Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

NOTE: Click Here To Link to Videos


Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, June 30, 2012

pomegranate flowering fruit

HOW I GOT THE SHOT: My love affair with the Pomegranate tree is seemingly boundless. Since landing in Israel 13 years ago and soon after buying a home with a single, mature tree in the garden, I have watched the trees bud, blossom and burgeon, moving regally through various growth stages until branches droop under the weight of mature, crimson fruits. Complementing the spring and summer drama, the trees bow out post-harvest with a golden display of fall leaves before settling in for a well-earned winter respite.

This is a close up of a flowering fruit, as they normally appear in late spring. Younger buds, pre-flower, are seen at the base of the main fruit. As I almost always try to do with flowers, I looked for the backlit angle set against a dark background to make the subject “pop.” Exposure is critical so using a spot metering mode, I measured the highlights on the tips of the orange flower and set my aperture-shutter speed combination accordingly. I also composed the image with some of the foreground leaves and buds included to give the image greater depth. The flowers eventually dry out and fall, but the fruit hangs on, perhaps destined to adorn a table come the Jewish new year.

TECHNICAL DATA: Camera: Nikon D70, tripod mounted, manual exposure, spot metering mode, f10 at 1/500th sec., ISO 400. Raw file converted to Jpeg. Lens: Nikon 28-105mm macro zoom at 105mm. Date: Mar. 22, 2007, 1:49 p.m. Location: Efrat, Judean Mountains, Central Israel.

Yehoshua Halevi has worked for more than 25 years as a professional photojournalist, teacher, mentor and photographer of life cycle events. Contact him by email at and visit his website: Reproductions of his work as cards, calenders and posters may be purchased at

To Go To Top


Posted by Nurit Greenger, June 30, 2012

Sixty four years of mistaken internal policies have made the majority of Israeli-Arabs, Israel's 5th column.

A nation has an anthem, a nation has a flag and a nation has an ethos. When one decides to immigrate to a new country, one knows, in advance, that in order to become part of the host country's fabric, he or she will have to adapt to the host country, meaning, adopt the ethos, sing the anthem and salute the national flag. Become a true and loyal citizen.

The Land of Israel was an unlucky one. Since the Romans expelled the Jews from their homeland to all four corners of the world, it has seen nothing but foreign hands brush through its soil, leaving behind, as written in the pages of history, rivers of blood, chaos and desolation. While the Jews were yearning for their Jerusalem, foreign hands were mishandling their holy city.

Then, the Jews hit a lucky strike, when in 1922, they were given the Mandate for Palestine, the right to return to their ancient homeland and make the land their nation state again.

With their land the Jews "gained" Arab population. A continuous flow of Arabs into the land began in the late 19th century when Jews, running away from Russian Pogroms or other persecutions that took place in other countries, arrived to the land and created attractive economic opportunity. The arriving Jews began purchasing land and cultivate it, which created a need for labor, a need Arabs from neighboring states filled. The more Jews succeeded economically the more attractive the land became to Arabs. During the British Mandate in Palestine, from 1920 till 1948, the British authorities encouraged Arabs to come live in the land they themselves designated for the Jews. One reason, to make sure that Jewish population remains a minority; another reason, the British disdain for Jews, thus they saw the Arabs a helpful fighting force in their objection to the influx of Jews into the land and to their Zionistic ethos in its full transformation; and third reason, among others, is the black oil; the need of Britain to appease the Arab oil producing nations gave them justification to prefer Arabs over Jews, when managing their mandate in Palestine.

That Arab population that remained in Israel when the 1948 Israel War of Independence ended, never integrated, never became a genuine part of the state of Israel fabric. The 1967 war added a new dimension to the Israeli-Arab society. Now they could openly side with their brethren the "Palestinians." In fact call themselves Palestinians rather than Israeli-Arabs and fight for their fellow Arabs' justice, not the justice of the state of Israel. The Israeli-Arabs identify with the Arabs Israel "gained" in the Six Day War more than they identify with the country in which they hold citizenship. This is a very dangerous state of affairs for the Jewish state, Israel.

In recent months the government of Israel has been dealing with equal responsibilities and obligations of all its citizens. It all began with the Tal Law that exempts Hareidi [very religious men] from serving in the army. The Israelis who serve in the military say that if the Hareidi sector is a recipients of all of the state's benefits, and if the state protects them in war time, then, they need to give back; they need to serve in the military like all others.

And that debate has now expended to the Arab sector, which receives all the state's benefits and gives nothing back to the state.

In the recent years the Israeli Arab society has radicalized. Their political leaders, serving as members of Knesset, are hostile to the state; they spit anti-Israel rhetoric from the Well of the Knesset and act seditious. They use the democratic system to incite against the country in which they hold citizenship and demonstrate overt loyalty to Israel's enemies.

In the past I have made a clear statement that the Arabs holding Israel citizenship are simply Israel's 5th column. People who cannot relate to the national anthem and the national flag of their country, who do not see themselves as part of their country's ethos and see themselves as "Palestinians" rather than Israelis simply do not belong.

To growing demands that the Israel-Arabs comply with responsibilities and obligations to the county, from which they were exempt since the Jewish State was established, their reply as read in YNET news,,7340,L-4249047,00.html, "We are a part of the Palestinian nation, and there is no way we will ever fight our Palestinian brothers." And, "Israel's Arabs cannot serve in an occupying army at a time of war." That sums it all up; we do not really belong to the state of Israel.

So as I predicted years ago, Israel's 5th column is now raising its ugly head; the moment of truth has arrived. The Arabs living in Israel are NOT Israelis, they are part of the "Palestinian" nation, whatever nation it is. The Arabs who found themselves living in the independent nation state of the Jewish people, Israel, were lucky but they do not see it this way. They want to receive all of a citizen's benefits but participate in none of the citizen's obligations. They want to have all the benefits of living in a democratic system while siding with terrorist organizations and the world's worst tyrannies.

The question is, are they hanging in there, dodging the bullets of civil obligations with the hope that their Arab-Palestinian brothers will win the battle against the state of Israel? Or, that Israel will either be dismantled or give in as a Jewish state and they then won the battle they started in 1948? Otherwise, what is the real reason for them staying in Israel, a land to which they have no obligations and which they see its creation as a disaster-a nakba?

The Arabs say, the State must not put their loyalty to the test; loyalty to whom? Hmmmmm. The moment of truth, which Israel had brushed under the carpet, or hid in the closet has come to haunt and Israel probably wishes this moment would have never arrived!

Why is everyone so scared to say it as it is?

Contact Nurit Greenger at This article is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by Donald Hank, June 30, 2012

Most of my readers read the FedUpUSA column with great interest. I do have one reader, however, who has had the misfortune to graduate from am Ivy League university and seems to have left there with a severe case of ablutio cerebri, most likely of the Keynesian variety.

He says the column is "overly simplistic."

He is partly right.

It is really so simple and easy to predict the demise of the dollar and the continued collapse of the Western economy based on the very simplest of arithmetic. "Overly" is, however, itself overly subjective. If stating that 2 + 2 = 4 is overly simplistic, however, then he may have a point.

Here is a quote from an "overly" simplistic report by Harvard graduate Jerome Corsi (one of the rare prominent Harvard grads who actually knows the overly simplistic discipline of mathematics)(

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. GDP for 2010 was $14.861 trillion. World GDP in 2010, according to the International Monetary Fund, was $61.936 trillion.

According to that same report, the amount that we owed in government bonds (around $16 trillion) plus total federal obligations was $76 trillion in 2010 (it has risen since)!

Now excuse the oversimplification, but, as we see above, our debt, calculated in this way, exceeds the GDP of the entire world.

Even if Romney gets elected and it is discovered that he can walk on water and heal the sick, there is — at least for those simplistic bumpkins like me, or even for Harvard educated Jerome Corsi — no way on earth that our debt will ever be paid off. Ever. Unless we apply the spending brakes forthwith.

Of course, there are other planets out there. Perhaps one of them has a huge gold deposit on it.

But aside from that possibility, we are doomed either to be cast into the economic dustbin of history — barring at least one quantitative easing per year for the rest of most of our life times, or to see the dollar shrink to such an extent — as a result of such quantitative easing — that we will eventually be buying a loaf of bread with a 5 lb bag of dollars. Indeed, if you look at gas prices, they have risen exponentially for several years. Since petroleum is tied to the dollar, this trend will inevitably get more acute until a breaking point is reached and all hell will break loose.

IF Romney is elected this fall, then everyone with a simple (simplistic?) knowledge of math will have to prevail upon him to stop the deficit spending.

For the sake of the children, that should be our battle cry from here on out, until it happens.


The article below was written by Stephanie S. Jasky, Founder and Director of It is archived at status-quo-is-doomed-in-one-chart/.

Simplistically Yours,

Don Hank

The global economy is now addicted to debt. Once debt stops expanding, the economy shrivels. But expanding debt forever is unsustainable. Welcome to the endgame.

Regardless of whether you call it debt saturation or diminishing return on new debt, the notion that taking on more debt will magically enable us to "grow our way out of debt" is not supported by data. Correspondent David P. recently shared this chart of Total Credit Market Debt Owed and GDP and this explanation:

The purpose of this chart is to examine the relationship of total debt to GDP. Since Debt is not factored into GDP, just exactly how much debt is being used to create growth, and over what time periods. But absolute numbers don't work so well, since they don't let you examine particular years, seeing what the 1950s look like vs the 2000s, for example.Red Line: Annual Change in TCMDO (Total Credit Market Debt Owed) * 100/ That year's total GDP, showing that year's % increase in TCMDO/GDP.

Blue line: % change in GDP over last year.

Any gap between the red line and the blue line is what I would call the creation of debt in excess of income. And that gap is the ANNUAL gap, not a cumulative gap. As an example, in 2008 TCMDO grew by an average of 30% of that year's GDP, while GDP itself grew by around 5%. Ouch.


So projecting forward, how much debt growth do you think we'd need to get back to business as usual? 50s was 8%, 60s about 12%, 70s 15%, 80s maybe 20%, 90s back down to 15%, and 00s probably 25-30% per year. We'd probably need a surge of 35% or more, per year, to bring back those exciting bubble years. But who could possibly have the income to support that? To quote the parable of the Little Red Hen: "Not I", said the goose.

Note what happened to GDP the moment debt ceased expanding in 2008: it tanked. This is the chart of debt addiction: the moment the expansion of debt is withdrawn, the economy implodes.

Here is a chart which shows debt has outrun income for decades


Debt can be expanded at a rate that exceeds the rise in real income in only one way: by lowering interest rates so the same income can support a larger debt.

This is of course the reason the Federal Reserve has lowered interest rates to near-zero with the ZIRP (zero-interest rate policy).

Eventually the buyers of newly issued debt at near-zero (or even negative) yields start to fear they will never get their capital back or they will be paid back in depreciated currency, and so they demand a higher yield. Since income has already been stretched to the limit to support a towering mountain of debt, this rise in yield catapults the borrower into insolvency.

That is Greece, Spain, Italy, and eventually, the entire debt-dependent global Status Quo. — Charles Hugh Smith — Of Two Minds

To Go To Top


Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 30, 2012

This is amazing!!! Mesmerizing!!! This is just fantastic.

Pick out any interesting location around the world and click on it. A page will come up with a photo. In the centre is a circle with a triangle. Click on the triangle. Now you get a full picture. If it's not a full screen, click on the 4 dots in the lower right corner. Now with full screen, place your cursor anywhere on the screen and slowly drag the picture in any direction you want. Left, right, up, down, slow or stop.

Panoramas and 3D Tours of the Most Beautiful Places Around the World!


To go to the website, Click here.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at

To Go To Top


Posted by Barbara Taverna, June 30, 2012

 This article was written by Tovah Lazaroff and is archived at

Fayyad: This gives hope to our people on the inevitable victory of our just cause; US "profoundly disappointed."

Church of The Nativity
PHOTO: Tovah Lazaroff

The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem on Friday became the first World Heritage Site to be listed under the name of Palestine.

Its approval, by a 13 to 6 vote with two abstentions, marks the second victory in less than a year for the Palestinian Authority's pursuit of unilateral statehood at the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

The vote, which was held by a secret ballot, gives an emotion boost to the Palestinian drive to eventually be recognized unilaterally as a member state of the United Nations.

Resounding applause greeted the announcement of the vote by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th meeting at its 36th session held this week and next in St. Petersburg Russia.

The Palestinian Authority's Foreign Minister Riad Malki who was in St. Petersburg for the vote thanked the committee for helping the Palestinians obtain their cultural right to self-determination.

Already in October UNESCO agreed to accept Palestine as its 195th member state, even though it is not a member of the overall United Nations. It does, however, now have state rights in all UNESCO related bodies, such as the World Heritage Center.

For technical reasons relating to the signing of the convention, the PA must meet the cut-off to submit the church for registration as a World Heritage site, and therefore requested that it be considered under an emergency procedure. It said that the church needed urgent repairs and that it was additionally in danger from Israel's "occupation" of the area.

The World Heritage's technical advisory body, as well it's the committee's secretariat both advised the committee prior to its Friday meeting that the application did not meet the necessary criteria to be listed through the emergency procedure. But 13 of the 21 member states on the committee disregarded that advice.

Israel's ambassador to UNESCO, Nimrod Barkan said that it was a mistake for the committee to ignore the technical advice of its own advisers.

There was no link he said between the water damage to the church roof and its placement on the list through an emergency procedure.

He noted that nothing prevented the Palestinian Authority from fixing the roof.

Israel has in the past said that it believes that the church, known as Jesus's birthplace, is worthy of inscription as a World Heritage Site, but that it opposes the Palestinian use of the mechanism to advance a political agenda of unilateral statehood.

Malki, however, said that UNESCO has an important role to play in helping protect Palestinian land, which is the "cradle of civilization."

He said that the Church as well as other West Bank sites were threatened by Israel's "occupation," the barrier and settlers.

"This gives hope and confidence to our people on the inevitable victory of our just cause," said Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in a statement following the decision.

"It increases their determination to continue efforts at deepening readiness for the establishment of an independent State of Palestine, with its capital in East Jerusalem within the 1967 borders," Fayyad said.

Meanwhile, Gideon Koren, Israel's Vice President of the International Council on Monuments and Sites slammed the decision as "irresponsible." The US Ambassador to UNESCO David Killion also criticized the move, saying he was "profoundly disappointed by the decision."

Oddly, the committee's next move was to approve a bid by Israel to inscribe a series of adjacent caves in the Mount Carmel region to the World Heritage List for their fossilization of human evolution.

Contact Barbara Taverna at

To Go To Top


Posted by Naomi Ragen, June 30, 2012

The election of Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi to the presidency of Egypt should have elicited a worldwide shudder of outrage in all peace- and freedom-loving people.

Literature, it seems, is always foremost as a tool in ideological wars. I think of Nazi book burnings and the banning of everything, including the Bible, in Saudi Arabia. I think of my own war with ultra-Orthodox extremists who want to take my books off the shelves because they don't promote the haredi self-image of a holier-than- thou society. And I have to mention The Color Purple author Alice Walker's recent decision to ban her own book from being translated into Hebrew as part of her support for the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, which was launched in "peace-loving" Ramallah in April 2004 and is adamantly opposed to peace or cultural exchanges.

Walker once famously wrote on her blog: "Jesus, a Palestinian, is still being crucified," and told interviewer Jesse Rosenfeld that "[Israeli] settlers are the [Klu Klux] Klan." She was also quoted in The Guardian as saying: "Israel is as frightening to many of us as Germany used to be." The latter was part of her "Why I'm joining the Freedom Flotilla to Gaza."

She never did join the flotilla. And I never did read her book, in any language, but I saw the movie. As I recall, it was all about black men abusing black women, raping their daughters, etc. I'm so happy that this great feminist has decided to channel the fame she's earned from her strong message into supporting a society in which women are routinely beaten, raped and murdered in honor killings.

Unfortunately, this Pulitzer Prize-winning author is not alone in her delusions. A surprising number of respected writers and journalists are feeding similar delusions and misinformation to millions of people.

What all these hate-promoters seem to have in common is their blatant selectivity in ignoring the history and crimes of the terrorists with whom they loudly align themselves.

Take the election of Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi to the presidency of Egypt, something which should have elicited a world-wide shudder of outrage in all peace- and freedom-loving people.

Instead, we got this from David D. Kirkpatrick of The New York Times: "After 84 years as a secret society struggling in prisons and shadows of monarchs and dictators, the Brotherhood is now closer than ever to its stated goal of building an Islamist democracy in Egypt."

Oh my, what a heart grabber! I mean, if I didn't know anything about the Muslim Brotherhood, I might have thought after reading this that they were founded by Mother Teresa's brother. They want a "Muslim democracy"? Could have fooled me.

Founded by Hassan al-Banna in 1928, to promote the implementation of Shari'a (Islamic law), the Brotherhood developed close ties to the Nazis, supporting the terrorist activities of Haj Amin el-Husseini in what was then British Mandate Palestine. Its "charitable activities" included disseminating Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. After a number of bombings and assassination attempts, 32 Muslim Brotherhood leaders were arrested in 1948 by the Egyptian authorities and by then-prime minister Mahmud Fahmi Nokrashi, who made the mistake of releasing them. Soon after, he was assassinated by a Brotherhood member. But when the Brotherhood tried to kill president Gamal Abdul Nasser in 1954, it seriously overplayed its hand. The organization was outlawed, its members imprisoned and punished, withering away where they could do no harm, behind lock and key.

Anwar Sadat, the peacemaker, who released many Brotherhood members from Egyptian jails, was murdered in 1979 for visiting Israel and signing a peace agreement. While the Brotherhood didn't take credit for the killing, it was certainly in favor of it. Under Hosni Mubarak, the Brotherhood spread its influence throughout the country, making use of the political system to put up candidates for Parliament. In 2000, 15 of its candidates were elected. What agenda did they adopt? Fighting displays of un-Islamic cultural diversity, including beauty contests and literature, which in their view promoted blasphemy and unacceptable sexual practices.

According to Raymond Ibrahim, writing on the blog of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Morsi himself ran a frightening campaign based on religious extremism and intimidation. A cleric surrounded by Brotherhood Morsi supporters quoted the Koran saying that all those who didn't vote for Morsi were "resisters of the Shari'a of Allah," and "infidel leaders" whom true Muslims must "fight" and subjugate.

Morsi himself is credited with saying he would "achieve the Islamic conquest of Egypt for the second time and make all Christians convert to Islam or pay the jizya [the infidel tax]."

A brochure written by the deputy to the supreme guide, Khairat el-Shater, addressed to all the Brotherhood branches and which carried the logos of both the Muslim Brotherhood and its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party, called on Muslims to cheat, block votes, and "resort to any method that can change the vote" to ensure that Morsi would win.

Surprise! He won.

But this doesn't worry Kirkpatrick, who wrote of the Brotherhood: "They are committed to democratic elections and the peaceful rotation of political power, which usually means moving to the middle."

Another reporter also conveyed this reaction from that epicenter of liberal delusion these days, the White House: "The Obama administration, expressing relief on Sunday that the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate will be Egypt's next president, voiced cautious optimism that the choice could keep the country's rocky transition to democracy on track."

As for me, Morsi's victory sent my mind racing back in time to 1977. I was a young writer back then and a wannabe journalist who somehow finagled a press pass from the Government Press Office in Beit Agron with a letter of authorization from the Intermountain Jewish News of Denver, Colorado, for which I wrote a weekly "View from Jerusalem" column.

And so, in November 1977, I found myself in a red leather coat (which at the time I thought was amazingly cool), walking down through the barriers to a dazzling press center that had been set up to handle the world-wide coverage of the Begin-Sadat press conference.

The following exchange, more or less, is etched in my memory: "President Sadat," an Israeli journalist asked, "we have seen the photos of Egyptians rejoicing at your initiative to make peace with Israel. But if something happens to you, couldn't these same crowds just as easily turn against such a peace? And by then, we'll have given back all of Sinai. How can we in Israel trust that won't happen?" "The people of Egypt," answered Sadat, "want this peace agreement. I am expressing the wishes of my people in coming here. It doesn't matter who the leader of Egypt will be."

After the revolution in Tahrir Square sparked by the freedom of expression afforded by Facebook, Twitter and the Internet in general, it seemed as though we were all seeing the genuine expression of the will of the people of Egypt demanding less government bureaucracy, corruption and oppression and more freedom to pursue a better life for themselves and their children.

But as in George Orwell's Animal Farm, this public expression of private longings for better jobs, education, housing and food has been hijacked by the pigs of the Muslim Brotherhood. The sane half of the Egyptian public that voted against Morsi has my sympathy. I mourn with them even as The New York Times, the Obama administration, Alice Walker and her ilk have joined hands and are dancing a hora of celebration with the murderous Muslim Brotherhood. We will all pay the price for their stupidity.

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at, where you can subscribe to her newsletter. This article was published in the Jerusalem Post on 29 June 2012. It is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 30, 2012

The nativity site in Bethlehem is now added to UNESCO's designated list of almost a hundred world heritage sites. The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) had nominated it on an emergency basis, claiming it was getting severely damaged. The P.A. blames Israel for the state of disrepair.

The P.A. [finding it cannot get Israel to surrender to all its demands, demands that would doom Israel to Islamic conquest] has been circumventing its signed agreements to negotiate an end to the Arab-Israel conflict by seeking unilateral recognition at the UN. [The United Nations Organization is so heavily tilted against Israel and in behalf of Islamic members, that the UN spends half its energy pursuing that bias. It is easy to get the UN to denounce Israel. It is difficult to get the UN to bolster international security.]

Israel points out the hypocrisy in the P.A. statement of concern over an emergency at the Church of the Nativity, where Palestinian Arab terrorists desecrated the Church several years ago (Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 6/30/12, A4), until Israeli forces dislodged them.

UNESCO did not back up its allegations, including allegations that Israel blocks free movement of construction materials.

The International Council on Monuments and Sites is an independent organization that advises UNESCO which sites to nominate. It opposed the emergency listing of the Church. It denies that the Church is severely damaged or likely to be. It acknowledges some deterioration from heavy crowds and lack of cooperation among the three sects that run the site, but the P.A. seems to be moving with them on repairs.

UNESCO ignored the advisory group's findings and recommendation
( via IMRA, 6/29/12).

Israel has removed most of its checkpoints from the P.A. The P.A. is engaging in a construction binge there and on the Temple Mount. All those other buildings get built or repaired, so why not in Bethlehem? The accusation against Israel is specious.

Try to get a church repaired in Islamic Egypt! Churches require special government permission and in addition may have to run the gauntlet of hostile Muslim mobs.

Actually, the "Palestinian terrorists" who desecrated the Church of the Nativity were members of the PLO, the organization run by P.A. head Abbas. That fact should have been mentioned. It probably was not mentioned, because doing so would impugn Abbas, himself a lifelong terrorist, but who, in order to have someone to be the local point man against Israel, is admired rather than arrested.

Israel should have used this occasion to point out other desecrations by the P.A. and its Muslim people whose bigoted actions are condoned by the P.A., just as attacks on Christians are condoned by the government of Egypt. I refer to Jewish religious sites in Judea-Samaria.

Acting much more like foreign occupiers than does Israel, the P.A. has destroyed Joseph's Tomb more than once, attacked Rachel's Tomb, in violation of the Oslo Accords, and it has denied Jewish access to ancient synagogue sites. Palestinian Arabs also have stated that if they got control over Hebron's Cave of the Patriarchs, they would bar Jewish entry. Allowed too much control over the Temple Mount, the Muslim Waqf has barred Jewish prayer from the Temple Mount, despite Israeli court orders. Instead, the Waqf excavates illegally and destroys valuable ancient Jewish artifacts. Then the P.A. claims fraudulently that Jews had no ancient history there.

Broadens your gaze to encompass the major political struggle of our time, jihad, and you can see that the Arab-Israel conflict is just one part of jihad. Muslims are on the march all over the world. They bomb and burn churches in Egypt and Nigeria. They chase Christians out of Iraq. They murder and murder and murder, even picking on dissident Muslims in Pakistan, not to mention Hindus and Sikhs in India. Bear that in mind when you hear claims of P.A. concern for some church in its area.

Palestinian Muslims sought to overshadow the Church of the Nativity with an Islamic building, just as Muslims in Europe seek to do. Native Christians on their way to that church get harassed by Muslims. The PLO has confiscated the property of Christians. The P.A. has brought thousands of Muslims from Hebron to outnumber the Christians in Bethlehem. That was not necessary for dominance. After all, terrorism and pressure have caused a massive flight of Christians from the P.A.. But the P.A. turns around and blames that flight on Israel, which does not rule in the P.A.. Where Israel does rule, Christians have increased in numbers. Israel is better for Christians than is the P.A..

Likewise, in the absence of an Israeli presence in the P.A.-administered areas, including Gaza, the P.A. nevertheless pretends there is an Israeli occupation responsible for all its problems. The P.A. would be one of the best-administered governments, if its people's many problems really were the fault of Israel.

Why does the P.A. always blame Israel? One motive is the notorious Arab shame-honor complex that inhibits accepting responsibility for problems. Another is propaganda for jihad. The more serious question is, why does the West listen to the blaming without telling the P.A. to grow up. Heedless or just silent acceptance of the false jihadist propaganda, the West is neither fair or constructive about the conflict. It also is foolish to abet jihad, which targets the West, too.

The UNESCO list of world heritage sites puts the new site under "Palestine," which although recently made a member of UNESCO, is not a country. The Old City of Jerusalem, nominated by Jordan for world heritage status, is listed under Jerusalem, which also is not a country and is not independent. It is within the country of the State of Israel. Now, many countries have refused to recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, in my opinion, distorting international law in order to refuse. Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism brings out the dishonesty as well as the bigotry in an increasing proportion of what we think is a modern and progressive world. The simple fact is that whatever one thinks the permanent status of Jerusalem should be, it is run by Israel. In rejecting that fact, the various governments are renouncing reality. All for politics.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email.

To Go To Top


Posted by Maurice Solovitz, June 29, 2012

I wonder if the Turkish Phantom deliberately crossed into Syrian airspace in order to precipitate a crisis which in turn would create the casus belli (justifiable reason for war) to attack Syria. Why? It would provide the excuse Islamist Turkey needs to invade Syria and with opposition support overthrow the murderous, tyrannical Assad regime. Of course it must be admitted that there is a possibility that they could get bogged down in an Iran/Iraq style war of attrition. But if the Turks win through as saviours of the Syrians they would show themselves to be the champions of the Muslim people.

Having gained significant street creds, the Turks might be hopeful that it could reignite excitement over Ottoman imperial ambitions — the idea being that the caliphate is safer in their hands than in those of any other Muslim nation.

Time unfortunately is not on Turkey's side because Iran is very likely to reach the potential for challenging them in terms of military power fairly soon and Egypt may not be too far behind.

The Egyptian military in coalition with the Turkish Islamists could, in the short term, forge an alliance that benefits both. Iran with the nuclear bomb is a wild card which creates concerns for both Arabs and Turks because the Iranians have a superiority complex that is outside of their Islamic identity and even overrides it. On the theory that the enemy of your enemy is my friend, it could be used to unite all the other Arab factions.

So if Turkey does not have much time then precipitating a conflict with Syria could demonstrate its strength and its influence as the major player in the Near-East, significantly more influential than Israel. This will position it as the true Islamic superhero who will reassert Islamic pride.

In terms of developing a strategic relationship with its Arab and Muslim neighbours Turkey's bluster does seem at odds with the relative insignificance of the provocation (not withstanding the tragedy of the probable deaths of the two pilots on board the Phantom). But Turkey went to NATO and invoked article 4 which provides for consultations by the allies when one of them is attacked or threatened. (see below):

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

All of this may seem rather extreme unless there is something further afoot. We could speculate that NATO was happy with the provocation that gives Turkey the chance to take care of the Syrian problem for them and this may demonstrate that it is in Europe's advantage to accept Turkey as a full member of the European Community. Of course this would mean sacrificing Greece (the basket case) and Cyprus (partitioned since the Turkish invasion of 1974) for the sake of having on board an Islamic 'power' that can be its surrogate in the Muslim world.

Turkey can then be positioned as being integral to solving Islamic problems that Christian Europe and the USA cannot and will not become involved with. Clearly this will further enhance their prestige and increase their influence in the Muslim world

The cream on the cake for the New Ottomans (having vanquished Greece, who were the first to gain their independence from the Old Ottoman empire in 1821), would be to reacquire Israel, which was also a part of their empire.

Speculation can also act as warning. With so much change and disruption across the globe there is nothing we can afford to ignore.

Maurice Solovitz blogs at

To Go To Top


Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 29, 2012

 This article was written by Ronn Torossian, CEO of 5WPR. It is archived at

The last Sunday New York Times had an op-ed vilifying casino magnate Sheldon Adelson yet again. Stating that he is pouring money into a political agenda that is "wildly at odds" with the American nation's needs, the opinion was expressed in a way which the NYT has never written of George Soros or Labor Unions who have given more to the liberal left.

The op-ed stated that Adelson was "the perfect illustration of the squalid state of political money, spending sums greater than any political donation in history to advance his personal, ideological and financial agenda, which is wildly at odds with the nation's needs." Does every American — in fact, every person in any democracy not follow and vote with their "personal, ideological and financial agenda?" Is the Times saying Adelson is not allowed todo that simply because he is a self-made billionaire? Isn't that what every poor man seeks to become? A rich self-made man? Is that not the essence of greatness in America — putting one's money where his mouth is?

Under the headline, "What Sheldon Adelson wants," the New York Times suggests Adelson is disgusted by the idea of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "He considers a Palestinian state "a steppingstone for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people," and says he is "concerned over Obama's plans to raise taxes for the wealthy."

Continuing, one can read: "Mr. Adelson's other overriding interest is his own wallet. He rails against the president's "socialist-style economy" and redistribution of wealth, but what he really fears is Mr. Obama's proposal to raise taxes on companies like his that make a huge amount of money overseas. Ninety percent of the earnings of his company, the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, come from hotel and casino properties in Singapore and Macau. (The latter is located, by the way, in China, a socialist country the last time we checked.)"

Many minorities (including, one may suppose, Mr. Obama himself) were raised with exactly the same values as Adelson - vote on what is best for your people and your pocketbook. Is that not the American way?

As Adelson once told Forbes Magazine he's "against very wealthy ­people attempting to or influencing elections. But as long as it's doable I'm going to do it. Because I know that guys like Soros have been doing it for years, if not decades. And they stay below the radar by creating a network of corporations to funnel their money. I have my own philosophy and I'm not ashamed of it. I gave the money because there is no other legal way to do it. I don't want to go through ten different corporations to hide my name. I'm proud of what I do and I'm not looking to escape recognition." Certainly values which I will pass along to my children — and the words that should be used to describe the man are "heroic" or "role model."

He puts his money where his mouth is — legally and openly.The son of Jewish immigrants, Adelson grew up in a lower-class family economically, dropped out of the City College of New York, and transitioned to the Republican party for a fairly simple reason. As his wealth increased; he asked, "Why is it fair that I should be paying a higher percentage of taxes than anyone else?" And that of course is a damn good reason to oppose Obama — his pocket book will be hurt. And what exactly is wrong with that?

And last I checked, when it comes to criticizing the man who has "made more money in the last three years than any other American", and commenting on his success overseas, nearly every wealthy American makes money overseas. Major Obama donors like DreamWorks big-wig Jeffrey Katzenberg (who is under investigation by the Securities Exchange Commission for bribing Chinese officials to secure exclusive film rights in the communist country), former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt, who is worth $7 billion and others all made money overseas — and the NYT isn't criticizing them. Yes, people vote and donate to candidates who support their interests. What's the news flash there?

Regarding Israel, it is quite simple. Adelson and his wife are proud and tough Jews whose foundation gives more than two hundred-million dollars annually to Jewish causes and the man simply is standing up for what is right. As he has said: "The two-state solution is a stepping stone for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people." He couldn't be clearer: "I really don't care what happens to Iran. I am for Israel."

Sheldon Adelson is a heroic man who should be recognized as such — arguably the richest Jew in the world, he deserves the thanks of every American. He things quite clearly and puts his money where his mouth is — "Is It Good For America"? and that's how he makes his decisions.

We must never forget that only 80 years ago, the whole world stood by as six million Jews were slaughtered — today, people like Sheldon Adelson and Dr. Irving Moskowitz put their money where their mouth is.

The Jewish community — in fact, the entire Western World - needs to say "Thank You, Sheldon Adelson."

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at

To Go To Top


Posted by Barbara Taverna, June 29, 2012

 Hisham Jarallah is a journalist and commentator based in the West Bank. This article is archived at<./p>

In Palestinian society, it is much more important if one graduates from an Israeli prison than from a university in the U.S. or Europe. Economic prosperity and the peace process with Israel are not going to convince most Palestinians to vote for people like Fayyad or Abbas.

The most recent public opinion poll in the Palestinian territories shows that Marwan Barghouti, the dominant Fatah leader who is serving five life terms in Israeli prison for his role in several terror attacks during the second intifada, would win the presidential election.

The poll, conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research also shows clear improvement in the standing of Hamas, while its rival secular Fatah faction has declined in popularity.

Palestinians prefer someone like Barghouti to lead them because he launched terror attacks on Israelis and is sitting in Israeli prison.

The fact that Barghouti's attacks resulted in the death of a number of Jews gives him leadership credentials. He is popular among Palestinians because he has Jewish blood on his hands and was involved in "armed resistance."

Barghouti, according to the poll, would even defeat Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh if they ran against him in a presidential election.

Abbas and Haniyeh are no longer popular: they are not actively involved in terror attacks against Israel.

Even worse, as far as many Palestinians are concerned, Abbas is "preventing" terror attacks against Israel from the West Bank, while Haniyeh has betrayed his movement's ideology by agreeing to a temporary cease-fire with the Jews.

In Palestinian society, it is much more important if one graduates from an Israeli prison than from a university in the US or Europe.

People like Prime Minister Salam Fayyad are almost entirely unacceptable to most Palestinians: they were not involved in "resistance attacks" against Jews or did not send their children to carry out suicide bombings.

Fayyad never spent a day in Israel prison and that is enough — as far as many Palestinians are concerned — to disqualify him as a future leader. The U.S.-educated Fayyad, in other words, is too moderate and too peaceful and too educated.

Palestinians adored Yasser Arafat mainly because he was a symbol of the armed struggle against Israel. They loved his military uniform and pistol because they were viewed as a symbol of the armed struggle against Israel. Arafat was loved because he was personally responsible for dozens, if not hundreds, of terror attacks against Israel.

When Barghouti contests the next presidential election, if and when it ever takes place, he would be able to boast of his direct responsibility for terror attacks that killed Israelis. Abbas and Fayyad would have nothing in this regard to tell their people.

Economic prosperity and the peace process with Israel are not going to convince most Palestinians to vote for people like Fayyad or Abbas.

The future leaders of the Palestinians are currently sitting in Israeli prisons. They include dispatchers of suicide bombers, heads of terror cells, ordinary terrorists and political leaders of various terror groups in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Moderate Palestinians who are opposed to violence and terror will have no say in the future decision-making process. All this bodes ill for the peace process and stability in the region. If anything, the results of the poll show that the Palestinians are headed toward further radicalization.

Contact Barbara Taverna at

To Go To Top


Posted by Dave Bear, June 29, 2012

Forget about getting to age 75, this exact thing happened to me this morning at Danbury hospital here in Ct. I was scheduled for a cardio-lite stress test. This is a tread mill stress test where during the process they inject nuclear dye into your blood stream and then put you in a CAT scan or something similar and take a picture of your heart. If all is good the heart shows up red, if there are blocked arteries anywhere that portion of the heart shows up pink. I have had three of these tests in the past twelve years due to blocked arteries discovered in 2000. They use the test to determine if I need a roto router or a bypass operation.

So I arrive at the hospital at 8 am this morning and I am in the process of checking in at Cardiology and the lady says that my appointment has been canceled. She makes a call and speaks with someone and hands me the phone. It is a nurse in cardiology who says that my medical coverage denied the procedure. I said it was routine, part of my heart maintenance process and ordered by my PCP and with approval from my Cardiologist who is the head of Danbury Cardiology which is right where I was standing. She goes, "yes but we were denied our request". So I say, I have Medicare so what is my backup insurance doing denying anything. Then the bombshell, she says it was the Medicare board that denied the procedure.

At that point, I turn to everyone behind me, and it was a long line, and I say to them "well you won't have to wait too long today because my stress test procedure was just canceled by a Medicare Death Panel. I am only 67 so can you imagine what is going to happen when we really get old". The entire waiting room and everyone there from patients to staff just went dead silent. So I turn to the front desk and tell them, " I guess I will have to write a letter to the editor of the Danbury News Times and call my Senators and Congressman and let them know the Death Panels have already convened". Then I walked out.

By the time I got home the message machine was blinking. My PCP had already called and so did the hospital and guess what, Medicare decided to approve my stress test procedure and if I could get back down to the hospital they would fit me in right now for this 3 hour procedure. I told them I couldn't make it, that I was going fishing because I didn't know how many more fishing trips I could get in before I went into cardiac arrest but not to worry about me costing the government any money because I am a 30% disabled Army veteran, due to Agent Orange poisoning which is what caused this heart problem to begin with, and I qualify to be buried for free in a plain pine wrapper in the cheap graves section at any National Cemetary. I certainly don't want to cost our government any money so maybe we just won't do this procedure anymore and we can use the money to redistribute it to all of the illegals to keep them alive so they can mow the lawns at the National Cemeteries.

So this Death Panel crap has started. If we don't vote this guy and his criminal cronies out of office this November then we will all die younger than we should as broke paupers as the country goes bankrupt. Feel free to distribute my note to anyone and make it a mission to not only make your vote count but on behalf of all of us please make an effort to change the thinking of anyone remotely willingly to get intellectually engaged in this critical time in our country's history.

I had one of the most troubling, most disturbing conversations ever with Dr. Suzanne Allen, head of emergency services at the Johnson City Medical Center in Tennessee. We were discussing the "future" and I asked her had she seen any affects of Obama Care in her work?

"Oh, yes. We are seeing cutbacks throughout the services we provide. For example, we are now having to deal with patients who would normally receive dialysis can no longer be accepted. In the past, there was always automatic approval under Medicare for anyone who needed dialysis — not anymore." So, what will be their outcome? "They will die soon without dialysis," she stated.

What about other services? She indicated as of 2013 (after the election), no one over 75 will be given major medical procedures unless approved by locally administered Ethics Panels. These Panels will determine whether a patient receives medical treatment or not. While details on specific operating procedures and schedules, Dr. Allen points out that most life-threatening emergencies do not occur during normal hospital business hours, and if there are emergencies that depend to be resolve within minutes or just few hours, the likely hood of getting these Panels approval in time to save a life are going to be very challenging and difficult, if not impossible she said.

This applies to major operations such as receiving stents, bypass surgery, kidney operations, or treating for an aneurysm that would be normally covered under Medicare today. In other words, if you needed a life-saving operation, Medicare will not provide coverage anymore after 2013 if you are 75 or over. When in 2013? "We haven't been given a specific date — could be in January or July....but it's after the election."

This is shocking to any of us who will be 75 this year. Her advice — get healthy and stay healthy. We do not know the specifics of the actual implementation of the full Obama Care policies and procedures — "they haven't filtered down to the local level yet. But we are already seeing severe cuts in what we provide to the elderly — we refused dialysis to an individual who was 78 just the other day....we refused to give stents to a gentleman who was in his late 80s." Every day, she said, we are seeing these cutbacks aimed at reducing care across the board for anyone who is over 75.

We can only hope that Obama Care will be overturned by the Supreme Court — otherwise, this is a death sentence to those who are over 75....perhaps you should pass this on to your friends who are thinking of voting for Obama this year.

Regardless if you have private health care coverage now (I have Aetna Medicare Part B) — it will no longer apply after 2013 if the Ethics Panels disapprove of a procedure that may save your life.....

Scary, scary, scary. Think about this? You? Your parents? Your loved ones?

Didn't know about it? Of course, not. As Nancy Pelosi said...."well, if you want to know what's in the bill, you'll have to read it....." After it was passed.

This is a graphic reminder of the need to stay healthy. Get your plot now at Forest Lawn....while they last. Is this a death sentence to those of us who will reach 75?.....Yes!

To Go To Top


Posted by Think-Israel, June 30, 2012

HaBonim, Israel
HaBonim, Israel

From Wikipedia (,_Israel): "HaBonim (the builders) is a moshav in northern Israel. Located 5 km south of Atlit and 3 km north of Kibbutz Nahsholim, it falls under the jurisdiction of Hof HaCarmel Regional Council. It was founded in 1949 and in 2006 it had a population of 259."

To Go To Top


Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, June 29, 2012

 This article was written by Maayana Miskin, a writer for Arutz-Sheva. It is archived at

MK Michael Ben-Ari (Ichud Leumi) has called for an Arab Israeli affirmative action initiative to be put on hold over Arabs' refusal to perform military or national service.

Ben-Ari sent a letter to Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin asking him to shut down the Committee on the Integration of Arab Employees in the Public Sector. The committee is headed by MK Ahmed Tibi.

"Those who ask for equal rights need to understand that they have equal obligations," he argued. "Someone like Ahmed Tibi, who yells whenever he gets the chance about how much discrimination there is, and how Arabs are not part of the state — cannot be unready to also take part in the obligations."

Tibi "vigorously opposes national service for the Arab public," Ben-Ari noted.

"Tibi's behavior, besides being two-faced and immoral, is also illegal," he continued. "Tibi has become someone who encourages an entire sector of society to be parasitic."

If the committee on Arab integration is to continue operating, Tibi should be replaced with "a citizen who recognizes the fact that the Arab community has obligations and not just rights," Ben-Ari suggested. Tibi has also faced opposition from Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who has accused him of intentionally impeding Arab integration and has called on MKs not to cooperate with the committee he heads.

For more views of Ben-Ari go to:

Contact Barbara Ginsberg at

To Go To Top


Posted by Steven Plaut, June 29, 2012

The headlines spread quickly to every anti-Semitic web site on earth. Not only is Israel the most racist country on earth, they bellow, but one of Israel's own leading literary figures says so.

The writer in question is the Iraqi-born Jew Sami Michael. He proclaimed Israel the most racist country on earth. ( See here.)

'Israeli culture is no less toxic than fanatic Islam, and the country's discriminatory attitude toward Mizrahi Jews and Arabs qualifies it for the title of "most racist state," prominent Israeli author Sami Michael said on Monday. Israel can claim the title of most racist state in the developed world.'

Two itsy bitsy problems with this though. The first is that Israel is in fact probably the least racist country on earth. It is certainly less racist than the United States, Britain, France, and Japan. The main form of racism in Israel is the anti-Semitic bigotry among Israeli Arabs.

The second itsy bitsy problem is that none of those citing the pontifical pronouncement by Sami Michael are bothering to mention that Michael is a life-long Stalinist. He grew up in the communist party in Iraq, which contained a significant Jewish contingent in the 1940s. (It also contained a large Christian contingent. Michael is not the ONLY Iraqi-Jewish Stalinist in Israel working against Israel, by the way.) And he has remained a hard-core communist his whole life. His above attempt to link the "struggles" of Sephardic Jews and Arabs is typical of this crowd. Amos Oz and A.B. Yehoshua are harmless innocent little naif cubs compared with communist Michael.

So let us get this straight. The same writer who insists that Israel is the most racist country on earth has never been much disturbed by, nor has he ever denounced, any of the acts of Stalin, including mass murders, ethnic cleansings, intentional mass starvations approaching genocidal levels of death, the mass expulsions, the collaboration with Hitler, and so on. None of THOSE things strike Michael as racist.

In addition, Michael's blather is instructive because Michael has long served as the president of the so-called Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI). The ACRI is interested in many things, like supporting Palestinian extremism, while civil rights is one of the things it is NOT interested in, at least not when it comes to the civil rights of Jews. The ACRI does not think Jews are deserving of any human rights. The ACRI is also decidedly NOT in favor of defending freedom of speech in Israel or protesting infringements of the freedom of speech of non-leftists.

Michael as president of ACRI has rejected any suggestion that the Hamas should be regarded as a terrorist organization. ( Here is a famous citation by Michael endorsing Arab terrorism: "'Imagine the feeling if I woke up tomorrow and saw this neighborhood, which we inhabit, forcibly conquered by the Syrians, and they established settlements here, and in order to go to the bus station, I needed permission from the Syrian army. How would I feel?' the author from Haifa asked. 'If I fight them, I will be considered a terrorist. Why am I a terrorist? Why do we call Hizbullah or Hamasniks terrorists? Why? Because they fight for their own territory? Suddenly, aliens, occupiers, land on him and tell him: "Your house is ours." It's his land, he and his forefathers were born here, and the settlers say: "We will never leave...." How would you respond to this?'"

The fact that Michael serves as head of one of the leading NGOs of Israel's Left, funded naturally by the New Israel Fund and the You-Know-Who, illustrates the growing Stalinization of the radical Left in Israel. It also nicely illustrates the growing treason and self-hatred of Israel's radical Left.

Michael is not the only leftist mega-moron working for the victory of Israel's enemies these days. Another one is Alon Liel, who has served as an Israeli diplomat, and is now calling on the world to boycott Israeli products if they were manufactured in "Palestine." Since the anti-Israel lobby sees all of Israel as Palestine, you can see where he is going with this. Liel's wife is a honchette at the anti-Israel "New Israel Fund." See this report about him:

The lesson here is that anti-Israel leftist idiots are even serving in Israel's diplomat corps these days!

2. As a public service, I have composed a brief English language "financial guidebook" for English-speaking Israelis (especially older ones), about putting one's financial affairs in order. It is free and not a come-on to sell anything. If you are interested or know anyone interested, it can be downloaded for free at Feel free to send it to anyone and to make copies.

3. This is cute:

Also this:

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is

To Go To Top


Posted by Frank Salvato, June 29, 2012


I have become increasingly depressed about the fact that "truth" has become subservient - if not non-existent - in our culture today, and especially in our political culture. The recent US Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare - or the Affordable Care Act, if you will - is a perfect example. While many on the Right, and people who I respect greatly, condemn the SCOTUS - and especially Chief Justice John Roberts - for their decision to uphold the individual mandate, not under the Commerce Clause but as a tax, they misdirect their ire. SCOTUS ruled constitutionally and honestly on the argument presented to them. The Right's anger - the American people's fury - should instead be directed at the Obama Administration and its Progressive minions for executing one of the most egregious "bait and switch" schemes ever perpetrated on the American people.

If you take a moment to think back to when Congress was debating Obamacare, you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a congressional Democrat or an Obama Administration mouthpiece that wasn't adamant in their denial that the Affordable Care Act was a tax. President Obama himself is quoted on numerous occasions as saying, without reservation and with clarity, that under no circumstances and in now way, shape or form, was his signature agenda item a "tax." And as we approached the vote on Obamacare in Congress, congressional Democrats, Obama Administration operatives, union activists and special interest groups flooded the media with specific declarations that stated clearly that the Affordable Care Act was not a tax. Bottom line, the American people were assured that this initiative was not a tax, "cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye." Well, everyone who ever made this claim lied, and it didn't take the SCOTUS ruling to prove it.

As soon as the Obama Administration's lawyers took to the podium at the US Supreme Court to defend the Affordable Care Act against the myriad lawsuits brought against it, the Department of Justice lawyers immediately identified the Affordable Care Act - Obamacare - as a tax in order to avoid the SCOTUS striking the entire law under the Commerce Clause, which SCOTUS did in their June 28, 2012 ruling.

The singular act of Justice Department lawyers presenting the Affordable Care Act as a tax before the US Supreme Court, while politicians and the Obama Administration continued to insist to the electorate that it was not, serves as proof positive that the Obama Administration recognized the legislation as a tax from its inception and chose to deceive the electorate in a very concerted and deliberate manner; to lie, to betray the public, in its lust to see this contentious, unpopular and ideologically driven legislation brought to law.

With regard to US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robert's ruling, it cannot be said that he did not serve the United States Constitution in his opinion:

"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause...That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

It needs to be noted - and through eyes of honesty - that Roberts stressed on several occasions during the reading of his opinion that the decision does not speak to the "merits" of the law, saying:

"We do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders."

If we who embrace constructionist constitutional values are to live up to that moniker, we cannot chide Chief Justice Roberts for refusing to be activist. Would Chief Justice Roberts have struck Obamacare on the grounds that Congress did not have the authority to levy this tax, he most certainly would have been practicing judicial activism. Remember, the question posed to the SCOTUS defended "a tax" and Congress's "power to tax." Congress has that authority per the Sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

This is why it is intensely important to recognize the purposeful "bait and switch" scheme that the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats perpetrated on both the American people and the SCOTUS, doing so with the hope that Americans of all stripes - Conservative and Liberal - who disagree with socialized medical insurance, would place blame at the feet of the High Court. Truthfully, it is a grave error to place blame on the US Supreme Court. Truthfully, it is appropriate to punish and penalize congressional Democrats and President Obama himself for deceiving, for lying, to the American people in their pursuit of this indisputably ideological piece of legislation.

The debate over a national health insurance is just beginning. Congressional Republicans will move in days to come to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, with Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), saying:

"The president's health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire. Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans' access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country Obamacare."

Additionally, the issue of the Affordable Care Act is now equally as potent as the anemic economy where 2012 presidential politics is concerned and has, without doubt, served to re-invigorate the TEA Party Movement, which was born of this issue, exclusively.

To me, and many that I know and respect, the issue of "truth," of "honesty," has become a pinnacle issue, not only for this Presidential Election cycle, and not only as a general political issue, but as a societal crisis of epic proportions. For too long Americans have both rolled their collective eyes and chuckled at the many political spin doctors and operatives who contort the truth in order to paint their political champions in a favorable light. For far too long we have allowed many charged with the public trust to manipulate the truth and/or omit issue substance where that substance changes the meaning of a situation's reality; or an issues reality. Because of this, we have arrived at a time where the President of the United States - along with his representatives - and members of Congress can purposefully and intentionally deceive the very electorate they are supposed to serve in an effort to fundamentally change the relationship between government and citizen to the benefit of the government.

In 2009, President Obama, in an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, when asked if the ramifications of Obamacare presented in a tax increase, said:

"No. That's not true, George. The...for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs."

And when Stephanopoulos responded, "But it may be fair, it may be good public policy," President Obama looked him directly in the eye and said:

"No, but...but, George, can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."

Today, June 28, 2012, the Unite States Supreme Court essentially called President Obama and congressional Democrats on their disingenuous and deceitful rhetoric. If the SCOTUS ruling were to be summed up on a bumper-sticker it would read:

"They fed us lies, and our taxes rise."

In the end, Mr. Obama was correct in his 2008 rhetoric. Words do matter.

Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative. This article appeared in Family Security Matters and is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 28, 2012

A people that values its privileges above its principles will soon lose both.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." — Benjamin Franklin

"A socialist is somebody who doesn't have anything, and is ready to divide it up equally among everybody." — Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. —Albert Einstein

Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, Give a man a bank, he can rob the world

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at Go to see more of his graphic art.

To Go To Top


Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 28, 2012

 This article was written by Conrad Black and it appeared in the New York Sun. It is archived at Conrad Black can be reached at

There cannot possibly be anyone left of sound mind who imagines that the Arab Spring was anything more than seismic shifts in various countries to remove unpopular despots; have tribal, sectarian, or ideological bloodletting of different levels of ferocity, according to the temper of the countries; and then observe the re-assumption of authority by whatever new despotism emerged at the end of strenuous Darwinian internecine struggle. The Egyptian army acquiesced in the departure of its champion, President Mubarak, when his position became unsustainable and, after more than 30 years, he no longer possessed the popularity or determination to retain his authority.

The whole idea of free elections was always a confidence trick, a stall, in which the Muslim Brotherhood — which brought down Mubarak, and had, 31 years before, assassinated his predecessor, Anwar Sadat — showed some restraint in not taunting the army, promised not to run a presidential candidate, and envisioned a regime in which the legislature would dominate and the army would be well paid. As the constitutional council failed to produce even an indicative constitution, a game of chicken ensued, in which the army stated that it would not hand over power until there was a constitution, i.e., one in which they could either retain power or take it back at any time. The Brotherhood then said they would run a presidential candidate after all. Army-dominated agencies disqualified most candidates, and finally gutted the powers of both the congress and the president, and delayed at their convenience the confirmation of the universally assumed fact that the Brotherhood candidate (though not its first candidate) had won the election.

It all somewhat resembles the recent history of Algeria, whose constitution empowered and instructed the army to be the guarantor of democracy. This led in 1992 to the interruption of a two-stage election that was going to elevate an anti-democratic Islamist party, and also to a prolonged civil war, in which 300,000 Algerians died. Egyptians are less violent than Algerians, and despite the Ruritanian over-costuming and parading of the Egyptian army, and all the pompous pronunciamentos of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces of that country, the Egyptian army has never been overly frightening, even when it did briefly pierce the Bar Lev Line in 1973. The Algerian army, however, which fought through the war of independence with France (1954—62), in which perhaps 500,000 people died, is a serious and an unambiguously victorious force and has reimposed secular order.

Tunisia, where the Arab Spring began, is unstable, and Libya, Yemen, and, of course, Syria, are virtually in chaos. Egypt will go on floundering, as neither the army nor the Brotherhood has the slightest ability to pull Egypt out of its economic dyspepsia, aggravated by an unsustainably high birthrate. There is, unfortunately, no reason to be confident that Iraq will make the cut either: There is still no real progress toward federalism in the sharing of oil revenues, and Baghdad's writ does not run in Kurdistan. Maliki may hang on to power, but he cannot be said to have been reelected. In the broad arc of the Islamic world, from the Atlantic to the gates of India, only Turkey, Morocco, and Jordan have shown the slightest aptitude for self-government. Turkey has been a Great or at least significant Power for 600 years. Morocco was an independent country for centuries before the French occupied it shortly before World War I. And Jordan — "invented" as he wrote, by Winston Churchill, "on a sunny Sunday afternoon in Jerusalem" in 1921 — has a crafty Hashemite dynasty in which a Bedouin minority carefully rules a Palestinian majority.

The potential for most Islamic countries to become completely dysfunctional and erupt in atrocities and disintegrate into terrorist breeding grounds is now too familiar to merit much elaboration. The George W. Bush crusade for democracy — and, to be fair to him, it was the policy of Jimmy Carter also — now appears to be a product of the same painfully naïve school that held in 1964 and 1965 that we could defeat the Communists in South Vietnam by building schools, bridges, and clinics, as if the opposition response would be anything except to blow them up and kill anyone who collaborated. Despite the vast experience accumulated in America's unexampled rise from colonial obscurity to unprecedented paramountcy in the world in less than three long lifetimes from Yorktown to the fall of the Berlin Wall, there seems to be some hobgoblin that washes and hijacks the brains of American policy planners from time to time and propels them like Gadarene robots toward an ahistorical fantasy that altruism alone will make the world right.

Carter's naïveté dispensed with the Shah and gave us the ayatollahs, whose now-despised minion, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was masquerading as an environmentalist at the anomalous Rio de Janeiro Earth Conference last week, railing against "slavery, colonialism, and record plundering of cultures, identities, and possessions of hundreds of millions of defenseless people, as well as the destruction of their integrity, freedom, and rights." I have not often been moved to fly to the defense of President Obama's farrago of policy disasters, but I can understand the impulse to be less dogmatic and more practical in selecting the beneficiaries of America's attention than was his predecessor, who brought Hamas to power in Gaza and Hezbollah in Beirut, in his quest for popular government. But that Obama would choose as his point of divergence the whitewashing of Ahmadinejad's brutal theft of the 2009 Iranian election was, to say the least, improvident.

This president hasn't been played for a fool as thoroughly as George W. Bush was by the Pakistanis. The spectacle in the last few weeks of the supreme court of Pakistan impeaching the prime minister and detaining him for 30 minutes, for the heinous offense of not indicting the president for his alleged light-fingered practices, and then blocking the elevation of the new prime minister with allegations of corruption, until the chief justice had to recuse himself because of similar allegations against his own son, aggravates the embarrassment of having sent billions to Pakistan, which has generally behaved more as an enemy of NATO in Afghanistan than an ally. It has supported the Haqqani Taliban and barred resupply of NATO forces in Afghanistan through Pakistan, and it harbored bin Laden only a few miles from the headquarters of the unit that routinely marches out from its barracks every few years to throw out the elected government and replace it with a regime led by the current commander of the Pakistani army.

There was a time when American presidents knew when to play the democratic card and when to address the higher interests of the Western Alliance. Franklin D. Roosevelt knew that the colonial empires would disintegrate, but he wanted all the colonies in trusteeships overseen by a United Nations that the U.S. and the British Commonwealth would dominate (as they did for the first 15 years) until they were ready for self-government. (Stalin told him at Tehran in 1943 that 30 years would be too long a wait for the Vietnamese; he was correct.) Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower had no gas pains defining the Free World as including Franco, Salazar, the shah, Syngman Rhee, the House of Saud, Turkish generals, and the over-bemedaled juntas of South America. In FDR's phrase about Nicaragua's Somoza, each may have been an SOB, "but he's our son-of-a-bitch."

Even Eisenhower blundered by revoking financing for Nasser's Aswan Dam, which provoked the Suez crisis just as the post-Churchill British leadership (the Anthony Eden government) took leave of its senses and tried to resolve the resulting seizure of the Suez Canal with a harebrained conspiracy with Israel to seize the Sinai while the British and French masqueraded as peacekeepers as they (ineffectually) invaded Egypt. John F. Kennedy's promise to "bear any burden, oppose any foe," etc. led straight to Vietnam, accelerated by the self-administered aphrodisiac that the Cuban missile crisis, in which the CIA had no idea that nuclear warheads and 40,000 Soviet troops were already in Cuba, was a triumph of "critical path" calibrated policy deduction. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger sorted out the horrible mess Lyndon Johnson left them and were rewarded with impeachment and unwavering hatred for salvaging the war the Democrats had started and effectively lost.

Carter's inanities, culminating in a very questionable SALT II treaty, induced the Russians to occupy Afghanistan and become hyperactively mischievous in Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere. Reagan and George H. W. Bush settled everything down and won the Cold War; history was declared to have ended at its Hegelian synthesis in the triumph of democracy. We have now gone back to the Vietnam—El Salvador era, in which alliance with America was like an insurance policy that works as long as premiums are paid and no claims are made: As soon as the heat comes up, the liberal media declare the ally to be unworthy of American support.

If the country thought about it at all, the United States would use this election to rewind these last 20 years and do the necessary to be strong in the world: prudent growth economics, the making of a clear distinction between threats and mere irritation — and effective counter-pressure (or, if necessary, force) against the first, and the lofty indifference of the supremely powerful toward the second. We know the incumbent can't do it. No sane person would bet the ranch on W. M. Romney, but in these terms, it's now a one-horse race.

Contact Barbara Sommer at

To Go To Top


Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 28, 2012

 This article was written by Dr. Aaron Lerner and archived at

Let's walk through what we know, what is probable and what is possible in the wake of the election of Mohamed Morsy of the Moslem Brotherhood as president of Egypt:

First what we know:

  1. The Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt has demonstrated patience, sophistication and determination to achieve their true goals. Their huge victory in the parliamentary elections — where they originally claimed that they would only run for a small portion of the seats and their success in the presidential elections that they originally promised not to run in are only the beginning.
  2. President elect Mohamed Morsy has years of experience interacting with Americans both as a graduate student and then as an assistant professor at California State University Northridge in the early 1980s.
  3. Over the course of the entire period of the Mubarak Era and beyond, the Egyptian military (as represented by The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces - SCAF) had an absolutely miserable track record preventing weapons smuggling from Egypt to the Gaza Strip and did not do much better when it came to preventing terror activity that passed from the Gaza Strip through Egyptian Sinai on the way to Israel. Yes, senior Egyptian security people continuously met with their Israeli counterparts and "talked the talk". But when push came to shove the typical Egyptian response to complaints about arms smuggling was to deny that it was taking place — just as the standard Egyptian reaction to rockets attacks against Israel from Sinai is to deny that the rockets were launched from Sinai. On the other hand, the SCAF is viewed favorably for their willingness to at least "talk the talk".

What is probable?

  1. Mohamed Morsy will have an easy time playing the Americans and in turn the rest of the West as "useful idiots".
  2. As "useful idiots", the Americans and in turn the rest of the West will praise Morsy for anything he says or does that could have a positive spin (inclusion of parties and individuals outside of the Moslem Brotherhood in the government, gestures to the Copts, anything less than imposing the strictest of Islamic regulations). These same "useful idiots" will choose to ignore, then excuse and ultimately manage to possibly even find a way to support the explanations provided by the Moslem Brotherhood for whatever negative things it does. If Morsy says that the terms of the peace treaty with Israel need to be revised, the "useful idiots" will more likely press Israel to show understanding and agree to revisions than warn Morsy to back off. And if the day comes that Morsy cites Israeli violations of the treaty with a warning that it is untenable to expect Egypt to honor the treaty if Israel fails to immediately address these "violations" it is more likely that the "useful idiots" opt to support the Egyptian claims rather than back Israel.
  3. By the same token, whatever Morsy does or doesn't do with regard to the situation in the Gaza Strip will, for all practical purposes, be accepted. Under these circumstances, and keeping in mind the Israeli "quiet for quiet" policy (Israel accepts the deployment of basically every and any weapons system in the Gaza Strip regardless of its range, capability or quantity as long as they are not fired too often), the already huge flow of weapons to the Gaza Strip can be expected to step up. For all practical purposes the Gaza Strip, with its weapons systems built up to able to strike strategic targets not just in Ashkelon and Ashdod but also Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and many of the IAF bases, tank bases, transportation choke points, etc. along with its many thousands of trained soldiers, would be able to divert Israeli military resources that would otherwise be part of the force addressing the threat of an Egyptian invasion.
  4. As long as the SCAF is perceived as an independent "moderating force" in Egypt, the United States, out of a desire to strengthen and support the SCAF, will continue providing weapons, training, etc. to the Egyptian army regardless of what the Egyptian Government says or does.
  5. Even if the Moslem Brotherhood succeeded in co-opting or taking over the SCAF, the United States would continue the supply of weapons and training, arguing that the supplies strengthen the "moderates" in the SCAF and that reducing supplies would push the SCAF into the arms of others.
  6. There is a very reasonable possibility that the Morsy administration will fail to "deliver the goods" to the Egyptian street in terms of the supply of the very basic minimum for the sustenance of the ever growing population. That's a "reasonable possibility" because it isn't clear if any regime at this time could provide a viable solution in Egypt within a three or even five year window.
  7. At some point the Morsy administration will find itself under pressure from the street because of its failure to deliver the goods. It can respond to this pressure by either suppressing opposition, finding a domestic scapegoat to blame for the failure or diverting the wrath of the street to an external enemy — Israel.

And now to the question:

If there is a significant danger that in the coming years we will face a military threat from Egypt (be it because this was what the Moslem Brotherhood intended to do from day one or because they opt for war to keep the street at bay) how critical could the Gaza Strip be to the outcome?

Now I don't claim to have the military expertise to answer that question.

I only know that the answer is not that the question isn't relevant because if it ever came to that that the Egyptian army either would opt to remain in their barracks or that in the time running up to such an event the American made equipment would fall into disrepair as the United States cuts back on the supply of vital spare parts.

The answer cannot be wishful thinking.

Again. I don't claim to have the military expertise to answer that question.

But if the answer is, after running serious simulations with "Red Teams" who have reasonable goals that include actually invading the Jewish State, that the Gaza Strip could play a critical role in the outcome, then we had better think hard and fast about invading and destroying the enemy in the Gaza Strip now before it is too late.

Yes. It would have been a lot easier to do this a year ago. But now is not the time to blame the policy makers for a "let's forget about tomorrow" approach.

Tomorrow came. Big time.

And the next "tomorrow" is so potentially dangerous that we simply cannot afford to ignore it.

Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA, Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Its website address is Write him at

To Go To Top


Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 28, 2012

If you can be in Washington DC on July 19, please note:

EMET — the Endowment for Middle East Truth — is pleased to bring to Capitol Hill, Sgt. Benjamin Anthony, founder of the non-profit "Our Soldiers Speak."

Sgt. Benjamin Anthony (IDF. Res.), is a combat veteran and combat reservist in the Israel Defense Forces. As a heavy machine gunner, he has taken a full and front line roll in several of Israel's most recent campaigns to defend it's citizens in the face of new age terrorist activity, serving in large operations both within and beyond Israel's borders.

Since his release from full- time service, Benjamin Anthony has established an organization - Our Soldiers Speak- a nonprofit-non-governmental body that has one aim, clear and singular: to bring the proud truth of Israel's soldiers from the front lines of combat to the English speaking world, whenever and wherever audience is granted.


Perhaps my need to report some news that is potentially positive is kicking in. Today the state of the world still seems grim, but a tad less so.

The last residents — 18 families — of the houses in Ulpana slated for expulsion were moved out today.

With this, we have been mindful that one of the next issues to be faced is that of Migron, where there is also a Court-ordered expulsion, to be carried out before August 1.

But according to information acquired by Israel Hayom: in an effort to prevent that expulsion, an American Jewish philanthropist — whose name has not been revealed — has bought land constituting more than 80% of Migron from the Arabs who claimed ownership.

Men watching Iranian missile being launched
Credit: IndyNews


The story of Migron conforms to a typical pattern. It was established in 1999, with government funding (but without the final signature of the defense minister): the Israeli government set up the electrical lines, running water and the infrastructure for functioning sewage and telephone systems, while also providing mobile homes for families. And no Arabs came forth to claim rights to the land.

What is more, Migron was situated on a hilltop for security purposes. The government saw a need for a Jewish community in this location: A by-pass road had been established at the foot of the hill on which Migron is situated so that Jews would be able to travel — via route 60 — while avoiding entry into Ramallah. It was understood that without Jews on this hill, Jews traveling the road below would be at risk.

It was seven years later that Peace Now brought the case to the High Court on behalf of Arabs claiming to be owners. According to Migron residents these Arabs were not aware of their "ownership" until approached by Peace Now. To the very best of my knowledge, the alleged ownership by Palestinian Arabs has never been documented. The Court decision, rather, was predicated on government guidelines that make assumptions about ownership by Arabs — this is almost a default position, and it one of the things that must change. (I will want to return to this in due course.)


The entire transaction was handled in great secrecy — for reasons that seem fairly obvious. Even residents were not aware of all details. According to those involved, the land was purchased "in a completely legal and valid manner."

At this point, only four houses out of the 70 buildings that constitute this community are on land that cannot be solidly and legally identified as having Jewish ownership.

Residents hope that the High Court will agree to reverse its order. Those involved in the transaction call it a "win-win" situation.


As Dr. Aviad Cohen has written:

"The finality of a ruling is a cornerstone of the legal system; once a final ruling is handed down, there can be no further debate. This is how the legal system avoids endless appeals and the uncertainty that accompanies them.

"But there is an exception to every rule..

"If such exceptions occur in district courts, they should certainly occur in the High Court of Justice. As its name suggests, the High Court of Justice does not only rely on legal considerations but also feeds on the laws of integrity and justice. There are unusual cases when justice requires overturning even final verdicts.

"If the news reports are true...then the verdict ordering the outposts' evacuation must be reconsidered. In light of the new circumstances, there is room to make an exception and reopen the case before the High Court of Justice in order to reach a more just verdict..."


More than one seller was involved, and now there is concern for their lives — both because the PA can levy the death sentence for selling land to Jews and because they will incur the hostility of other Arabs. This very fact — that the Arab seller might find his life at risk — is what inhibited the residents of Beit El from registering the purchase they made of land for the Ulpana neighborhood, which decision later rebounded upon them in an unfortunate manner.


Yasser Ali, spokesman for Egyptian president-elect Mohamed Morsi, has announced that Morsi's office is preparing to file a suit against the Iranian news agency FARS for fabricating an interview with Morsi that never took place. Good start for Iranian - Muslim Brotherhood relations.


Meanwhile, a member of Egypt's military council, Major-General Mohamed Assar, announced on a TV talk show that Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi — who was Mubarak's defense minister for 20 years — will be defense minister in Morsi's new cabinet, which has yet to be announced.

Additionally, Tantawi will retain his positions as head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and as the commander of the armed forces. These are indications of the ways in which Morsi's power will be circumscribed. The fact that this announcement was made before Morsi was even sworn in is significant.

The military council has also created a new National Defense Council to run defense and foreign policies. Morsi and his future prime minister will serve on the council, but will be outnumbered by the generals also sitting on the Council; decision will be made by majority vote.


Daniel Pipes, of the Middle East Forum, readily agrees that the military is in control in Egypt — that what we're seeing is a "palace coup." A reassuring perspective. In his blog, he writes:

"If even Time Magazine realizes that in Egypt, 'The Military Shows Egypt Who's Boss' one figures that the memo has finally been read by the dullest of the dull." The scenario as Time Magazine, quoted by Pipes, sees it:

"Now that revolution is looking more and more like a palace coup, with the Mubarak ouster cleverly camouflaged in the language of democracy by a military working to prevent the total collapse of the old order. By jettisoning a leader who had stayed past his sell-by date, the generals — suddenly sympathetic to the protesters — bought time to re-engineer their hold on power even as the military played its Islamist and secular challengers against each other."


On the other hand, a grim assessment is offered by Brett Stephens, asking "Who Lost Egypt?":

"Egypt is lost.

"Don't console yourself with the belief that the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in the country's first free presidential election is merely symbolic, since the army still has the guns...

"...By degrees, Egypt under the Brotherhood will seek to arm Hamas and remilitarize the Sinai. By degrees, it will seek to extract concessions from the U.S. as the price of its good behavior. By degrees, it will make radical alliances in the Middle East and beyond...

"So prepare for an Egypt that likes us about as much as Nasser's did and behaves accordingly. It's going to be a long and ugly haul. And it's just beginning."


Remember the joint US-Israeli maneuvers that were cancelled a few months ago, in the midst of diverse rumors? Well, it has now been announced that they will be held here in October — the largest joint US-Israeli military exercise ever. It will feature thousands of soldiers — 3,000 from the US and thousands of Israelis — and missile defense systems.

The drill will simulate multiple missiles being fired simultaneously from Iran and Syria.

The timing has significance — just before the election.

On the one hand, it might be a campaign maneuver. (See, everyone, how the US works closely with Israel!) On the other, it might make it more difficult for Israel to strike Iran with all that US military on hand.

According to Maariv, some analysts are dubbing this a "dress rehearsal" for a potential military conflict. The implications here are considerable, but this is speculative and I will not comment — and will certainly not leap to prematurely hopeful conclusions about a cooperative attack.


In fact, I'll close here with a troubling piece by Shoshana Bryen, "The Incredible Shrinking US-Israel Security Cooperation," which calls puts all the hoopla about the joint exercise into a broader context.

"In light of increased sensitivity to intelligence leaks, it seemed innocuous...when the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) asked the Senate to remove a few words from the US-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act: the 'sense of the Senate' part of the bill included the sentence, 'Expand already close intelligence cooperation, including satellite intelligence, with the Government of Israel;' ODNI wanted the words 'including satellite intelligence' to go.

"An ODNI spokesman said it was 'simply a matter of clarifying the intelligence aspects of the bill and being sensitive to the level of specificity of the language...nothing nefarious here, just more clear language.'

"Yeah, right.

"This is just the latest example of the Obama Administration making clear that it does not want to be seen as Israel's partner in regional affairs — several of them predicated on Turkish desires. Despite Israel's status as a Major Non-NATO ally, a NATO 'partner' country, and a member of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue, Turkey is increasingly insistent that Israel be isolated and cut out. This surrender to Turkey..coincides nicely with the Administration's increasingly open courtship of Turkey's Islamist-leaning and virulently anti-Israel Prime Minister and what appears to be the desire of the Administration to enhance security relations in the Arab-Muslim world as it dials back visible cooperation with Israel.

"This is no small matter. Israel's security is threatened...

"Agreeing publicly to keep intelligence information from Israel — a more likely target of Iran than Europe/NATO — at the behest of Turkey is a serious diminution of the U.S.-Israel security relationship..."

Arlene Kushner is an independent journalist. Contact her by email at and go to her website at

To Go To Top


Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, June 28, 2012

 This article was written by Ari Shavit and is archived at

Moshe Ya'alon tells Ari Shavit he is preparing for war. He suggests you do the same.

Men watching Iranian missile being launched

Exactly seven years ago, I interviewed the chief of staff. On the eve of his retirement from the Israel Defense Forces, Moshe "Bogie" Ya'alon spoke with an expressionless face against the Gaza disengagement, against a Palestinian state and against giving terrorism a "tailwind." He predicted that Hamas would seize control of the Gaza Strip and that rockets would rain down on Israeli cities. But when, at the end of the interview, we were joined by the Israel Defense Forces spokeswoman and a Haaretz photographer, the chief of staff became a different person. As the photographer had him pose in his office, he started telling jokes.

With a mischievous smile on his face and a naughty twinkle in his eye, the tall, bespectacled officer had everyone roaring with laughter at ethnic jokes, accent jokes and small-town jokes. Suddenly he was no longer a tough chief of the General Staff in a starched uniform, but a delightful jester bursting with life. If I describe this scene to my readers, I said to the IDF spokeswoman, they will think I was on some sort of drug: No one will believe that behind the stone face that Chief of Staff Ya'alon puts on lurks this affable, free-spirited Bogie with a terrific sense of humor.

A great many things have been burned into people's minds since that standup act on the 14th floor of the IDF tower in the Kirya defense headquarters in Tel Aviv. To the astonishment of many, Hamas did in fact seize control of Gaza and did indeed rain down rockets on Israeli cities. To the amazement of others, Ya'alon did not pursue a career as a school principal in the Arava, but pursued a political career and has even done well in politics. Within a few years, the dairy farmer from Kibbutz Grofit, north of Eilat, became one of the most right-wing leaders of the right wing.

True, Bogie has surprised the "national camp" time and again. He spoke out against the exclusion of women from public events due to religious strictures, opposed racism against migrants and objected to the silencing of reporters. He supported same-sex marriage and the right of Supreme Court Justice Salim Joubran not to sing the national anthem.

But despite his partial "otherness," this son of the Labor Movement became the hero of the followers of Jabotinsky, the hero of the settlement project and the hero of hawkishness. It is only in regard to the Iranian issue that the minister of strategic threats is perceived as a dove. In closed conversations he reiterates his deep concern about the influence wielded by Ehud Barak on Benjamin Netanyahu, and about the possibility that the former will drag the latter into a wanton Iranian adventure.

In the modest living room of his kibbutz home, where he lives with his wife Ada, Ya'alon sits across from me in shorts, a blue shirt and sandals. He gets up to make a cup of black coffee and pushes a dish of dates toward me. This time he doesn't tell jokes. In a very accurate and concentrated way, the vice premier describes a harsh reality. That is why he agreed to give this unprecedented interview. Ya'alon believes the time has come to narrow the gap between what he knows and what we know. He believes it is time to tell the people of Israel what they are up against.

Moshe "Bogie" Ya'alon, could a war erupt this year?

"I hope not. I hope that in regard to Iran it will be possible to say, as the old saw goes, that the work of the just is done by others. But obviously we are preparing for every possibility. If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"

If you had to provide a comprehensive intelligence assessment today, would you say that the probability of a war in the year ahead is negligible, low, middling or high?

"The probability of an initiated attack on Israel is low. I do not see an Arab coalition armed from head to foot deploying on our borders − not this year, not in the year after and not in the foreseeable future. Despite the trend toward Islamization in the Middle East, we enjoy security and relative quiet along the borders. But the No. 1 challenge is that of Iran. If anyone attacks Iran, it's clear that Iran will take action against us. If anyone, no matter who, decides to take military action against Iran's nuclear project, there is a high probability that Iran will react against us, too, and will fire missiles at Israel. There is also a high probability that Hezbollah and Islamist elements in the Gaza Strip will operate against us. That possibility exists, and it's with a view to that possibility that we have to deploy."

What the vice premier is telling me is that we are close to the moment of truth regarding Iran.

"Definitely. When I was director of Military Intelligence, in the 1990s, Iran did not possess one kilogram of enriched uranium. Today it has 6,300 kilograms of uranium enriched to a level of 3.5 percent and about 150 kilograms enriched to a level of 20 percent. When I was chief of staff, in the first decade of this century, Iran had a few hundred centrifuges, most of which were substandard.

"At present there are about 10,000 centrifuges in Natanz and in Kom, which are enriching about eight kilograms of uranium a day. Since this government took office in 2009, the number of centrifuges in Iran has almost doubled and the amount of enriched uranium has increased sixfold. The meaning of these data is that Iran already today has enough enriched uranium to manufacture five atomic bombs. If Iran is not stopped, within a year it will have enough uranium for seven or eight atomic bombs.

"In addition, the Iranians apparently possess a weapons development system which they are hiding from the international supervisory apparatus. The Iranians also have 400 missiles of different types, which can reach the whole area of Israel and certain parts of Europe. Those missiles were built from the outset with the ability to carry nuclear warheads. So the picture is clear. Five years ago, even three years ago, Iran was not within the zone of the nuclear threshold. Today it is. Before our eyes Iran is becoming a nuclear-threshold power."

But to build a nuclear bomb Iran needs uranium enriched to a level of 90 percent and above. At the moment it is still not there.

"True, but if Iran goes confrontational and goes nuclear, it has the capability to enrich uranium to above 90 percent within two or three months. Even if it does not build a standard nuclear bomb, within less than six months it will be in possession of at least one primitive nuclear device: a dirty bomb."

If so, maybe it's already too late. The Iranians won and we lost and we have to resign ourselves to Iran's being in possession of nuclear weapons in the near future.

"Absolutely not. It will be disastrous if we or the international community become resigned to the idea of a nuclear Iran. The regime of the ayatollahs is apocalyptic-messianic in character. It poses a challenge to Western culture and to the world order. Its scale of values and its religious beliefs are different, and its ambition is to foist them on everyone. Accordingly, it is an obligation to prevent this nonconventional regime from acquiring nonconventional weapons. Neither we nor the West is at liberty to accept an Iranian nuclear bomb. What I am telling you is not rhetoric and it is not propaganda. A nuclear Iran is a true threat to world peace."

Crossing red lines

But you yourself are telling me that the Iranians have already crossed most of the red lines. They have swept past the points of no return. Doesn't that mean that we are now facing the cruel dilemma of bomb or bombing?

"We are not there yet. I hope we will not get there. The international community can still act aggressively and with determination. Other developments are also feasible. But if the question is bomb or bombing, the answer is clear: bomb.

The answer is clear to you but not to me. We survived the Cold War. We also survived the nuclearization of Pakistan and North Korea. Israel is said to possess strategic capability that is able to create decisive deterrence against Iran. Would it not be right to say that just as Europe lived with the Soviet bomb, we will be able to live in the future with the Shiite bomb?

"No and no and again no. The first answer to your question is that if Iran goes nuclear, four or five more countries in the Middle East are liable to go nuclear, too. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and other Arab states will say that if Iran has a bomb they also need a bomb. The result will be a nuclear Middle East. A nuclear Middle East will not be stable and therefore the world will not be stable. Iranian nuclearization will bring in its wake nuclear chaos.

"The second answer to your question is that a nuclear umbrella will allow Iran to achieve regional hegemony. The Gulf states, finding themselves under that umbrella, will ask themselves which they prefer: distant Washington or nearby Tehran. In my view, they will opt for nearby Tehran. A nuclear Iran is liable to take control of the energy sources in the Persian Gulf and of a very large slice of the world's oil supply. That will have far-reaching international implications. But a nuclear Iran will also challenge Israel and bring about a series of brutal conventional confrontations on our borders. That will have serious consequences for Israel.

"The third answer to your question is that one day the Iranian regime is liable to use its nuclear capability. That does not mean that the day after the Iranians acquire a bomb they will load it on a plane or a missile and drop it on a Western city. But there is a danger of the use of nuclear weapons by means of proxies. A terrorist organization could smuggle a dirty bomb into the port of New York or the port of London or the port of Haifa. I also do not rule out the possibility of the direct use of nuclear weapons by means of missiles. That risk is low, but it exists. That extreme scenario is not impossible."

But the Iranians are rational, and the use of nuclear weapons is an irrational act. Like the Soviets, they will never do that.

"A Western individual observing the fantastic ambitions of the Iranian leadership scoffs: 'What do they think, that they will Islamize us?' The surprising answer is: Yes, they think they will Islamize us: The ambition of the present regime in Tehran is for the Western world to become Muslim at the end of a lengthy process. Accordingly, we have to understand that their rationality is completely different from our rationality. Their concepts are different and their considerations are different. They are completely unlike the former Soviet Union. They are not even like Pakistan or North Korea. If Iran enjoys a nuclear umbrella and the feeling of strength of a nuclear power, there is no knowing how it will behave. It will be impossible to accommodate a nuclear Iran and it will be impossible to attain stability. The consequences of a nuclear Iran will be catastrophic."

Bombing too will have catastrophic consequences: a regional war, a religious war, thousands of civilians killed.

"Anyone who has experienced war, as I have, does not want war. War is a dire event. But the question is: What is the alternative? What is the other option to war? I told you once and will tell you again: If it is bomb or bombing, from my point of view it is bombing. True, bombing will have a price. We must not underestimate or overestimate that price. We have to assume that Israel will be attacked by Iranian missiles, many of which will be intercepted by the Arrow system. We have to assume that Hezbollah will join the confrontation and fire thousands of rockets at us. Rockets will also be fired from the Gaza Strip. The probability of Syria entering the fray is low, but we have to deploy for that possibility, too. I am not saying it will be easy. But when you pit all of that against the alternative of a nuclear Iran, there is no hesitation at all. It is preferable to pay the steep price of war than to allow Iran to acquire military nuclear capability. That's as clear as day, as far as I am concerned."

How many casualties will we have? Hundreds? Thousands?

"I cannot estimate how many will be killed, but I suggest that we not terrify ourselves. Every person killed is great sorrow. But we have to be ready to pay the price that is required so that Iran does not go nuclear. Again: I hope it does not come to that. I hope that it will be done by others. In the Iranians' eyes, Israel is only the Little Satan, and the United States is the Great Satan. But as I told you: If I am not for myself, who will be for me? "

Hezbollah scenario

Hezbollah can hit every place in Israel today: population centers, army bases, strategic targets. Doesn't the scenario of a massive missile attack make you lose sleep?

"My assessment is that Hezbollah will enter the fray. But what happened in the Second Lebanon War will not be repeated. The way to stop the rockets is to exact from the other side a price that will oblige it to ask for a cease-fire. We have the ability to hit Hezbollah with 150 times the explosives that it can hit us with. We can also do it a lot more accurately. If we are attacked from inside Lebanon, the government of Lebanon will bear very great responsibility."

You answered my question about the home front. But what about the argument that bombing will spark a permanent religious war and will unify the Iranian people around the regime? What about the argument that bombing will in fact cause the collapse of the sanctions and allow Iran to go confrontational and hurtle openly toward nuclear capability?

"First things first and last things last. In regard to a religious war, isn't the regime in Iran waging a religious war against us today? In regard to the people unifying behind the regime: I do not accept that. I think that an operation could even destabilize the regime. In my estimation, 70 percent of the Iranians will be happy to be rid of the regime of the ayatollahs.

"Let me reply in greater detail to the argument that Iran will hurtle toward nuclearization on the day after the bombing. Those who focus the debate on the narrow technological aspect of the problem can argue that all that will be achieved is a delay of a year or two, not much more. If so, they will say, 'What did we accomplish? What did we gain?' But the question is far broader. One of the important elements here is to convince the Iranian regime that the West is determined to prevent its acquisition of nuclear capability. And what demonstrates greater determination than the use of force?

"Therefore, it is wrong for us to view a military operation and its results only from an engineering point of view. I want to remind you that in the discussions of the security cabinet before the Israeli attack on [the nuclear reactor in] Iraq, the experts claimed that Saddam Hussein would acquire a new reactor with a year. They were right from the engineering aspect but mistaken historically. If Iran does go confrontational and tries openly to manufacture nuclear weapons, it will find itself in a head-on confrontation with the international community. The president of the United States has undertaken that Iran will not be a nuclear power. If Iran defies him directly, it will have to deal with him and will embark upon a collision course with the West."

But the Americans are with us. The Americans will rescue us. Why jump in head-first?

"There is agreement between the United States and us on the goal, and agreement on intelligence and close cooperation. But we are in disagreement about the red line. For the Americans, the red line is an order by [Ayatollah] Khamenei to build a nuclear bomb. For us, the red line is Iranian ability to build a nuclear bomb.

"We do not accept the American approach for three reasons. First, because it implies that Iran can be a threshold-power which, as long as it does not manufacture nuclear weapons in practice is allowed to possess the ability to manufacture them. Second, because in our assessment there is no certainty that it will be possible to intercept in time the precious report that Khamenei finally gave the order to build a bomb. Third, there is a disparity between the sense of threat and urgency in Jerusalem and the sense of threat and urgency in Washington."

Yet, Israel is not believed either internationally or domestically. The feeling is that Israel is crying wolf and playing a sophisticated game of 'Hold me back.'

"Let me say one thing to you in English, because it is very important for English speakers to understand it: 'We are not bluffing.' If the political-economic pressure is played out and the other alternatives are played out, and Iran continues to hurtle toward a bomb, decisions will have to be made."

Is there a danger that the Iranian crisis will reach its peak already in the year ahead?

"There was a time when we talked about a decade. Afterward we talked about years. Now we are talking about months. It is possible that the sanctions will suddenly work. But presently we are in a situation that necessitates a daily check. I am not exaggerating: daily. From our point of view, Iranian ability to manufacture nuclear weapons is a sword held over our throat. The sword is getting closer and closer. Under no circumstances will Israel agree to let the sword touch its throat."

'Cruel truth'

Bogie, what happened to you? You are a Mapainik from the Labor-oriented Haifa suburbs, a kibbutznik and a Rabinist from Oslo. Why did you suddenly move to beyond the hills of darkness of the right? Isn't it odd for you to wake up in the morning and discover that you have become a Likudnik?

"The question is not what happened to me but what happened to the camp in which I grew up. The Labor Movement had Yitzhak Tabenkin and Yigal Allon and Yitzhak Rabin. Even Rabin, from the Oslo process, was never from Peace Now. A month before he was assassinated he spoke in the Knesset about an eternally unified Jerusalem, and about the Jordan Rift Valley under Israeli sovereignty and about a Palestinian entity that would be less than a state. Rabin supported the Allon Plan in the broad sense and was firmly against a withdrawal to the 1967 lines ... Morally, mortal danger overcomes land, but in practice giving up land causes mortal danger. That is the reality we live in. That is the truth, however cruel."

Let's assume there is no "land for peace," but that there is "land for Zionism" - land in return for our ability to maintain a Jewish democratic state that does not commit suicide by occupation and settlements.

"As long as the other side is not ready to recognize our right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people, I am not ready to forgo a millimeter. I am not even willing to talk about territory. After land-for-peace became land-for-terror and land-for-rockets, I am no longer willing to bury my head in the sand. In the reality of the Middle East what is needed is stability above all. Stability is achieved not by means of imaginary agreements on the White House lawn but by means of defense, by means of a thick stick and a carrot."

And we can live like this for another 20 years?

"We can live like this for another 100 years, too."

But we are rotting away, Bogie. Demographically, politically and morally, we are rotting.

"The demographic argument is a lie. As for the political legitimacy, I prefer to operate against a threatening entity from within the present lines. And morally, as long as the Palestinians do not recognize the right of existence of a Jewish state, they are the aggressor. After all, they do not recognize my right to live in Tel Aviv, either. From their point of view, the occupation did not begin in 1967 but in 1948. Anyone who claims otherwise is throwing sand in your eyes or deceiving himself."

And what do you propose for the future? Another 100 settlements? A million Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria?

"The establishment of more settlements touches on political and state sensitivities. But there are now already 350,000 settlers in Judea and Samaria. If the political reality does not change, their number could rise to a million."

If so, what kind of reality will we be living in 10 years from now? A million Jews in Judea and Samaria, the Palestinians with no state and the two populations intermingled?

"The Palestinians will have autonomy and have their own parliament. I can tolerate that state of affairs. Any other state of affairs will be irresponsible in security terms. Do you want snipers in Jerusalem? Do you want rockets hitting Ben-Gurion airport? It is the Palestinians who are placing us in this difficult situation.

"I was ready to divide the land. They are not ready to divide the land and recognize my right to exist here within some sort of border. Therefore, because they say 'either them or us,' I say 'us.' Until I hear Abu Mazen [Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas] say there is a Jewish people with a connection to the Land of Israel, and until I see the three-year-old in Ramallah learning that Israel has a right to exist − that is the state of affairs."

If so, there will be no peace, no withdrawal and no Palestinian state. There will be no two-state solution.

"In the present situation 'solution' is a dirty word. One of our biggest problems is that we have become solution-oriented and now-oriented and expect a solution now. We believe that we are omnipotent and have the ability to find a solution to this problem which torments us. But I believe a person should be more modest. What's needed is not to look for a solution but to look for a path. There are problems in life that have no solution. And at the moment the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a problem with no solution. Anyone who suggests a solution-now of one kind or another is not suggesting a true solution but a false illusion. A golden calf. Self-deception."

Syrian debacle

Bogie, I understand what you are saying, but it is impossible live with what you are saying. All you are offering me is a wall, an iron wall, a determined stance. There is no hope in your words. No latitude. No movement toward some sort of horizon.

"I am actually very optimistic. I see where my grandfather and grandmother were and where my parents were and where I am and where my children are − and I see that time is not working against us. Time works in favor of everyone who knows how to take advantage of it. That is the secret of Zionism. And when our ethos is to build and the ethos of the other side is to destroy, our ethos will triumph. But what we have to free ourselves of is being solution-oriented and now-oriented and of self-blame. We have to free ourselves of the way of thinking that holds that if I give to the enemy and if I please the enemy, the enemy will give me quiet. That is an Ashkenazi way of thinking; it is not connected to the reality of the Middle East."

The Damascus regime understands that very well and is defending its honor by killing thousands of innocent civilians. Aren't you concerned that the chaos in Syria will result in chemical weapons being smuggled out of that country?

"As of now, we are seeing good control by the Syrians of their chemical weapons supplies. But everyone with eyes in his head should prepare for future developments. There is international deployment in this regard. The Western states are focused on securing the stocks of chemical weapons in Syria."

With your permission, as the interview draws to a close, we will move to a few personal pleasures. Why do you despise Ehud Barak?

"When you live in a military system, you are living within a particular ethical system. There are values, there are codes, there is high regard even when there is no agreement. When you see someone distancing himself from those values, a crisis ensues, and disappointment. It is a moral disappointment."

At the moment we are going through a serious moral crisis as reflected in the Harpaz affair. Where do you stand in regard to that grave issue?

"It is hard for me to read what is being published. What is being published demands explanations from the two bureaus and from the two people who headed those bureaus. It's clear that what this affair did not have was a responsible adult. Now it is necessary to complete the clarification process as quickly as possible, whether by completing the state comptroller's report or by a criminal investigation. If I were defense minister I would have treated the wound when it was small, and not allowed it to become a festering abscess that damages the government, the army and the country's security."

But you are not the defense minister; you are a kind of upgraded minister without portfolio. Yair Lapid claims that this is a form of corruption.

"There is a knight-on-a-white-horse phenomenon in Israeli politics: the Democratic Movement for Change, Shinui, the Center Party, Kadima. These knights appear like fireflies and then disappear. Why? Because they do not possess an ideological backbone, only rhetoric that generates white hope of a white knight on a white horse. Regrettably, there are fools who flock to these white knights.

"I certainly welcome everyone who is ready to plunge his hands into the cold water of politics. Truly. But it seems to me a little pretentious to appear on television and write columns in a newspaper and think that you can be prime minister. A little humility, a little responsibility. First work as an MK, then become a minister, prove that you can manage a system. Occupy yourself with questions of life and death, like the ones I dealt with for 37 years. I find the notion that you can move from the media to being the leader of the country a bit childish."

But you suffer from the opposite problem. You are tough, you are grim. There is a feeling that you are uncomfortable on television and on the stage and in the public arena.

"I am in the game and I have to play by the rules of the game, but it's possible that people also discern that it's hard for me."

And the goal is to win the game: to become prime minister?

"One of the good things in Likud is that when there is a leader, he gets backing. No attempt is made to subvert him. But in the remote future, after a lot more water flows in the Jordan and Benjamin Netanyahu decides that he no longer wants to head the party and the country, we will be in a different situation. I definitely see myself contesting the leadership. The premiership, too."

To Go To Top


Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 28, 2012

 This article was written by Angela Melvin and is archived at

Allen West has his eyes open, and his finger on the pulse. Let's hope someone will convince the sheople where our modern pied piper is dragging them.

Rep. West's Statement on the United States Supreme Court Healthcare Ruling

(WASHINGTON) — Congressman Allen West (R-FL) released this statement today after the United States Supreme Court announced it has ruled to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:

"The United States Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by extending the power of the United States Congress to tax Americans' behavior. This is a sad day for Americans, as they will be taxed to pay for benefits they may not need or want as part of the insurance they are forced to buy. With this decision, Congress has been granted infinite taxation power, and there are no longer any limits on what the federal government can tax its citizens to do.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will hit the middle class especially hard, as hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost as businesses try to avoid the penalties and costs created by the healthcare law. The healthcare law will cost trillions of dollars, raise costs for employers and create huge incentives for them to drop health insurance.

Benjamin Franklin did indeed state, 'In this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.' However, Dr. Franklin never envisioned the federal government would use its power of taxation to punish people for not purchasing health care. Today, individual sovereignty in America has been defeated."

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at

To Go To Top


Posted by Act for America, June 28, 2012

Since the toppling of Hosni Mubarek, there have been a number of reports regarding Obama administration behind-the-scenes support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The Washington Times reports the latest below.

You may recall that in 2009, when Iranians rose up in protest of the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, President Obama refused to issue even a statement of support for the protestors. His justification was that we shouldn't get involved in the internal politics of Iran.

Apparently no such reluctance existed for the Obama administration to get involved in the internal politics of Egypt—on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood.

 This article comes from Ahram Online and is archived at

Egyptian secular and liberal parties sounded dissatisfaction over the reported support of the US for Muslim Brotherhood's presidential candidate, Mohamed Mursi, but affirmed they would accept the results of the elections due to be announced Sunday.

During a press conference Saturday, representatives of the Free Egyptians Party, the Democratic Front Party, the Revolution Continues Coalition, the Tagammu Party and the Kifaya Movement opened fire on the Brotherhood, voicing suspicion over the group's sudden change of stance towards the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF). ...

Several speakers at the press conference further condemned what they believe to be US intervention in Egypt's domestic affairs. Harb claimed the US was pressuring SCAF to hand over power to the Muslim Brotherhood. "We refuse that the reason someone wins is because he is backed by the Americans," said Harb demanding that the Brotherhood should refuse US intervention.

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam.

To Go To Top


Posted by Hsaaba, June 28, 2012

Prof. Martin Sherman, who lives in Israel and writes a Friday column for the Jerusalem Post, has brilliantly presented the sane, sensible, insightful view on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Today, as we see and hear President Obama congratulating the Muslim Brotherhood winner, Morsi, in the Egyptian elections, at the same time that Morsi declares his desire to unite with Iran and Hamas and to "reconsider" the 1979 "peace" treaty with Israel, the need for clarity and honesty is more pronounced than ever. Please read Martin Sherman's article and join the cheering section for him. His work should be syndicated with all his articles appearing in print publications everywhere. Perhaps some of the editors reading this email will consider running his articles. They would be doing their readers a great service. Prof. Sherman closes his article with the following statement: After reading his article, you'll understand that this paragraph is so profound:

Imbecility and impotence

But perhaps the only thing more distressing than the imbecility of the Israeli Left is the impotence of the Israel Right, for not effectively combatting this lunacy; for in effect being guilty of totally unwarranted intellectual surrender; for in fact adopting the policy of their political rivals - not because their previous criticisms proved wrong but despite them being proved right.

When both reason, and reality fail to impact on two-staters, Arab-appeasers, Muslim-mollifiers, perhaps all that remains is ridicule.

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. — Euripides

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. — George Orwell

I must admit to a growing sense of exasperation and impatience with the imbecility (or iniquity) of the Israeli Left and the impotence (or insincerity) of the Israeli Right. So if my frustration expresses itself more intemperately than usual - my apologies.

The crumbling edifice

But when confronted with such infuriating dogmatism on the one hand, and inept dereliction on the other, everyone has his limit when it comes to courtesy and decorum.

And there are indeed limits - a limit to how long one can extend the benefit of the doubt to those who insist on advancing a consistently failed policy and still continue to believe they are doing so in good faith.

Or a limit on continuing to believe that those who ostensibly oppose this policy, but refrain from offering any real alternative, are sincere in their opposition to it.

The entire edifice of conventional wisdom regarding the Arab-Israel conflict is collapsing. The bedrock upon which the traditional approaches to a resolution of Middle East hostilities are based is crumbling, the fabric of accepted thinking unraveling.

The folly of a deal on the Golan with the Assad regime, the absurdity of an agreement with the unelected Fatah regime, the myopia of reliance on the durability of the peace with Egypt are all becoming increasingly obvious.

Yet to judge from the public discourse on developments in the Middle East it seems that nothing has changed.

Refusal to recognize realities

As if living in an alternative universe, pundits prattle on about the importance of the preservation the peace agreement with Egypt - which, at best, was no more than a non-belligerence accord - apparently oblivious to the fact that it has become little more than a nostalgic figment of the past, totally discordant with the prevailing mood across the land of the Nile.

As this week's rocket attacks indicate, Sinai will either become a hotbed of jihadist terror, which even the sturdiest of hi-tech fences with not impede for long, or it will be remilitarized. It might become both. For recent calls from Israel for Egypt to "exercise its sovereignty" to thwart such attacks constitute an invitation for the deployment of additional Egyptian troops in the demilitarized peninsula. Without such deployment Cairo can always claim it is incapable of combatting renegades forces that have taken control of much of the area.

However, given the less than amicable sentiments in Cairo toward Israel, it is in no way improbable that these reinforcements will have neither the resolve nor the inclination to reign in the activities of the anti-Israeli gangs. Or that they will be less than meticulous in preventing their own arms and equipment from falling into jihadist hands - whether via theft or mutually profitable trade.

The failure to control the terrorists will in all likelihood be followed by demands to increase Egyptian military capabilities in Sinai even more. Given the paramount importance ascribed to the dead-letter peace accord, these will doubtless be agreed to by Israel.

Clearly this process will lead to increasing erosion of the demilitarization of Sinai - the principal, arguably the only, benefit Israel derived from the 1979 peace treaty.

No Sinai, no peace, no demilitarization

Accordingly, it is far from implausible that soon Israel will face an openly hostile regime ensconced in Cairo, a significant and potentially belligerent military force deployed in Sinai, and active radical terrorist groups operating against its southern front - from Gaza to Eilat - either aided or unhindered by Egyptian regulars.

It would therefore be no more than self-evident prudence for Israeli strategic planners to adopt as their working assumption that the reality Israel will soon have to confront will be one of Three No's: No Peace, No Sinai, No Demilitarization. Yet there seems little evidence that such dour realism is driving the agenda of the strategic discourse.

If anything, quite the opposite is true. It appears that the seismic shifts in the region have barely impacted the discussion concerning Israel's policy options and imperatives.

Apparently impervious to the strategic significance of the tectonic changes that have swept through the region, figures who shape the debate seem welded to the past, clinging to the hopelessly unrealistic notions such as a two-state resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, acceptance of Israel by the Arab world and the reconstitution of the Turco-Israeli alignment.

Only ridicule remains

The dogmatic intransigence of committed two-staters, Arab-appeasers and Muslim- mollifiers seems immutable by means of reason or rational argument. Unwilling to admit error - or even the possibility thereof - they appear incapable of bringing themselves to concede that their noxious brew of delusion and hubris has created a situation of mortal peril.

No matter how frequently the facts disprove their doctrinaire perspective, they never admit to it being discredited - stubbornly hoping against forlorn hope that somehow reality will eventually realize its mistake and see things their way.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that they are persisting in their proposal for a two-state solution and nearly unreserved accommodation of Arab demands, not because they think it is a formula that can provide a stable solution, but because they feel that if they admit it cannot, they will irreparably undermine their professional standing and personal prestige.

So if these folks can't be reasoned out of their untenable positions, perhaps they can be ridiculed out of them by underscoring - brusquely - how ludicrous and unrealistic, how disingenuous and hypocritical, how counter-productive and self-obstructive their proposals are. Or alternatively how subversive and seditious they are.

For in light of the recurring failure of their prognoses, there are only two explanations for their obduracy - malice or idiocy. And whatever the truth is, it must be exposed.

Stupid or subversive?

dennis ross

Dennis Ross (Photo: Brett Weinstein/Wikimedia Commons CC)

Take for instance Dennis Ross's latest "contribution" at this week's Presidential Conference in Jerusalem - where he prescribed that Israel should not only undermine its security, but its economy as well, "to restore belief in a two-state solution."

Predictably, Ross studiously disregarded the fact, once so compellingly conveyed by his host Shimon Peres, that "if a Palestinian state is established, it will be armed to the teeth. Within it there will be bases of the most extreme terrorist forces, who will be equipped with anti-tank and anti-aircraft shoulder-launched rockets, which will endanger not only random passersby, but also every airplane and helicopter taking off in the skies of Israel and every vehicle traveling along the major traffic routes in the Coastal Plain."

Ross suggested that the first step Israel should take to demonstrate that it is serious about a Palestinian state in the "West Bank" is to publicly announce that the government will provide financial compensation to settlers who are prepared to leave their homes and to move to "Israel proper."

Of course Ross, who today serves as a counselor for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and was a senior director in Barack Obama's National Security Council, offered no assurances that what is sweeping through the Arab world would not sweep through "Palestine" or what occurred in Gaza would not occur in Ramallah. Nevertheless, he suggested that the government go ahead and plan not only to bring millions more Israelis within the range of weapons being used today from territory Israel ceded to the Palestinians, but it should take measures that would increase both the demand (and hence the price) of housing in country, and the unemployment. Stupid or subversive?

Validating population resettlement

Of course Ross's proposal did have one positive element - it validated the notion of financing population relocation to achieve political ends.

For unless he subscribes to blatant double standards, how could he object to applying his suggested methodology to the Palestinians as well? After all, if there is nothing wrong with Israeli government financing voluntary resettlement of Jews to set up what is highly likely to be a failed, unsustainable micromini- state and a haven for Islamist terror, why should there be anything wrong with the Israeli government funding voluntary Palestinian resettlement to prevent the establishment of a what is highly likely to be a failed, unsustainable micro-mini state? Indeed, one might think that there are far more compelling reasons to pursue the later course than the former - especially for anyone mindful of the security of Israel and the safety of Israelis.

Dummy or dhimmi?

But Ross's counsel on Turkey is if anything even more outrageous. Ross said that it was in Jerusalem's long-term strategic interest to try to patch up the relationship, even at the cost of issuing an apology over the Mavi Marmara incident, as Ankara has demanded.

Quite apart from the fact that if any apology is forthcoming it should be from Ankara to Jerusalem, for allowing its citizens to create the violent confrontation with Israeli forces; quite apart from the fact that it is more than a little offensive to suggest that Israel should have to apologize for its soldiers' use of deadly force to prevent themselves being disemboweled, the logic behind his suggestion is as impaired as the morality behind it.

Ross waxes delusional, stating: "Turkey and Israel have an enormous common stake in Syria. Is it difficult to make an apology? Yes, I don't dismiss that. But how does that weigh against wider strategic interests you have in Syria and a region undergoing tremendous upheaval?" He goes on to claim that restoration of the relationship would have an impact on the whole region, and suggests imagining what a sobering affect this type of rapprochement would have on ascendant players such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

What planet does this guy inhabit? Can he really be unaware that Turkey has undergone a fundamental transformation, that it is no longer a Western-oriented secular state but a Islamic-oriented theocratic one, that its relations with Israel are a far more a function of what it has become, than of what Israel does - or doesn't do.

Of course one might well wonder: If there are so many strategic interests in common between Turkey and Israel, why doesn't Ross suggest that Ankara forgo its childish demand for an apology? Is that his "soft racism" of low expectations showing? Or is it the dhimmi in him that feels the need for submission to the Muslim demands? Or perhaps just the dummy?

Presidential perfidy?

And if we are still on the Presidential Conference, we need to ask a trenchant question: Can presidents be perfidious? For it would seem that there are elements of this conference that severely undermine the foreign policy of the elected government of Israel. Indeed it seems in some respects to seems to have out-"J"-ed J Street.

For whatever the motivations behind the invitation of individuals such as Peter Beinart who publicly advocate BDS measures (albeit partial) against the products of the nation, it cannot but be interpreted internationally as presidential endorsement of the proposal.

Why otherwise extend the invitation to someone who not only undermines important elements of Israeli diplomacy but whose proposals have also been repudiated by far-left organizations - including J Street itself.

But this is not the only troubling element on the invitation list.

Noam and Norman next?

Among the invited speakers was also Saeb Erekat who openly advocates the "right of return" which in effect would end the existence of Israel as the Jewish nation-state and obviate the essence of the Zionist endeavor.

In December 2010, Erekat the wrote the following in the British Guardian: "Today, Palestinian refugees constitute more than 7 million people worldwide - 70% of the entire Palestinian population. Disregarding their legitimate legal rights enshrined in international law to return to their homeland, would certainly make any peace deal signed with Israel completely untenable."

So one invitee advocates BDS; another the "right of return." Who can we expect next?

Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein?

Imbecility and impotence

A grim picture indeed.

But perhaps the only thing more distressing than the imbecility of the Israeli Left is the impotence of the Israel Right, for not effectively combatting this lunacy; for in effect being guilty of totally unwarranted intellectual surrender; for in fact adopting the policy of their political rivals - not because their previous criticisms proved wrong but despite them being proved right.

To Go To Top


Posted by Midenise, June 28, 2012

 The cartoon is archived at


Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav.

To Go To Top


Posted by Midenise, June 28, 2012

 This article was written by Matthew Boyle, an investigative reporter at the Daily Caller. It is archived at smoking-gun-and-holder-admitted-obama-cant-shield-it/

A single internal Department of Justice email could be the smoking-gun document in the Operation Fast and Furious scandal — if it turns out to contain what congressional investigators have said it does.

The document would establish that wiretap application documents show senior DOJ officials knew about and approved the gunwalking tactic in Fast and Furious. This is the opposite of what Attorney General Eric Holder and House oversight committee ranking Democratic member Rep. Elijah Cummings have claimed.

It appears that email would also prove senior DOJ officials, likely including Holder himself, knew in March 2011 that a Feb. 4, 2011 letter from the DOJ to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley falsely denied guns were permitted to "walk" into Mexico. The DOJ allowed that false letter to stand for nine more months, only withdrawing it in December 2011.

During the June 24 broadcast of Fox News Sunday, House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa cited the email as a "good example" of a specific document his committee knows Holder is hiding from Congress.

"The ATF director, Kenneth Melson, sent an e-mail. And he had said to us in sworn testimony that, in fact, he had concerns," Issa said. "And we want to see that e-mail because that's an example where he was saying, if we believe his sworn testimony, that guns walked. And he said it shortly after February 4, and [on] July 4. When he told us that, we began asking for that document."

But the details of it surfaced first when Grassley mentioned it for the first time publicly during a June 12 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where Holder was testifying.

"He [Melson] immediately sent an email warning others, 'back off the letter to Sen. Grassley in light of the information in the affidavits,'" Grassley explained.

Ken Melson, now the former acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, purportedly sent that email to several DOJ leaders in March 2011. According to Grassley, Melson wrote that he had reviewed the wiretap applications — the same documents Cummings and Holder claim do not show senior DOJ officials knew of or approved gunwalking tactics in Fast and Furious.

"ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson described reading those same wiretap affidavits in March of last year," Grassley told Holder during the Senate hearing. "He said he was alarmed that the information in the affidavits contradicted the public denial to Congress."

It appears Republican congressional investigators first learned of the Melson email's existence on July 4, 2011, when Melson chose to give a lengthy deposition on Fast and Furious without DOJ and ATF lawyers present. Grassley told Holder during the Senate hearing that congressional investigators first requested that the DOJ provide Congress with that email during July 2011, shortly after Melson made his then-secret trip across town to Capitol Hill.

The wiretap documents themselves are under federal court seal, leaving Grassley and Issa to tussle with Holder and Cumming about what they might show. Issa has said a whistleblower provided copies to his committee.

Holder has declined to ask the federal judge who sealed them to unseal them. The March 2011 Melson email, then, may be the only legal way — without violating a court order — to document the agreement of some senior Obama administration members with Issa's and Grassley's characterizations of the documents.

Melson's email could also prove that although senior DOJ officials knew in March 2011 that the Feb. 4, 2011 letter was false, they chose to continue misleading Congress with gunwalking denials for several months.

"We need to see it [the email] to corroborate his testimony," Grassley said during the June 12 hearing. "But the Department is withholding that email along with every other document after Feb. 4, 2011."

Grassley pressed Holder on the question of how DOJ had the authority to withhold Melson's email from Congress, a full week before President Obama indicated that he would invoke executive privilege to shield requested documents. At that time, Holder claimed the Melson email would not be protected by executive privilege.

"On what legal ground are you withholding that email?" He asked. "The president can't claim executive privilege to withhold that email, is that correct?"

"Well, let me just say this: We have reached out to Chairman Issa to work our way through these issues," Holder filibustered. "We have had sporadic contacts and we are prepared to make — I am prepared to make — compromises with regard to the documents that can be made available. There is a basis for withholding these documents if they deal with the deliberative ..."

"But not on executive privilege?" Grassley interrupted.

"No," Holder responded.

Holder spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler wouldn't answer when the Daily Caller asked her if the DOJ was planning to provide the Melson email to Congress.

Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav.

To Go To Top


Posted by Moshe Feiglin, June 28, 2012

Illustration courtesy of The Temple Institute

The commandment of the Red Heifer is one of those Divine directives that is beyond the scope of our understanding. Nevertheless, there are facets of this mitzvah that we can understand:

The ashes of the red heifer were a tool used to purify the highest degree of ritual impurity: death. Why would anyone have to purify himself after coming into contact with death? One simple reason: So that he may enter the Holy Temple.

The Creator is the source of life. He chose the Holy Temple on the Temple Mount as His dwelling place in this world. The source of ritual impurity is death. The closer we get to G-d's Divine Presence, the more that we must distance ourselves from death and get closer to life; to distance ourselves from ritual impurity and to be pure. That is why first degree ritual impurity is death, followed by lesser degrees of ritual impurity that stem from the cutting off of life on one level or another.

Immersion in a mikveh, a ritual pool, purifies from ritual impurities but not from the impurity of death. To be purified from that first degree impurity, special ritual waters are needed. These waters contain the ashes of the red heifer. This is why it is permissible to enter the Temple Mount after ritual immersion, but it is forbidden to enter the area where the Temple once stood; we do not have the ashes of the red heifer with which to purify ourselves. (This does not include entering where the Temple once stood within the framework of conquest).

When we make all the required preparations, immerse according to Jewish law and soberly ascend to the Temple Mount with non-leather shoes, as directed by halacha — we are at the closest possible point to the source of life. We carefully encircle the place where the Holy Temple once stood, leaving a wide berth of extra space to ensure that we do not step into any forbidden areas — and reach the eastern point opposite the heichal (sanctuary) of the Temple: the heichal that was and the heichal that will be.

From this point, we can view both the place where the Temple stood and the place where the priest who burned the red heifer stood, on the Mount of Olives. The priest who burned the red heifer had to retain eye contact with the Holy of Holies, because that is the place of the Foundation Stone, upon which the world is founded. If you open a map and draw a straight line from the Foundation Stone inthe Holy of Holies straight eastward, you can identify the place where the red heifer was burned. Today, that place is in the courtyard of the Greek Orthodox Church on the Mount of Olives. In the courtyard lie the foundations of a mound upon which the priest stood and burned the red heifer.

The priest looked at the Shushan Gate (near today's Gate of Rachamim) at the eastern wall of the Temple Mount. From there his gaze continued past the eastern gate of the Women's Section that was wide open, and on to the Nikanor Gate. From there the priest continued to look on through the Israelite Section, where he saw the smoke from the sacrifices rising straight up from the altar, the priests in their service and the Levites singing their praises. From there his gaze entered the gates of the Sanctuary, itself. (All the gates were open and were in a straight line).

Inside the Sanctuary, the gaze of the priest went past the Altar of the Incense, past the Showbread Table and the Menorah and reached the Parochet that covered the entrance to the Holy of Holies. With G-d's help, we will speedily re- build our Temple - and return to life. Shabbat Shalom, Moshe Feiglin

Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell). This article is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by Eli E. Hertz, June 28, 2012

All UN Draft Resolutions attempting to brand Israel as aggressor or illegal occupier as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War, were all defeated by either the UN General Assembly or the Security Council

Draft Resolution A/L.519,7 19 June 1967, submitted by: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, "Israel, in gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the universally accepted principles of international law, has committed a premeditated and previously prepared aggression against the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan."

Draft Resolution A/L.521,8 26 June 1967, submitted by: Albania "Resolutely condemns the Government of Israel for its armed aggression against the United Arab Republic, the Syrian Arab Republic and Jordan, and for the continuance of the aggression by keeping under its occupation parts of the territory of these countries."

Draft Resolution A/L.522/REV.3*,9 3 July 1967, submitted by: Afghanistan, Burundi, Cambodia, Ceylon, Congo (Brazzaville), Cyprus, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Senegal, Somalia, United Republic of Tanzania, Yugoslavia and Zambia. "Calls upon Israel to withdraw immediately all its forces to the positions they held prior to 5 June 1967."

Draft Resolution A/L.523/Rev.1,10 4 July 1967, submitted by: Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela. " Israel to withdraw all its forces from all the territories occupied by it as a result of the recent conflict."

In short, Israel did not violate the provisions of the UN Charter, is not an aggressor, and is not required to withdraw from all territories.

Eli E. Hertz is president of Myths and Facts, Inc. The organization's objective is to provide policymakers, national leadership, the media and the public-at-large with information and viewpoints that are founded on factual and reliable content. Contact him at This article is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by P. David Hornik, June 27, 2012


Not long ago the Arab Spring was seen as a harbinger of democracy. It turns out that, instead, it's creating breeding grounds for international terror—and safe havens for al-Qaeda itself.

That is not just a polemical opinion but the somber assessment of the director-general of Britain's MI5 internal security agency, Jonathan Evans. The Telegraph reports that Evans, in a rare lecture this week in London, warned that

Today parts of the Arab world have once more become a permissive environment for al-Qaeda.

This is the completion of a cycle — al-Qaeda first moved to Afghanistan in the 1990s due to pressure in their Arab countries of origin. They moved on to Pakistan after the fall of the Taliban.

And now some are heading home to the Arab world again....

Evans specifically said that British jihadis, who have been training for years at al-Qaeda strongholds in Yemen and Somalia, "are known to be receiving training in the likes of Libya and Egypt"—supposed beneficiaries of what some saw as a wave of Facebook-driven liberalization.

The MI5 chief also confirmed that al-Qaeda is now active in Syria, and "warned against suggestions that al-Qaeda's threat has 'evaporated' following the death of Osama bin Laden and significant victories in Pakistan." He noted that Britain, for its part, has "experienced a credible terrorist attack plot about once a year since 9/11."

Evans didn't say in what part of Egypt the jihadis are training. Israel, though, has been aware that—particularly since the winds of "spring" toppled Egypt's pro-Western Mubarak regime—the presence of al-Qaeda and other global-jihad elements has been rapidly growing at least in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula.

It was only last week that what is believed to be an al-Qaeda-linked group carried out a deadly attack at the fence Israel is trying to build quickly along its border with Sinai.

But Evans's words carry implications beyond the region and beyond Britain's own very real security concerns.

For one thing, his point that bin Laden's assassination (along with the killing of other terror leaders in Pakistan) has hardly finished off al-Qaeda tends to undercut the great emphasis President Obama has put on that exploit.

Still more significant, though, is the fact that "permissive environments" where al-Qaeda is coming back to roost—"Arab Spring" countries like Egypt, Libya, and Syria—are also places where the Muslim Brotherhood has been gaining strength.

And Obama, while readily identifying al-Qaeda as evil and an enemy of America and the free world, notoriously looks at the Brotherhood differently. Indeed, his administration has made a point of repeatedly lauding the election of Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi as Egypt's new president.

For those free of a sentimental affinity for the Brotherhood, it of course makes perfect sense that it would be cultivating environments where al-Qaeda feels welcome. The Brotherhood is, after all, the organization from which Al-Qaeda sprang. Bin Laden had Brotherhood teachers in his youth, and current al-Qaeda head Ayman al-Zawahiri was a member of the Brotherhood in his native country of Egypt.

Indeed, the Brotherhood condemned Bin Laden's assassination, proclaiming that "legitimate resistance against foreign occupation in any country is a legitimate right" and "request[ing] that the US stop...intelligence operations against dissenters, and halt its interference in the internal affairs of any Arab or Muslim country." In other words, a direct rebuff to what the U.S. president flaunts as a heroic moment.

A rational U.S., and Western, approach to the rapidly changing—and deteriorating—Arab Middle East requires not only recognizing that al-Qaeda is returning there, as MI5 chief Evans underscores. It also requires realizing that, while they have tactical differences and sometimes frictions, al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are two closely related facets of the same global-jihadist, anti-Semitic, anti-American, anti-Western phenomenon.

Specific policy implications would include ceasing to back the wrong side—the Brotherhood—in Egypt instead of the right side—the more moderate and much more pragmatic Supreme Military Council; ceasing to back the Syrian rebels now that the Brotherhood-al-Qaeda front is spearheading them; and trying to prevent (which, according to one report from Middle East News Line, the U.S. is now starting to do) al-Qaeda-aligned militias from taking over Libya while there is still time.

Forestalling the region's descent into an even worse, world-threatening maelstrom depends on finally starting to see it clearly.

David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Beersheva. He blogs at This article is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by Janet Lehr, June 27, 2012

 This article was written by Jonah Lowenfeld and is archived at pamela_geller_barred_from_speaking_at_jewish_federatio

The take-away from this: no longer can Jews in the diaspora allow themselves to be shaped by the prevailing notion of 'the big tent.' One size does not fit all, and there is no sense for ZOA to attempt to fit into the 51 member organization that is the Conference of Presidents (COP).

It is pathetic how many Jews do not know who their friends (and enemies) are. Jewish Federation has never been too bright - Shoshanna

Anti-Muslim activist barred from speaking at Jewish Federation headquarters

The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles barred anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller from delivering a previously scheduled speech at its Wilshire Boulevard headquarters on Sunday, June 24.

Geller, who is Jewish, had been set to address the Western Region of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) with a speech titled "Islamic Jew Hatred: The Root Cause of the Failure to Achieve Peace." The Sunday morning event, announced in early June, was abruptly canceled just hours before it was to take place.

The event was later moved to another location, the Mark in Pico-Robertson, but not before the 30 would-be attendees stood in protest on the sidewalk in front of Federation headquarters holding signs reading, "Jews! Don't Silence Other Jews! Shame on the Jewish Federation."

"I'm a proud, fierce Zionist," Geller told the crowd, decrying the decision to cancel her event. "And the takeaway from this is that Zionists are not welcome at L.A. Jewish Federation."

According to ZOA National Vice Chairman Steven Goldberg, who said he spoke with Los Angeles' Federation President Jay Sanderson early Sunday morning, the reason for the cancelation was fear that local Muslim groups might protest outside the building.

"They need spinal implants," Goldberg said of Federation leaders, noting the absence of protesters.

Despite repeated requests to multiple officials at the Federation on Sunday and Monday, Federation did not offer any comment on why the event was cancelled. A statement from a coalition of Muslim, Christian and Jewish groups condemning Federation for hosting the event was circulated via email on Saturday afternoon. A second statement, commending Federation for the cancellation of the event, was circulated by the same group on Sunday morning.

ZOA has been a tenant at Federation headquarters for less than a year, and ZOA's local executive director Orit Arfa said she had filed an official request to use a board room in the building about a month in advance of the Geller event. ZOA also requested the event be listed on the Jewish Federation's own website. Both requests, Arfa said, were approved.

Geller, who blogs at, is known for her strident criticism of all things Muslim. She first gained national prominence in 2010 when she led opposition to a proposed Islamic cultural center in Lower Manhattan, and she has since supported efforts in other cities to oppose mosque construction. She told the New York Times in 2010 that she does not believe in the existence of a "moderate" Islam, and that "a moderate Muslim is a secular Muslim."

The resulting publicity has made Geller perhaps the best-known anti-Muslim activist in the United States, and she has drawn the criticism of organizations that track hate groups and hate speech.

Stop the Islamization of America (SOIA), a group co-founded by Geller in 2010, has been branded a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Oren Segal, the director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Center on Extremism, said in an interview on Friday that while his group and others have concerns about radical Muslim individuals and groups, Geller goes further, to the point of xenophobia.

"The difference between [Geller and] legitimate criticism about the very serious threat of radical Islam," Segal said, "is that she vilifies the entire Islamic faith by making assertions that there are conspiracies against American values inherent in Islam."

Geller hinted at the threats she perceives in her remarks at another local event she organized on Saturday, June 23, the day before the Federation barred her from entering through its doors.

"You are at war and you are the soldier," Geller told a crowd of about 200 people who had come to a hotel in Manhattan Beach to hear from a panel of former Muslims. The event was designed as a protest to an event being held simultaneously less than three miles away by the Greater Los Angeles Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA).

"We have an Islamophilic president," Geller said, and described the upcoming U.S. Presidential election as a crucial moment. "Afterwards, I think we're going to have to go underground. I'm not overstating it. We live in a very, very dangerous time."

Meanwhile, at the nearby Redondo Beach Performing Arts Center, about 500 Muslim men, women and children could be found in the parking lot outside, eating ice cream, Indian food or Fuddrucker's cheeseburgers made with halal meat.

The program for CAIR-LA's "A Summer Night for Civil Rights" included a pair of comedians and a few musical acts, separated by a short intermission, when the entire crowd filed out of the auditorium and into an adjacent courtyard for the prayer that takes place at sunset. Men and women, standing separately, removed their shoes and stood at the edges of long strips of butcher paper taped to the concrete. The prayers, conducted in Arabic, took about 10 minutes.

"The people behind Islamophobia are being exposed," CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush told the crowd, noting that groups like his are pushing back against those who target Muslims. "Muslims are becoming, I guess, assertive, proud, courageous and standing up for their rights and standing up for their identity."

In an interview on Monday, Ayloush said that he hadn't known Geller was Jewish until last week, and that his group had initially intended to say nothing about her June 23 counter-protest.

"When we found out that she was actually speaking at the Jewish Federation, which is a mainstream organization, we couldn't ignore that anymore," Ayloush said.

Indeed, Geller, who referred on Saturday to the CAIR-LA event as "A Sumer Night for Islamic Supremacy" has not been CAIR's only critic. ADL's website includes a full description of CAIR's refusal "to unequivocally condemn by name Hezbollah and Palestinian terror organizations," as well as citations of statements by Ayloush calling for an end to Zionism, likening it to the apartheid regime in South Africa and declaring it to be "a political ideology whose tentacles are rooted in racism."

But, said the ADL's Segal, CAIR's background does not justify the kinds of verbal and written attacks Geller has launched against Islam as a whole and the way she has painted all religious American Muslims as extremists.

"The fact that Pamela Geller also notes the fact that CAIR has these issues, that doesn't mean that the other things she says about Muslims as a whole are legitimate," Segal said.

Ayloush, for his part, said that CAIR-LA's primary aim is to secure the civil rights of Muslim Americans, and that he stands by his criticism of Zionism, which, he said, "certainly helped deal with the plight of the Jewish people in Europe after the Holocaust and World War II, but unfortunately, it came at the expense of creating a new plight for the Palestinian people."

Ayloush, who praised the ADL for taking a strong stance against Geller, called the criticisms of his group by the ADL "ironic," and cited the opposition of the group's longtime national director, Abe Foxman, to the Islamic center in Lower Manhattan in 2010.

"While CAIR has been at the forefront of defending the rights of Muslims, Jews and all other religious minorities in America, ADL was at the forefront of opposing the right of Muslims to build a mosque in New York."

It was CAIR-LA that circulated the statement late Saturday from an interfaith coalition that included five other Muslim groups, one progressive Christian group and two leftist Jewish groups, the Los Angeles chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace and L.A. Jews for Peace condemning Federation's decision to give a platform to Geller. The group also circulated a second statement the next day commending the Federation's decision to prevent the event from taking place.

Salam Al-Maryati is president in Los Angeles of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which took part in the interfaith coalition. He said on Monday that while he is happy to engage with Jewish groups, even groups like the ZOA, he appreciated Federation's cancellation of the event, which he saw as taking a stand against Geller.

"Let's start to make distinctions between those who are passionate, and maybe even emotional at times, from extremists who are promoting ideological violence between our communities," Al-Maryati said.

Asked whether the ZOA endorses Geller's views on Islam, Goldberg, the national vice chair, demurred, and said Geller should have been free to speak at Los Angeles' Jewish Federation headquarters.

"Even if you disagree, let her speak here," Goldberg said."What's the harm? What's the harm of freedom of speech?"

Geller has addressed at least one other ZOA chapter in the past, a speech to the Philadelphia chapter in March 2012, which, according to her blog, took place without incident at the offices of the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia.

Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of the daily e-mail "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at

To Go To Top


Posted by John R. Cohn, June 27, 2012

To the editor,

Like Captain Renault in the classic film Casablanca, European diplomats "expressed shock" at a "baldly anti-Semitic speech" at an international conference in Iran ("Iran's Vice President Makes Anti-Semitic Speech at Forum", June 27). Casablanca's fictional police commander was "shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here," collecting his winnings while expressing his surprise. Europeans have a long history of encouraging anti-Semitism, outrageous slanders all too often serving as a pretext for the slaughter that followed. Middle Eastern purveyors of anti-Semitism are invited to the most fashionable places, including the UN and its Human Rights Council along with prominent universities, as the self-righteous endorse divestment and boycotts of Israeli products. Israelis are made unwelcome across Europe, and even the American government excluded Israelis, surely the world's experts on confronting terrorism, from a recent international counter-terrorism conference to avoid offending the bigots.

I am shocked they are shocked.

John R. Cohn

The article below was written by Thomas Erdbrink. It appeared June 26, 2012 and is entitled "Iran's Vice President Makes Anti-Semitic Speech at Forum." A version of this article appeared in print on June 27, 2012, on page A5 of the New York edition of the New York Times with the headline: "Iran's Vice President Makes Anti-Semitic Speech at Forum. "
( makes-anti-semitic-speech.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print)

TEHRAN — Iran's vice president delivered a baldly anti-Semitic speech on Tuesday at an international antidrug conference here, saying that the Talmud, a central text of Judaism, was responsible for the spread of illegal drugs around the world.

European diplomats in attendance expressed shock. Even Iranian participants in the conference, co-sponsored by Iran and the United Nations, privately wondered at their government's motive for allowing such a speech, even given its longstanding antagonism toward Israel. More than 25,000 Jews live in Iran, and they are recognized as a religious minority, with a representative in Parliament.

The speech by Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi seemed bound to isolate Iran further just days before a new set of onerous Western economic sanctions, notably a European embargo on Iranian oil, is set to be enforced because of the longstanding dispute over Iran's nuclear program. Iran says the program is peaceful, and Western nations and Israel suspect it is a cover to develop the ability to make nuclear weapons.

Mr. Rahimi, second in line to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said the Talmud teaches to "destroy everyone who opposes the Jews."

The "Zionists" are in firm control of the illegal drug trade, Mr. Rahimi said, asking foreign dignitaries to research his claims. "Zionists" is Iran's ideological term for Jews who support the state of Israel.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran will pay for anybody who can research and find one single Zionist who is an addict," Mr. Rahmini said. "They do not exist. This is the proof of their involvement in drugs trade."

What made his remarks even more striking is that Iran's fight against illegal drugs is one of the few issues on which the Islamic republic can count on Western sympathy. Iran's battle to stop the flow of drugs coming in from neighboring Afghanistan has often been mentioned as a potential field of cooperation during negotiations over the country's nuclear program.

Several Iranian ministers gave politically neutral briefings on the impact of the drug trade on the country. Antonio De Leo, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime representative in Iran, praised the Islamic republic as a "key strategic partner in the fight against drugs."

Mr. Rahimi, who spoke after Mr. De Leo, told stories of gynecologists' killing black babies on the orders of the Zionists and claimed that the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was started by Jews, adding that mysteriously, no Jews died in that uprising.

He also said the Talmud teaches Jews to think that they are a superior race. "They think God has created the world so that all other nations can serve them," he said. Halfway through his speech, Mr. Rahimi said there was a difference between Jews who "honestly follow the prophet Moses" and the Zionists, who are "the main elements of the international drugs trade."

A European diplomat said afterward: "This was definitely one of the worst speeches I have heard in my life. My gut reaction was: why are we supporting any cooperation with these people?"

But the diplomat, who declined to be identified by name or country, defended his presence at the conference. "If we do not support the United Nations on helping Iran fight drugs, voices like the one of Mr. Rahimi will be the only ones out there," he said.

Contact Dr. John R. Cohn at

To Go To Top


Posted by GWY, June 27, 2012

 This is a letter sent to the New York Times and written by Leo Rennert.

The New York Times makes light of Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Israel ("Putin Visits Israel for a Day" news summary page A2; "Just Passing Through, Putin Consults With Israeli Leaders on Syria and Iran" headline, page A6)

The brevity of the visit, which the Times turns into a putdown, pales in contrast to its jam-packed agenda — extensive discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu on Iran, Syria and other hot topics that ran two hours longer than scheduled; a state dinner with President Shimon Peres and a highly symbolic and emotional trip to Netanya for the unveiling of a memorial to Soviet soldiers killed fighting Nazi Germany. It didn't go unnoticed by Putin that he was in a country populated by more than 1 million Soviet immigrants, including 10,000 Red Army veterans. His Netanya address affirmed deep and growing ties between Moscow and Jerusalem.

Underscoring the substantive nature of the visit, the Russian leader brought with him an entourage of 400 government officials, business people and journalists, who spread out and conferred with Israeli colleagues.

Hardly a "just passing through" event. However brief it may have been, it trumped the continued absence of Barack Obama, who has yet to set foot in the Jewish state since becoming president, while showing no such reticence in visits to Arab countries. Israelis might have been delighted with even a "passing through" visit to match Putin's, but they're still waiting.

Contact GWY at

To Go To Top


Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 27, 2012

Credit: JPost
 (Credit: JPost)

Yesterday, the first 15 families living in the five Ulpana houses slated for evacuation, by order of the High Court, moved out to their temporary homes ("caravillas" — a misnomer, I think) on the grounds of a former army base.

They went quietly but with deep sadness — knowing in their hearts that an injustice was being done to them. I carry that same knowledge in my heart.

I dealt with this issue of the injustice in some detail in a recent posting that can be accessed here.


And yet, I believe they acted properly in deciding to go quietly. No active protest — as was seen at Migron — would have prevented this evacuation. What it would have done is to pit Jew against Jew — providing ugly fodder for the international press.

Their fighting would have convinced no one who did not already understand the rightness of their position, nor would it have reversed the situation. Rather, it would have provided "evidence," for those quick to assert this, of the inherent violence of "settlers." And it would have traumatized the children.

"We don't believe in clashing with security personnel," resident Michal Kramer told Israel Radio yesterday.

The pain of these residents and their sense of having been wronged has been made clear in public statements they have released. Yesterday, one resident told YNET:

"This is a personal moment of grief, I'm in mourning. Our hearts are broken, but we will hold our heads up high. No one will break our spirit."


Whether the "victories" that have been negotiated, such as the building of 300 houses on that army base in Beit El, actually materialize will in large part depend upon the sincerity and determination of the prime minister.


The day began with an early morning outdoor prayer service.

The day began with an early morning outdoor prayer service.
 (Credit: Gil Yohanan)

Following this, personnel arranged for by the Defense Ministry came to move the residents; reportedly every effort was being made to ease the physical move.

The remaining families are due to be moved tomorrow. Four families have said they will "passively resist."

The State has appealed to the High Court for an additional three months to take down the houses that are being evacuated. For the plan is not to simply tear them down, but to dismantle them and reassemble them on the army base — although there are some dubious at to whether this can actually be done.


Also painful are the recent words of Ronald Lauder, because as president of the World Jewish Congress he does not speak only for himself.

Lauder, who recently met Abbas in London, has declared:

"There has never been a better time to make a peace treaty between the two peoples. If both sides can sit down, I think a deal could be made quickly. I fear that unless something happens to restart negotiations in the next several months, it could lead to another "Palestinian intifada."

How to begin to address the errors of this pathetic statement? Of course, the time is anything but ripe for an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. And to say that a deal could be made quickly, when the sides are so very far apart? Perhaps he's smoking something.

But lastly, to predicate the need for negotiations on the threat of another intifada is truly pathetic.


Perhaps even more pathetic, but very telling, is the suggestion Lauder is making that the Palestinian Arabs best come to terms with Israel now because maybe Romney will win the election.

He said, "The election in November...could have important consequences for the peace process." What he clearly meant was, "Listen up guys, if Romney wins he won't cut you the slack that Obama has and you will no longer be able to count on the president representing your position."


Lauder would be well advised to take his cue from Zalman Shoval, former Israeli ambassador to the US, who has written a piece called "Still no peace partner" (all emphasis added):

"As expected, another attempt to restart Israeli-Palestinian negotiations a few weeks ago came to naught. The Palestinians again refused to budge from their usual pre-conditions, i.e., a cessation of Israeli construction beyond the 'Green Line' including in Jerusalem; Israeli consent, in advance of negotiations, that the border between Israel and the future Palestinian state will be based on the 1967 armistice line (with territorial swaps); and freeing Palestinian prisoners.

"After meeting France's new President Francois Hollande, Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas told the press that he would agree to waive the conditions — only to reiterate them a few minutes later, adding a new twist, i.e., to increase delivery of arms to his security forces.

"...Anyone with even a cursory acquaintance with the modern Middle East could without difficulty list a host of failed initiatives, some Israeli, some international (mostly American) to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but more to the point, both historically and in terms of practical politics, one must go back to the underlying reasons why most of the initiatives have failed. To wit, the refusal of the Palestinians, and most parts of the Arab world, to recognize the Jewish people's right to a national state, in a region that they consider to be an exclusive Arab and Muslim domain.

"Covertly and often overtly their refusal to recognize the right of the Jews is coupled with the hope that the ultimate fate of the Jewish state will be like that of the Crusader kingdom — i.e., it will eventually disappear.

"...Ralph Bunche, the UN mediator at the time, confirmed, in response to an official Arab request, that 'the cease fire lines are not to be understood in any way to be political or territorial borders.' Today Palestinian spokespersons and others who support Palestinian demands ignore this fact.

"...The unfortunate and inescapable conclusion to be drawn from the long series of failed attempts at peace negotiations is that as long as the Arabs, and principally the Palestinians, do not accept, psychologically and politically, the reality and the legitimacy of the existence of Israel as the Jewish nation state, they will not be true partners for peace."


Please note that Obama is primary amongst those supporters of Palestinian demands who ignore the fact that the cease fire line was not to be understood as a political or territorial border.


But of course there is a great deal more than agreement on the '67 line that the Palestinian Arabs are demanding. The PA has just submitted to the Quartet a list of demands for returning to the negotiating table, and those demands seem to multiply exponentially.

The latest wrinkle is that the PA wants European Union support for Palestinian reconciliation efforts, EU support for a declaration of Palestinian statehood in the UN, and an EU acknowledgment that a declaration of statehood does not contradict peace talks.

Yup! They're talking about going to the UN again. According to the Palestinian news agency Wafa, the PLO decided on Sunday to ask the UN for recognition of a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 lines, membership in the United Nations and recognition of the right to self-determination.

I examined the relevant issues last year, when this threat was made, and will return to it as seems appropriate in coming weeks.

It's as if they're attempting to play all their cards at once. Unilateral declaration of membership contravenes the agreements of Oslo. But the PA wants to go to the UN and have the EU agree that this does not "contradict" peace talks.


Fatah has also announced that Abbas will be meeting in Cairo next month with Hamas politburo head Khaled Mashaal to work on that ever-elusive reconciliation. (Note, above, that the PA wants the EU to support such reconciliation efforts.)

Hamas leader Osama Hamdan has indicated that he hopes the developments in Egypt will "positively impact" these efforts. The "developments" in Egypt with election of a Muslim Brotherhood president can only work to strengthen the Hamas position, of course.

All of which impinges directly upon any possibility of Abbas moderating sufficiently to come to the table.


On Monday, there was quite a flap when the Iranian news agency FARS reported that Egyptian president-elect Morsi had given an interview in which he said he was seeking closer ties with Iran in order to establish a "strategic balance" in the area, and that he would revise the Camp David peace accord with Israel.

Subsequently Morsi denied having given such an interview, and, indeed, the recording FARS put on its website of that interview reveals a voice that is purported to be that of Morsi. but which apparently does not sound like him. This was an Iranian scam.

At present the Israeli government is cautiously hopeful that the treaty will hold.


The acknowledgement of the Egyptian presidential election by Israeli leaders was proper but circumspect. Netanyahu said that he "appreciates the democratic process in Egypt" and respects the Egyptian election results. "We look forward to working together with the new administration on the basis of the peace agreement between us,"

Obama called Morsi to congratulate him, and now Secretary of State Clinton, at a press conference, has expressed pleasure that Egypt appears ready to honor its international agreements. Fair enough. But she couldn't leave it there, and added that, "We expect...president-elect Morsi, as he forms a government, to demonstrate a commitment to inclusivity that is manifest by representatives of the women of Egypt, of the Coptic Christian community, of the secular non-religious community..."

I think she's also smoking something.


Worthwhile to see this, from Ben Caspit, translated from a piece he wrote in Hebrew in Maariv on the situation in Egypt:

"We have reached the moment feared by generations of Israeli Intelligence and GSS chiefs. The ultimate nightmare scenario is playing out in front of our very eyes —the same narrative that played a major role in the terror scenarios that starred in the secret war games of the IDF and the Israeli defense system for an entire generation. The moment when Egypt fell — into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.

"...Morsi will get up every morning and have to feed 87 million Egyptians who multiply exponentially, and to finance unemployment payments to the millions of unemployed. He will look right and left, west, south and east, and will reveal that his only (relatively) peaceful border is the one he shares with Israel. He will understand that between the Sudanese and Libyans and Sinai Peninsula Bedouins — the only ones he can rely on, are the Israelis. He will make the trip to Washington and, yes, eventually he will go to Washington, where he will learn the numbers game.

"The Military Council has taken away Morsi's jurisdiction over foreign affairs and security, and mainly — the power to declare war. They have left him the daily sewage of education, health, the pita and the fava-bean that are staples on every Egyptian table. So it's too early to get into a funk. On the other hand, at this pace, depression will arrive at some point.

"Yes, life will be a lot harder from now on. 'Cast Lead 2'? It will not be simple. Third Lebanon War? Same as above. Let's not forget that during the Second Lebanon War, Mubarak begged Olmert to crush Hezbollah. And with regard to Hamas, the Egyptians danced every time we lopped off heads there. Now, instead of a regional power that hates Hamas, a sister-state to Hamas sits on our southern border. The Muslim Brotherhood views Hamas as colleagues..."


Intermittent rocket fire from Gaza continues.


Russian president Putin was here briefly. He agreed that a nuclear Iran would be a problem.

And so....?


This rather grim posting also merits a look at some of the good stuff happening in, or involving, Israel. Once more, from

[] While work is proceeding at Leviathan, Israel's largest natural gas deposit, it has been discovered that there is more gas and oil at Israel's other sites than previously estimated. This has huge implications down the road.

[] Work is also being done in Israel on making fuel from CO2. Ben Gurion University Professors Moti Herskowitz and Miron Landau have just been awarded a grant to further their groundbreaking research in liquid fuels. Weizmann and Technion scientists and Israeli start-up NewCO2Fuels are working towards the same goal.

[] Jewish Heart for Africa, an American Jewish organization, is utilizing Israeli solar and agricultural technologies to provide assistance to people in rural villages in Ethiopia, Tanzania, Malawi and Uganda.

[] Israel's Agency for International Development Cooperation in May provided an early education course in Ghana that draws upon Israeli expertise for training qualified teachers.

[] At the recent President's Conference in Jerusalem, scientists presented Israel's innovative research and devices including a neuro-stimulator implanted in the brain for treating Parkinson's and schizophrenia.

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website:

To Go To Top


Posted by Arish Sahani, June 27, 2012

To All Muslim Converts

It's a shame, mostly the poor, uneducated and criminals convert to Islam. A Saudi culture. These same Saudis who are converting these masses to follow Islam as their culture alien to local nature give them no rights to marry Saudi girls, Live, work and be buried in Saudi land.

These poor converts are misled and become enemy to their own culture and land, destroying themselves and their home land. Intellectuals have not put their minds together to help these converts.

Looks like once they convert to Islam their minds can't be fixed as Saudis are still living in stone age.

Looks like some people have no analytical minds.

Its time we should find absolutions for these sick people who have learning problems.

Arish sahani

Yesterday, Babu Suseelan ( wrote this:

Jihadi terrorists may come near your community very soon. watch out. In American Correctional Institutions millions of Black African Americans are converted into Islam. Saudi Arabia, the quartermaster of terrorism, is pumping billions of dollars for coercive conversion. In Pennsylvania, there are 27 correctional Institutions. In every Institution, with the active assistance of Saudi Arabia, uneducated only Arabic speaking Imams are appointed with taxpayer dollars to preach hatred and recruit criminals. Criminals act without fear, shame, guilt, remorse or empathy for the victims. Islam reinforces their criminal qualities. About 95 percent of criminal inmates are paroled into our communities. Imagine the havoc they may create in our communities with Koran in one hand and bombs in another hand. These inmates are taught at Correctional Institutions that Jews are Pigs, Christians and rats and all infidels are to beheaded if they refuse to convert into Islam. Yesterday about 600 Muslims demanded of the Governor that 2013 should be declared a year of the Koran! What a shame that the Governor Coorbet attended the Jihadi meeting and gave a speech.

Muslims claim that there are 7 million Muslims in America. Muslims can demand that Sharia law should be introduced and this is the best way to ruin America, our freedom, democracy and pluralism. Jihadis are suckers and criminals. They have no faith in our Constitution, liberty, or democracy. Join the force that is working to preserve our democracy, protect our freedom and promote creative thinking, safety and security for our children and grandchildren. Please join with active, creative, talented people to stop the Islamization Of America.

In this new America, a Muslim America, shariah-compliant Muslims have succeeded in striking fear into the hearts of the infidels. In the case of the Dearborn Arab Festival, you will see that the infidels are NOT the few, brave Christians who withstood the physical attacks by the blood-thirsty Muslims, but the fearful are those who have taken an oath to protect Americans. The fearful, are the Dearborn Sheriff and Police. Sadly, you will see the Police fearful of confronting the criminals and enforcing the law as they stand by watching "Muslims Gone Wild," attack the helpless Christians.

The United West predicts that success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt combined with the mounting fury of the "Arab Spring," coupled with the support of President Obama will result in an expansive, "strong-horse" onslaught of Muslim physical aggression, similar to this Dearborn disaster, all across the new, MUSLIM AMERICA.

U.S. and EU leaders are radically pro-Islam. Rabidly anti-Jew, and rabidly Anti-Christian: It was revealed that "Christians are being refused refugee status [in the U.S.] and face persecution and many times certain death for their religious beliefs under [Islamic] Sharia [law], while whole Muslim communities are entering the U.S. by the tens of thousands per month despite the fact that they face no religious persecution."

Christians and Jews are hated by American and European leaders. US/EU leaders REJECT God, the Bible, Judaism and Christianity. They IDENTIFY WITH ISLAM and Islam's god.

American leaders have no mercy for hated Christian infidels. It is an ongoing, vicious and deadly PERSECUTION of Christians by the U.S. government and other Western governments for REFUSING to allow into our countries Christians and other non-Muslims who are severely persecuted by Muslims. They import instead, many millions of Muslim persecutors whose goal is our conquest.

Contact Arish K. Sahani by email at

To Go To Top


Posted by Midenise, June 27, 2012

Obama Truth Team orders GoDaddy to shut down website: "maliciously harmful to individuals in the government"! Had released martial law info!

A political website that contained stinging criticism of the Obama administration and its handling of the Fast and Furious scandal was ordered to be shut down by the Obama campaign's 'Truth Team', according to private investigator Douglas Hagmann, who was told by ISP GoDaddy his site contained information that was "maliciously harmful to individuals in the government."

Hagmann, CEO of Hagmann Investigative Services, Inc., a private investigative agency serving a roster of Fortune 500 clients, was given 48 hours by GoDaddy to find a new home for his website before it was deleted. (

Remember this info? Hagmann was the one who released it!!!

In a riveting interview on TruNews Radio, Wednesday, private investigator Doug Hagmann said high-level, reliable sources told him the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is preparing for "massive civil war" in America.

"Folks, we're getting ready for one massive economic collapse," Hagmann told TruNews host Rick Wiles.

"We have problems ... The federal government is preparing for civil uprising," he added, "so every time you hear about troop movements, every time you hear about movements of military equipment, the militarization of the police, the buying of the ammunition, all of this is ... they (DHS) are preparing for a massive uprising."

Douglas J. Hagmann is Founder and Director of the Northeast Intelligence Network and CEO of a multi-state licensed private investigative agency serving many Fortune 500 clients. Contact him at This article is archived at

Obama "Truth Teams" in action?

26 June 2012:

It was like something from George Orwell's "1984." Last Friday evening, I was notified by my internet service provider that I was in violation of the hosting company's terms of service and I had 48 hours to find another hosting company or they would forcibly shut down my website.

This, after having my website in operation for the last ten-(10) years and weathering such controveries as showing the world videos of the unsanitized version of Muslim beheadings while the corporate media failed to explain such inhumanity. We've always prevailed in the storms of trumped-up so what has changed?

Truth Teams. Internet censorship. Why do yu think there's been such a push for internet related legislation such as SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and so on? Why NOW?

The following is the e-mail letter I received from GoDaddy. Read it. More importantly, understand YOU could be next.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Our records indicate that you are responsible for the HOMELANDSECURITYUS.COM domain name and its hosted content. We have received complaints about your domain name and the contents of your website. Upon reviewing the situation, we have found that they are in violation on section 7 of your Domain Registration Agreement. ([link to]

We understand that this can be a very sensitive topic, and that there will likely be a difference of opinion as to the nature of the complaints. We are not making a determination in favor of either, but do not wish to be involved in such disputes. As a result, we ask that you move the registration and hosting for these sites to another provider (Not affiliated with or our Reseller division,

Contact Midenise by email at midenise@zahav.

To Go To Top


Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 27, 2012

 This article was written by Ed DeShields and is archived at Ed DeShields is the Founder, President and CEO of HYCA, LLC, an investor in a variety of companies in the financial services, information technologies and real estate industries. Ed's latest project is which is a Lease-To-Own home ownership program. They are a Moody's reviewed program backed by Llyods of London.

Bubble bubble, I see all sorts of trouble.....!!

Israel's once hidden oil riches are now certain to be so large its treasures could make it the richest oil country in the world. And, its neighbors are not only noticing, they're boiling mad.

It was just forty years ago when Golda Meir, the former prime minister of Israel once famously quipped, "Why did Moses lead us to the one place in the Middle East without oil?"

Well Prime Minister, Moses turned out to have a pretty good eye for what a promised land might look like.

Since oil was first discovered in the Middle East, Israel has been cut off from the world's exploration resources because of its Arab neighbors. No major oil company would dare explore there in fear of an Arab backlash. Over time technologies in oil exploration have improved and international experts have noticed Israel's potential.

In the past, oil-exploration adventurers would visit Israel, some of them reminiscent of Indiana Jones, arguing enthusiastically that there had to be legendary oil reserves in the promised land. The adventurers picked their drilling sites according to concealed hints in the Tanach, especially Yehezkel, but the drillings ended in disappointment. The legend of oil riches in Israel turned into a cruel joke. They simply didn't know what they were looking for and didn't have the proper technology to find it.

But, in the last three years Israel has discovered one mega-discovery after another. First, it discovered 1.5 billion barrels of oil onshore at Rosh Ha'Ayin, located about 10 miles inland from the Tel Aviv coastline. It was a small but important find that sparked a flurry of exploration activity.

Then, a big one followed by another — both are noteworthy, and rare, and are the largest finds anywhere in the last decade. US Geological Survey (USGS) estimates, the entire Leviathan Basin holds 1.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 700 billion cubic meters of recoverable gas.

Expert surveys for the Tamar field conducted by the U.S. petroleum consultants Netherland, Sewell and Associates indicate that the field contains proven reserves of 217 billion cubic meters of gas.

And then another find. It turns out that Israel has the second-biggest oil shale deposits in the world, outside the US:

"We estimate that there is the equivalent of 250 billion barrels of oil here. To put that in context, there are proven reserves of 260 billion barrels of oil in Saudi Arabia, says Dr. Harold Vinegar, the former chief scientist of Royal Dutch Shell."

Let's do the math. That's 250 billion in shale oil, 3.2 billion in conventional oil in estimated reserves, or enough oil to match that of Saudi-Arabia. Plus, that's 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, giving it about 10% of the entire world's gas reserves — all while Israel's exploration activities are just beginning.

I'd say most rational people would say this is nothing short of a miracle. But one man's miracle is not a miracle to another. Economic miracles tend to upset a lot of sovereigns eager to get their share — whether they can legitimately claim it or not. The backlash has begun and the geopolitical crisis now playing out will be worthy of the most serious prophetic predictions.

Israel, whose exploration is the most advanced, is making plenty of new discoveries. Cyprus, too, is on the cusp of energy riches and (Iranian backed) Lebanon is anxious to launch exploration of its waters.

As would have it, all this excitement is exacerbating old rivalries between Israel and Lebanon and between Turkey and Greece, with Russia, Syria, Egypt and the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip likely to get drawn into some serious drama.

Worse yet, Russia is determined to rival Turkish ambitions for regional influence and cannot help being dragged into the conflict.

Unfortunately, Israel is seemingly giving Russia the cold shoulder. As late as last week, the Russian government-backed oil producer Rosneft held consultations on possible participation in the development of Israel's offshore natural gas fields, but emerged from the negotiations with no "effective offers." This geopolitical snub won't go unnoticed by Russia.

Last month, Turkey, a former strategic ally of Israel and now one of its most strongest critics, warned other major international companies seeking exploration licenses from the Greek Cypriot government, (Israel's new ally), to stay away. Predictably, Israel responded by dispatching military protection to the seas over its oil interests.

Turkey has now warned it will stop Israel from unilaterally exploiting gas resources in the eastern Mediterranean and suggests it is prepared to respond with force to make its point.

And that, according to geopolitical experts poses a direct challenge to U.S. policy. The U.S. has a strong interest in eastern Mediterranean with countries finding and exploiting offshore reserves. But the U.S. has its hands-full politically, and is ill-prepared financially to support any new conflict. It currently borrows every dollar it needs to run its military and the American people aren't going to favor any new conflict they have to pay for — even if it were necessary to protect Israel.

It is the long-running issue of war-divided Cyprus between Turkey and Greece that is the real key to understanding Turkey's squabbles with Israel.

Here's why.

Cyprus was split into Greek and Turkish zones when the Turks invaded in 1974 and seized the northern one-third of the Cyprus island.

Recent discoveries of natural gas are thus encouraging Turkey to renew its diplomatic campaign on behalf of "Turkish Cypriots" in the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Why? For the gas and oil it claims to own. Thus, Turkey is launching its own exploration in and around Cyprus and any major strikes it may make (and it will) will only fuel the crisis. So Turkey and Israel aren't seeing eye-to-eye and are willing to fight over it.

So, the next big boom (sorry for the pun) is firmly centered on Cyprus.

Tensions recently escalated when the Greek Cypriot government (the legitimate Cypress government recognized by the U.N.) started pushing to open up its Aphrodite field off the southern coast. It's a whopper that's likely to match the Israelis' biggest field, the Leviathan. Worse yet, it's probably a geologic extension of the Israeli-owned Leviathan.

Aphrodite contains an estimated 22 trillion cubic feet of gas and sizeable oil deposits as well.

On May 19th, Turkey drew a line in the sand. "Turkey will not allow any activity in these fields," the Turkish Foