(Eric Holder and Obama with more American blood on their hands?)

The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) News
August 26, 2011

In the wake of yesterday’s IPT News report on the Justice Department’s (DOJ) handling of an investigation into a financial network with links to the Muslim Brotherhood, a prominent House lawmaker wants answers from the Obama Administration.

Rep. Frank Wolf, (R-VA), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Justice Department, told the Investigative Project on Terrorism that DOJ is making a mistake by refusing to make public the details of the settlement it reached with the Islamic Investment Company of the Gulf (IICG). The Virginia lawmaker said that on Monday he will send administration officials a letter urging that all of the information about the case be made public.

Wolf said that if the administration balks, he is prepared to insert language into the Justice Department appropriations conference report to force the release of all information about the settlement. “But I’m hoping it won’t get to that point,” he said.

The IICG, which has operations on four continents and managed $1.6 billion in funds in December 2007, is a “wholly owned subsidiary” of DMI Trust, a company which has had prominent Muslim Brotherhood figures like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Hassan al-Turabi on its board.

The Wall Street Journal reported in 2007 that a DMI affiliate called Faisal Private Bank had been named in two major terror investigations. In one of these, the Justice Department alleged that the bank (then known as Faisal Finance) was used by a Saudi businessman to wire $665,000 to the account of a top Hamas official, Mousa Abu Marzouk. Another Faisal Finance client was al Qaida official Mamduh Mahmud Salim, now serving a federal prison sentence for conspiring to murder Americans.

DMI and Faisal Finance have also been defendants in civil litigation brought by relatives of persons killed in the 9/11 attacks. Saudi Prince Mohamed al-Faisal, who founded DMI Trust nearly 30 years ago, remains on its board.

Veteran journalist Douglas Farah wrote that in the foreword to a DMI booklet published in 1981 entitled , “Studies on Islamic Economy and Transactions,” Dr. Ibrahim Mustapha Kamel wrote that DMI was founded my (sic) desire to engage a Jihad to lift the flaw on Islamic financial and economic transactions.” He wrote that the author of the book “remains what he also was, a lighthouse…We are following jihad in modern times.”

Justice Department officials haven’t denied reaching a settlement with the IICG. But they nonetheless refuse to release a copy or comment on it. Repeated attempts to obtain the settlement – or at least a clear explanation of why it cannot be released when most government settlements are included in the public record – have been unsuccessful.

On Wednesday, Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller stated that, “We will have no further comment” about the case. But in an interview with the IPT, Wolf said that response was unacceptable, particularly given a DOJ lawyer’s seeming acknowledgement earlier this year that there was no need to keep the information under seal.

The congressman said he was particularly troubled by the presence of Turabi on the DMI board for a decade during the 1980s and early 1990s. Wolf noted that during the period he was a director, Turabi urged Osama bin Laden to move his jihadist base to Sudan.

When it comes to the modern Jihadist movement, Turabi has been part of that “since the beginning,” working together for much of this time with Sudanese leader Omar Bashir, who has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

All of the information about Turabi and his relationship with IICG needs to be made public right away, Wolf said, adding that he was puzzled by the Obama Administration’s reluctance to make the information public.

“Maybe they’re afraid of the Saudis,” he speculated. But the administration said it wanted to be the most open one in American history, Wolf said, and he plans to hold the administration to that assertion when it comes to the probe of Jihadist terror networks.

From: Cheryl Jacobs Lewin

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Glenn Beck, Jon Voight and Rev. John Hagee in video visiting Israel

WALKING BEHIND THE ‘PILLARS OF FIRE’ WITH GLENN BECK
Redacted from article By Helen Freedman

II Video with Reverend John Hagee at the Glenn Beck event in Israel
(view below)

I The inspirational gatherings that were part of the Glenn Beck mission to Israel occurred against a very grim backdrop. It was ironic that the subject of ‘Restoring Courage’, the theme of Glenn Beck’s mission in Israel, was so starkly presented by the events that unfolded as I arrived in Israel on Thursday afternoon, August 18.

A series of terror attacks on buses and private cars had just occurred on the road from Be’er Sheva to Eilat that left many Israeli civilians and soldiers dead and wounded. Israel “retaliated,” followed by Kassam rockets and Grads falling all over Israel’s south.

Again, the Israeli government “retaliated.” Israel also apologized to the Egyptians for shooting back at terrorists dressed in Egyptian soldier uniforms. As of this writing, the Egyptians are violating the peace agreement with Israel as they proceed with the demilitarization of the Sinai, bringing forces and weapons into the area, (with the permission of Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak and PM Netanyahu. Can you believe that? – Jsk),

How long will it be before these same Egyptian troops march on Israel? What will Israel’s response be if that happens? Will Israel’s leaders have the courage to protect Israel’s citizens?

Glenn Beck would answer these questions by urging Israel’s leaders not to fear world condemnation – to use the shields of courage and truth to banish fear – and not follow the path to surrender. He would encourage Israel to follow G-d’s ‘Pillars of Fire’ to which he referred in his powerful address at the DavidsonCenter outside the southern wall of the Old City in Jerusalem on Wednesday afternoon, August 24.

John Voight, who had joined us on Sunday night, was greeted enthusiastically by the crowd. He spoke of the new type of holocaust, where terror is used for political ends. Beck confirmed this by declaring, “If you stare evil in the eye, it backs down; it is a coward!” Beck declared, “This will be the generation that will say “Never Again” to the repeated holocausts against the Jews.

Beck charged everyone with the Responsibility to alter the course of history by being willing to speak the truth. When the “human rights” organizations exercise their double standard, we must declare, “Not in My Name!!” He called for truth seekers to link arms with him – to stand with courage – and to walk behind G-d’s ‘Pillars of Fire’ – to choose life – with no more lies.

The dynamic gathering was closed by Beck asking us to remember – and to teach these lessons to our children – and to obey G-d’s word. When we are asked, “Where were you when the world was on the edge again, when the West, Israel and the Jews were blamed again, we can say that “We stood with Israel.”

II Video with Reverend John Hagee and Glenn Beck

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Maybe you forgot who’s Al Sharpton?

MSNBC Gives a Violent Racist a TV Show
FrontPage Magazine
Posted by Daniel Greenfield
Aug 18th, 2011

Imagine if MSNBC gave a TV show to a violent racist who led angry mobs against Jewish and Asian communities and businesses – Mobs that gathered outside a Jewish synagogue chanting “Heil Hitler” and “Death to the Jews.”

Unimaginable, right? Wrong. After years of accusing FOX News of racism, MSNBC gave a violent racist his own show. Of course MSNBC would never give a white racist like David Duke his own show. But they have no problem giving one to Al Sharpton.

Sharpton is many things—a cunning gutter clown, a hate-filled agitator and a savvy trader in political favors. Those qualities have taken him from street riots to a kingmaker role in the Democratic Party to the White House, where he has become its link to the black community.

Sharpton has eclipsed Jesse Jackson as the national agitator with the highest profile, adopting Jackson’s old role of middleman between the Democratic Party and the black community, and his business model of blackmailing corporations with boycott threats to fund his organization. The National Action Network, Sharpton’s organization, commands appearances by Obama and Biden, and true to his usual financial dealings remains deep in debt while paying him a six figure salary.

But there can be no talk of Sharpton without discussing the trail of debris behind him. Yankel Rosenbaum, the University of Melbourne student, stabbed and beaten to death on President Street among the stately manors of what was once known as Doctor’s Row, was the most famous victim of Sharpton’s Crown Height Pogrom, but not the only one.

There was Anthony Graziosi, a white, bearded Italian electronics salesman wearing a dark suit, who was mistaken for a Jew, and died for it. Bracha Estrin, a Holocaust survivor, who saw the mobs chanting “Heil Hitler” and “Death to the Jews” and believing that history was about to repeat itself, jumped rather than fall into their hands.Twenty years ago this August, a line of bodies was lowered into the ground. And Sharpton walked away with a higher national profile than ever.

Three years later, another round of racist protests at Freddy’s Fashion Mart with protesters screaming, “Burn down this Jew store!” led to an attack that killed seven minority employees. The Freddy’s protests were led by Morris Powell, head of the Buy Black Committee at Sharpton’s National Action Network. Powell had been previously put on trial for breaking the head of a Korean woman during one of his pickets.

Sharpton’s modus operandi was to create chaos, and then represent himself as the man who could stop it. The uglier the confrontations got, the more people died, the more credibility he gained. In 2001, he went from terrorizing entire neighborhoods to claiming control over the outcome of the mayoral election. Shortly thereafter the New York State Democratic Party made it clear that attacks on Sharpton were no longer acceptable. Senate candidates were expected to court the hate monger and did.

And then it was presidential candidates. Sharpton’s presidential run utilized the same tactics at the national level that had worked for him at the city and state level. He wasn’t out to win, just to cause enough chaos and uncertainty that the party would buy him off. And it worked.

It was a surprisingly short journey from a racist agitator who intimidated city authorities, to a state leader who intimidated the New York State Democratic Party, to a national leader who intimidated the entire Democratic Party.

Less than 10 years after the Freddy’s fire, Sharpton was addressing a national audience from the stage of the Democratic National Convention. Twenty years after the Crown Heights Pogrom, he is Obama’s unofficial outreach man to the black community and on the verge of getting his own full-time MSNBC show. A long career of bigotry, blood on his hands and a video of him discussing a drug deal are not a barrier.

Sharpton cuts a ridiculous figure at MSNBC. It isn’t every man who can make Ed Schultz look like a class act, but Sharpton manages that. His on air flubs have gone viral and what’s worse is that when he isn’t stumbling over words, he has nothing to say.

MSNBC got rid of Olbermann, but replaced him with an even bigger diva with a long history of racist blackmail. Sharpton is more controversial than Olbermann, but far less articulate. If Olbermann was trying to be Cronkite in drag, Sharpton doesn’t know what to do without a microphone and a mob. Sharpton’s name has attracted attention, where Cenk Uygur’s only brought bafflement, and as a reliable Obama toady he won’t cause any grief for the White House.

But the MSNBC gig exposes what a hollow man the Reverend Al is. He is the son of a Cadillac driving slumlord and a spectacularly implausible choice as a civil rights leader. His ridiculous hairstyle, jumpsuits and jewelry, and his over the top delivery were the tricks of a carnival showman.

The MSNBC gig allows Sharpton to deliver White House talking points to a national audience, but what happens in 2013 without a Democratic administration in need of messaging? Sharpton has gotten this far by presenting himself as the intermediary between the Ivy League liberal and the black street. In Obama’s words, “the voice of the voiceless.”

But what happens if the turnout isn’t there? Sharpton has been able to drive racist mobs to target defenseless minorities, but if he can’t drive voters to the polls, then he will suddenly be much less useful to MSNBC and the party it serves. The future of the “limousine racist” is closely tied to black turnout in 2012. And if he doesn’t deliver, Sharpton will be back screaming at hate filled crowds in Brooklyn. Back to the minor leagues of the party of hate.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

And. let us not forget Sharpton history as related in a recent Jewish Press article redacted below:

THE SCHNEIER/SHARPTON SHOW
By Jewish Press Editorial Board
Aug 24 2011

… The idea of Al Sharpton sitting around a table soberly discussing relations between blacks and Jews borders on the bizarre. Who can forget that in Crown Heights it was Rev. Sharpton who loudly harangued blacks and encouraged a racial interpretation of the death of 7-year old Gavin Cato?

… Rev. Sharpton at the time also talked about “apartheid” in Crown Heights and challenged local Jews, whom he referred to as “diamond merchants,” to “pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house” if they wanted to duke it out.

… Of course, no recap of Rev. Sharpton’s career would be complete without mention of the ugly controversy that gave him his first taste of notoriety – the Tawana Brawley hoax.

As John Perazzo summed it up for FrontPageMag.com in a 2007 article,

… [Sharpton] injected himself into the case of 16-year-old Tawana Brawley, who in November 1987 claimed that she had been repeatedly raped [and brutalized] for four days by six white kidnappers, at least one of whom was wearing a police badge . It was among the most disturbing tales in living memory.

Al Sharpton quickly assumed the role of special adviser to Miss Brawley and thereafter worked closely with the girl’s attorneys, C. Vernon Mason (who, later in his career, would be convicted of 66 counts of professional misconduct and disbarred from the legal profession) and Alton Maddox (who has publicly expressed his profound hatred for white people).

Sharpton and the Brawley lawyers demanded that New York Governor Mario Cuomo appoint a special prosecutor to the case and publicly charged that “high-level” local law enforcement officials were involved in the crime – an allegation that led to numerous death threats against members of the Dutchess County police department.

In the autumn of 1988, after conducting an exhaustive review of the facts, a grand jury released its report showing beyond any doubt that the entire Tawana Brawley story had been fabricated, and that at least $1 million of New York taxpayers’ money had been spent to investigate a colossal hoax.

Rev. Sharpton, some twenty tears later, still denies his negative role in Crown Heights and also maintains that he made no substantive mistakes. All he will express is remorse for perhaps having used language that “at times has been over the line.”

(The current question is rather: When is MSNBC “over the line”?) jsk

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Bristol Palin’s, “Not Afraid of Life”

BOOK REVIEW by Doug Wead

Not Afraid of Life: My Journey So Far
By Bristol Palin
William Morrow, 272 pages

Bristol Palin’s new book, “Not Afraid of Life,” opens at 100 mph and never slows down. Everything the title promises is is an intimathere. This is the insider, unabashed account of life in the Palin family. This is a teenager’s almost innocent portrayal of her sudden rise to fame and the people she encounters along the way.

There are plenty of rough edges that can be used to justify the feelings of fans or foes alike, which adds to the surprise and frankness of this story. It keeps you turning the pages. And it keep you believing the narrative. Who would ever make this stuff up? And for what possible purpose?

Bristol begins with a chilling account of what can only be defined as date rape, although she is careful not to make that accusation. It is a cautionary tale of deceiving her mother, joining a rowdy group of friends for a camping trip, getting drunk and waking up to learn that she has lost her virginity. This unexpected opening signals the reader that what they think they know about the Palins is far less interesting than the truth they are about to hear. There is more to the story, and Bristol Palin is not afraid to tell it.

Some things happen as expected. Sarah Palin, the governor and vice-presidential nominee and Bristol’s mother, comes through looking pristine in this account. There is no “Mommie Dearest” going on here, no Patti Davis working out her issues with mother Nancy Reagan, saying to readers openly what couldn’t be said face to face in private. The father lives up to his public portrayal as a solid, silent man of strength. But while Bristol clearly loves her family and makes Wasilla, Alaska, sound like a spot of Norman Rockwell wonder, she is disarmingly honest about the snobs she encounters on the trail to stardom.

The McCains come off looking positively Brahmin, self-centered and arrogant. All the more so because Bristol isn’t trying too hard. Meghan McCain, daughter of Republican presidential nominee John McCain, seems panicky at the thought of any competition. Even Bristol’s existence seems threatening. Cindy McCain comes off as fake. And the McCain political handlers make Karl Rove look, well, kind of sweet. If nothing else, good Republicans will come away from Bristol’s book less wounded by the election of Barack Obama and the collapse of the American economy.

Bristol Palin is the real heroine of this tale, and not because she promotes herself. Indeed, if she did, it wouldn’t work. One wonders if Nancy French, her co-writer, helped offer that perspective. It is often what she doesn’t say, the absence of bitterness or playing the blame game that makes her a likable storyteller. She is so vulnerable, so quick to assume responsibility for her own actions that the reader will find it hard not to start rooting her on.

Bristol Palin’s baby, Tripp, and her faith and family are interweaving threads throughout the story. Although the relationship arguably began with a rape, Bristol never considers abortion, just as her mother rejected abortion and gave birth to a Down syndrome baby and poured out her love on the child. The names are even mimicked. Trigg is Sarah Palin’s “special” baby, Tripp is Bristol’s. And behind it all is their faith, which is an endless source of strength for them in the middle of their trial by a liberal media.

One gets a sense of that trial, too. How hated the Palins are. What it is like inside the tornado. Peaceful, actually. The winds raging all around them. To be sure, the national media is unforgiving. For one frightening, terrifying week, Sarah Palin posed a threat to their historical narrative of electing an urbane African-American as president. For having perpetrated that scare upon the noble elect, this family will be hounded to the grave.

Much of Bristol’s disillusionment is reserved for Hollywood, which in this case might be defined as any geographical place outside of Wasilla. Even Arizona is close to Hollywood, when you live in Alaska. Here she details the story of her rise to television fame as a contestant on “Dancing With the Stars.”

The thing she learns in Hollywood is that people are insincere. They are manipulative. They say and do things for selfish reasons. The world is so, well, so “unwasillafied,” that this poor teenager is appalled.

Aren’t there any real Christians here? By this time, you are drawn in by her innocence and asking yourself the same questions. Why are people so bad outside of Wasilla? Who would ever want to leave?

Forget “Dancing With the Stars.” Hey, forget a New York Times best-selling book, for that matter. And then you remember: the lie to mom, the camping trip with the rowdy friends and the alcohol and the sexual assault in the night. That was Wasilla too, not Hollywood. All of the media pain brought with it glory and millions of fans. And Bristol somehow figures that out and concludes she is “Not Afraid of Life.” Go, girl.

• Doug Wead is a New York Times best-selling author and former adviser to two presidents.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Don’t underestimate Obama. He is right on his own dedicated track

(After you complete this short article, please click to a complete analysis of the motivation of Barack Obama published in Israel Commentary, March 25, 2011) jsk

Click: Barack Obama

Disastrous policies are intentional steps on road to socialism

By Rep. Dan Burton

The Washington Times, August 8, 2011

It is a cardinal mistake in any competition, be it sports or politics – and politics is a competition of ideas – to underestimate your opponent. All too often, underestimating your opponent leads to disaster. I believe that America, especially America’s political class, is vastly underestimating President Obama; and if we continue to do so, it will be a disaster for America. Specifically, I am worried about the growing political story line that the Obama administration is “failing” because they are just inexperienced and the president is simply “in over his head.”

It is true that Mr. Obama never held an executive position in his life prior to being elected to the presidency. It is true that Mr. Obama had only three years (2005-2008) in the U.S. Senate prior to going to the White House, and it is true that Mr. Obama had just seven years of experience (1997-2004) in the Illinois state Senate – where he cast more than 130 “present” votes rather than go on the record on contentious issues. However, we should be under no illusion that the president’s lack of leadership experience means he is “in over his head” or that he does not know what he is doing.

Mr. Obama knows precisely what he is doing: He is changing America into his vision of a European-style socialist utopia where the government controls every aspect of our lives.

Consider the facts, since taking office, Mr. Obama has taken control of the student loan industry, the health care industry, the banking and financial sectors, and he orchestrated the bankruptcy and reorganization of two-thirds of the American automotive industry, leaving his political allies in the labor movement in effective control of the companies and allowing the administration to dictate the industry’s direction.

Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi could not strong-arm enough Democrats to pass legislation to allow the president to take control of our energy sector, the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency is aggressively rewriting and reinterpreting environmental regulations to accomplish the same end result: government control of energy.

The pattern is unmistakable: Every solution proposed by the Obama administration to every problem is more government control. That is the textbook definition of socialism: “Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

Putting aside the fact that socialism is absolutely incompatible with the philosophy that made America a world superpower – limited government, light regulations, low taxes and maximum labor-market flexibility – the problem with socialism, as Margaret Thatcher famously said, is “that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” If you don’t believe this statement is true, how do you explain the sovereign debt crisis threatening to destroy the European Union?

While America’s debt crisis cannot be laid entirely at the feet of Mr. Obama, the fact is that in pursuit of his socialist agenda, he has accelerated the crisis with his reckless spending. The federal budget deficit in 2008, the last year before Mr. Obama took office, was $458.6 billion. The projected deficit for 2011 is $1.5 trillion – 323 percent higher than the nation’s deficit in the last year before President Obama took office. The president’s budget request for fiscal 2012 would lead us to the highest-ever budget deficit, roughly $1.6 trillion.

It is not yet too late to save America from financial ruin nor is it too late to save the American way of life. But to confront these threats, we must confront reality and that means we must stop viewing the president’s policies as the innocent missteps of a man who is “in over his head.” The president is not in over his head; he knows precisely what he is doing: rushing America down the path toward socialism.

Rep. Dan Burton is a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Indiana.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

The Associated Press’s distorted terminology

Aided and abetted by the Detroit Free Press

By Jerome S. Kaufman

The Associated Press’s distorted terminology

The Detroit Free Press of August 19, 2011, page 13A, captioned an article, Gun men cross Egyptian Desert, kill 8 in Israel.

It turned out the Free Press simply followed the terminology of the article created by Associated Press (AP) correspondent, Daniella Cheslow. But, they could have done a whole lot better than the charade of Associated Press terminology. In the article the AP used the term “gunmen” six times and another inappropriate term, “militants” an additional four times, but what was the article all about? Gunmen?

It so happens “gunman” in the dictionary, defines “gunman” as
1. A man who is armed with a gun, especially, unlawfully
2. A man who is skilled with a gun

In popular parlance, one frequently refers to a gun man as someone committing a robbery.

The Associated Press article then went on to describe what these particular “gun men” had done:

They illegally penetrated Israel’s border with Egypt and launched an attack against innocent Israeli civilians killing 7 people with the actual intent to kill as many as possible.

The “gunmen” carefully planned an attack against a civilian bus that was on the way to Eilat, a tourist town in southern Israel. No robbery was attempted nor in the plans – only the blatant killing of innocents.

The “gunmen” set up an extensive ambush along a 300 yard strip of the bus’s route. They were armed with automatic weapons, grenades and suicide bomb belts. They also rigged a roadside bomb under a parked Jeep.

How is it that the obviously more pertinent and accurate term “terrorists” or more precisely Palestinian Terrorists, never entered the terminology of this article? Is the Associated Press (and the Detroit Free Press) really that anti-Israel that they refuse to tell the world exactly what Israelis have been up against every moment of their lives – ever since the re-birth of the Jewish nation in 1948? Unfortunately, these Palestinian TERRORIST acts are nothing new.

Furthermore, the extent of the terrorism has never had any correlation with how many Jews lived in Israel or how much land they have regained of the G-d given land that was supposed to have been theirs, in the first place.

Of additional interest, in the very last paragraph of the article, was a quote from Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, no friend of Israel or the Jews since she took off her hat as the Senator for New York State.

Secretary Clinton condemned what she called, “pre-meditated acts of terrorism against innocent civilians,” an obvious truism that, for some inexcusable reason, had evidently not occurred to the Associated Press or the Detroit Free Press.

So much for what the naive innocently consider objective news reporting.

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor, Israel Commentary

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Israel Bashers note: Israel Defense Forces training US Marines

Israel Bashers note: Israel Defense Forces training US Marines

Company of U.S. Marines comes to Israel for month of intensive training with IDF at Urban Warfare Training Center

Author: Rotem Eliav – IDF

August 14, 2011

The narrow streets and tall cement buildings of the world-renowned IDF Urban Warfare Training Center echoed with shouts in flawless English last week as U.S. Marine Corps soldiers delved into another close-quarters-battle drill. As part of the cooperation between IDF ground forces and the U.S. Marine Corps force stationed in Europe, a company of U.S. Marines came to Israel for a month of intensive training alongside IDF soldiers at IDF facilities. Dividing their time between the Adam Base in central Israel and the Tze’elim Base in the south, the soldiers trained in urban warfare, reconnaissance and target shooting.

As they embarked on a training exercise at the UWTC, Platoon Sgt. Robert Hattenbach explained, “We’ve never been to a mock town like that of the IDF.” He noted the facility’s size and unique structure. “It’s important for our soldiers to train in different sites, preparing them for anything,” he said. The Marines were thrilled to train at the city, raving about its realistic feel.

A smoke grenade hit the floor, rapidly secreting thick smoke of a vibrant color used for camouflage against the lurking enemy. Yelling out commands, M4s ready, Marines snuck from building to building, clearing out every room and securing their objective. The success of the operation is determined by the captain, and the “enemy” is a squad of the Marines platoon, hiding inside each multiple story building, waiting for the other squads to find them. “By training here, we can better combat terrorism in any area and field,” Hospital Corpsman HM1 Raymond Price elaborated. “Coming to Israel has been an inspirational trip. It’s beautiful to see how Israel has managed to preserve so many years of history, culture and tradition.”

“This trip was a serious wake up call,” said Sgt. Hattenbach. “The instructors at the Adam Base took the time to explain to us what’s been going on in Israel and we realized that Israeli people are just like us. We now better understand what Israel really is and when we go back to the U.S. we can tell people that.”

During earlier exercises that involved IDF forces, the U.S. Marines were impressed by their Israeli counterparts. “The tactics used by the snipers and special forces are much more efficient,” said Cpl. Lombard. “They also focus more on the safety of each individual soldier rather than the mission.”

The company is one of the only young Marines units; all at around 19 years old, they are close in age to IDF soldiers and were able to form close bonds. However, unlike IDF soldiers, the Marines volunteered to enlist. “We have a responsibility for our country,” the Marines said, “You can’t just sit at home hearing of everything going on in the world and remain idle.”

This particular company, the Marine Corps Fast Team Security Forces, enlisted for five years, three of which they spend deployed to Europe or Africa. After further infantry training, they are sent to battle fronts in either Iraq or Afghanistan.Before departing Israel, the company will go for a well-deserved rest at the Dead Sea.

http://www.idf.il/1283-12731-EN/Dover.aspx


IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Grossly overpaid and overrated ADL’s Abe Foxman

August 18, 2011

The Anti-Defamation League’s Flat-Footed, Off-Key Shouter

Redacted from an open letter to the head of the ADL, denouncing his condemnations of those who see Sharia as a threat to American values and liberty.

Grossly overpaid and overrated ADL’s Abe Foxman

Alyssa A. Lappen

Dear Mr. Foxman,

From Rabbi Samuel of Babylonia to Rabbi Gershom of Germany, scholars throughout Jewish history taught the people to adapt to their host nations — and never demand the reverse. Rabbis also prized those students blessed with generosity and sufficient wisdom and humility to admit their errors and apologize to injured parties. No one is perfect, of course, but they correctly tutored Jewish men and women that those trying to achieve these charitable goals (among others) would at least reach goodness.

Alas, as a native of Vilna, Lithuania and child survivor of the Holocaust, none could have shouted more obstreperously than did your Aug. 10 Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) op-ed, headlined “Shout down the Sharia myth makers.”
Leaders do not shout. They speak, listen and continue to learn. Through off-key cheer-leading, you merely highlighted your own ignorance.

“The separation of church and state embodied in U.S. and state constitutions,” you wrote, renders completely unnecessary, proposed “anti-Sharia bills” in several states. Our constitution already “prohibits our courts from applying or considering religious law in any way that would constitute government advancement of or entanglement with religious law.”

Obviously, it would contradict every bedrock American principle to force any U.S. resident — whether citizen, legal resident, or illegal alien — to unwillingly comply with religious law. On this we agree. There, our agreement ends.

For you also allege that the bills — addressing recently exposed U.S. state court outrages imposing foreign laws that infringed upon constitutional law and universal human rights alike — were based not on reality or actual decisions. The bills rest on “prejudice and ignorance,” you claim, advanced through “myth making … about the threat of Sharia” in the U.S. These ills, you further assert, have effected “camouflaged bigotry” against Islam and Muslims.

Theoretically, American courts should strictly adhere to U.S. constitutional law concerning any and all religious practices, edicts or canons. But the record could not be more clear: they too often err on the side of foreign law — and make no apology.

Criminal defendants asked U.S. courts, as I noted to you in March 2011, to substitute Islamic laws in lieu of domestic statutes. In Massachusetts, a federal court denied the motion of jihad-financiers to excuse their terror-funding tax fraud via First Amendment religious freedom guarantees, which they asserted to protect their rights to provide Islamically-mandated “charity.”

Based on sharia, however, a New Jersey court did absolve wife beating and rape before that state’s appeals court reversed its ruling. And a Florida court similarly ordered parties in a civil dispute to follow Islamic, not U.S. law.

Face it, Mr. Foxman: for decades, U.S. courts have also miserably failed Muslim women and children on foundational precepts. On Mar. 24, 1986, for example, Laila Malak lost her 14-year old son and 9-year-old daughter when California’s appeals bench enforced a Beirut sharia custody ruling — given without her knowledge or participation, and allowing only 15 days from her post-facto notification to mount what would almost assuredly have been a futile “appeal.”

Sharia courts always give custody of minor children to fathers, a fact mentioned in footnote 2 to the California’s appeals bench decision. Married to Abdul in 1970 in Beirut, Laila in 1976 fled its bloody religious war with him and their son Fadi, and bore Ruha Jan. 25, 1977, in Abu Dhabi.

In July 1982, without Abdul’s permission (and therefore against Islamic law), Laila moved with her children to her brother’s San Jose home, where she filed for a divorce and custody. Santa Clara county superior court denied three attempts by Abdul to enforce a Nov. 1982 Abu Dhabi sharia order that gave him custody, without due process, Laila’s knowledge or court consideration of the children’s “best interests.”

Sharia courts are not “similar in nature” to U.S. courts, Mr. Foxman. As strictly Islamic judiciaries — neither secular nor civil — these dictatorial forums often force religious law on unwilling victims without recourse. Likely, Laila Malak has never seen her kids again. By contrast, Jewish law would not allow this; nor would a Jewish Beit Din (religious court) ask that its decision replace U.S. criminal, civil or secular law.

Since the 1970s, in dozens of similar cases, American courts nationwide applied sharia in lieu of constitutional laws. Albeit incomplete, a review of state courts and appellate benches produced manifold instances of “unconstitutional application of foreign and religious law in our judicial system.”

Whatever their total, one cannot accurately describe cases unearthed thus far, as “a proverbial solution in search of a problem,” as you want us to believe. For the women and children affected they were life-destroying cataclysms.

No American, nor any Jewish leader, should accept that. You head an institution founded to defend and protect the Jewish people from anti-Semitism. Mr. Foxman, in Islamic nations, sharia laws implement institutional discrimination against Jewish people and other non-Muslims. Sharia demands and requires non-Muslim subservience. Who are you to defend it? How dare you?

Sincerely yours,

Alyssa A. Lappen
Investigative journalist and poet

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Sen. Patrick Leahy declares his mis-guided anti-Israel policy recommendations

Zionist Org. of America criticizes Sen. Leahy for Seeking Cut in U.S. Aid to Elite Israel Defense Forces.

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1303

But Leahy supported increased aid to the Palestinian Authority

Redacted from a press release by Morton Klein, Pres. ZOA
August 17, 2011

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has criticized Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) for promoting a bill that seeks to cut from the U.S. foreign assistance legislation for 2012 the component from U.S. military aid to Israel that is earmarked for three elite Israel Defense Forces (IDF) units – the Israeli Navy’s Shayetet 13 unit, the undercover Duvdevan unit and the Israel Air Force’s Shaldag unit. These units have been on the front lines protecting Israeli citizens in counter-terrorist operations, hunting down terrorists and securing Israel’s borders.

In contrast, Senator Leahy has never called for reducing aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA), despite the PA’s continuing failure to arrest terrorists, outlaw terrorists groups, end the promotion of hatred and violence against Israel and its recently signed unity agreement with Hamas. In fact, he has supported increased aid to the PA.

The ZOA has noted that Senator Leahy’s effort to defund these IDF units has emerged under pressure in his home state from anti-Israel activists seeking to criminalize Israeli self-defense. These activists have sought to have Israel declared guilty of human rights abuses last year when the Israeli Navy’s Shayetet 13 unit lawfully intercepted the Gaza-bound Turkish ship Mavi Mamara to ensure it was free of weaponry. Pro-Hamas operatives and other extremists on board carried out a pre-planned assault upon the Israeli boarding party, leading to the death of nine of the assailants in the resulting clash.

Leahy, who heads the Senate Appropriations Committee’s sub-committee on foreign operations, was the principle sponsor of a 1997 bill prohibiting the United States from providing military assistance or funding to foreign military units suspected of human rights abuses or war crimes.

In recent years, Senator Leahy has been sharply critical of Israel, including of Operation Cast Lead, the counter-offensive launched against Hamas in Gaza following thousands of rockets fired into southern Israel over preceding years. Leahy claimed that Israel had a right to self-defense but then criticized Israel merely for imposing a blockade on Gaza, saying that it had failed to change Hamas policies.

He did not ask whether the blockade’s effort to reduce the flow of weaponry to Hamas had been successful. Leahy also claimed that, “The blockade was not coupled with an effective strategy to address the underlying causes of the conflict.” Leahy found Hamas actions “deplorable” but did not say that Hamas needs to “address the underlying causes” of the conflict by ceasing to be a genocide-seeking terrorist movement calling in its Charter for the world-wide murder of Jews.

Unsurprisingly, Leahy has become very close to J Street, the extremist, left-wing lobby which falsely claims to be pro-Israel while having urged Obama not to veto anti-Israel resolutions in the UN, refused to support Israel’s 2008-9 defensive military operations against Hamas in Gaza and which has lobbied against sanctions on Iran.

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “Senator Leahy has shown in recent years a propensity to blame Israel for the Arab war on Israel so it is therefore perhaps not surprising that he has now sought to penalize Israel for defending itself, as in the case of the Mavi Mamara affair.

“Now, Senator Leahy has added fuel to the fire by seeking to penalize the brave, professional Israeli military forces that actually perform the dangerous and vital task of protecting Israeli civilians, the first duty of an Israeli government. He seeks to defund parts of the IDF on the basis of allegations of human rights abuses by long-term, hardened, anti-Israel extremists.

“The IDF is not only the indispensible defense force of Israel, it is also an amazingly valuable U.S. ally whose combat experience, innovation and intelligence-gathering have been of immense value to the United States and the U.S. armed forces. The Israeli forces that have had the most experience of dealing with ruthless, blood-thirsty terrorists are precisely the elite units that Senator Leahy has specifically sought to defund.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Great News on Gov. Rick Perry’s Foreign Policy Record

Redacted from article by Reid Smith
The American Spectator, August 11, 2011

Great News on Gov. Rick Perry’s Foreign Policy Record

Talking the Hawk: Regarding Rick Perry’s Foreign Policy

As we all know, this is a big week for GOP contenders. Thursday night’s debate and Saturday’s straw poll are important indicators for the media and Republican establishment as a sneak preview of their future candidate through the prism of perception. Of course, the straw poll is rigged through a stilted system of participatory imbursement — don’t forget Mitt Romney​’s hollow victory in the 2007 Ames ballot — but a win’s a win and one’s performance can fundamentally make or break a candidate’s media image.

Of course, one big name is conspicuously absent from the grand old party held this week in the Hawkeye State. With a campaign rollout planned for South Carolina, New Hampshire and Texas, Rick Perry​ threatens to overshadow the traditional kickstart to the Republican nomination. It’s rumored that the longtime Texas governor may augur up his presidential intentions in South Carolina on Saturday, before formally declaring next week in his home state. Needless to say, whoever comes out on top in the straw poll is bound to share headlines with Governor Perry​.

With Perry’s candidacy looming, some of us international relations wonks have begun to take note of his foreign policy positions. As governor, Perry has been quite the internationalist, taking his traveling sales-pitch to China, Mexico, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Qatar, France and Sweden to support free-market, free trade investment in the great state of Texas.

In a 2009 debate against primary opponent Kay Bailey Hutchinson​, Perry plainly stated that his faith required him to support Israel. This latter statement was bolstered by his trip to the Holy Land where he accepted the Defender of Jerusalem Award before breaking bread with then-President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He put his medal where his mouth is on June 28, 2011, when he wrote Attorney General Eric Holder encouraging him to prosecute Americans who would participate in the “unacceptable provocation” of a Gaza Flotilla against Israel.

Now, Foreign Policy is reporting that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has introduced Perry to a cabal of would-be national security strategists including former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, former NSC expert William Luti, former Assistant U.S. Attorney and National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy​, the Heritage Foundation’s Asia expert Peter Brookes​, and former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalizad. Rumsfeld’s office confirmed the group gathered last week in Austin to provide Perry with his first national security briefing as a potential presidential candidate.

As governor, Perry has suggested the deployment of American troops to Mexico to control drug violence and proceeded with the execution of a Mexican citizen, despite impassioned requests from their government, President Obama​, the International Court of Justice and former President George W. Bush to stay the sentence.

Understood in context of the hard-line stance he’s taken on matters south of the Rio Grande, his national security team suggests Perry’s shaping up as the traditional defense hawk many conservative have been clamoring for in an age of Obama.

Reid Smith has worked as a research associate specializing on U.S. policy in the Middle East and as a political speechwriter. A doctoral student and graduate associate with the University of Delaware’s Department of Political Science and International Relations, he currently writes for the Foreign Policy Association.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

Obama removes Jerusalem from Israel!!

Zionist Org. of America Supreme Court Brief:
White House Web Site Removes References To “Jerusalem, Israel”

Obama removes Jerusalem from Israel!!

August 10, 2011
Redacted from press notice by Morton A. Klein.

ZOA Condemns White House for
Transparent and Outrageous Tactic

AFTER ZOA’S SUPREME COURT AMICUS BRIEF IN JERUSALEM PASSPORT CASE CITED MANY WHITE HOUSE WEB SITE REFERENCES TO “JERUSALEM, ISRAEL” – WHITE HOUSE SUDDENLY REMOVES “ISRAEL”

On August 5, 2011, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a petition by Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, an American citizen born in Jerusalem who was denied his right under U.S. law to have “Israel” listed as his birthplace on his passport.

In refusing to implement the law, the State Department claimed that enforcing it and listing “Israel” would infringe on the president’s foreign policy powers. The ZOA’s brief refuted that claim, showing that many departments and agencies in the Executive branch – including the Executive Office of the President – routinely refer to Jerusalem as part of Israel, without any evident impact on any presidential power, and thus listing “Israel” on a passport would have no such impact either. Recognizing the persuasive power of this aspect of the ZOA’s argument, the White House has engaged in a shameful and outrageous tactic, this week suddenly changing references to “Jerusalem, Israel” on its Web site to “Jerusalem” only, with no mention of Israel.

Among the many governmental references to “Jerusalem, Israel” described in the ZOA’s amicus brief were several photos posted on the White House Web site, which were taken on the trip that Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, made to the Middle East last year. One photo was captioned: “Vice President Joe Biden meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, Israel, March 9, 2010” The caption to another photo read: “Vice President Joe Biden laughs with Israeli President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem, Israel, March 9, 2010” The caption to a third photo said: “Vice President Joe Biden has breakfast with Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair . . . in Jerusalem, Israel, March 10, 2010” Each of these photos is described as an “Official White House Photo.”

Morton A. Klein, ZOA’s National President, and Susan B. Tuchman, Esq., the director of the ZOA’s Center for Law and Justice, condemned the White House for altering the references to “Jerusalem, Israel” on its Web site: We are appalled that the White House would resort to such a transparent and shameful tactic in an effort to diminish the strength of the ZOA’s argument in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court.

But suddenly removing the White House’s references to ‘Jerusalem, Israel’ on its Web site will not help the U.S. government’s case before the Supreme Court. If anything, the White House’s actions show that the government recognizes the strength of the ZOA’s argument:

Given how frequently and routinely the White House and many U.S. departments and agencies have referred to Jerusalem as part of Israel, it is simply absurd to suggest that permitting Menachem Zivotofsky and other Americans born in Jerusalem to have ‘Israel’ listed on their passports will have any impact on any presidential power to make foreign policy or recognize foreign sovereigns. If Jerusalem-born Americans wish to identify with Israel by having it recorded as their birthplace on their passports – which is plainly their right under legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush – that right should be upheld and enforced.

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments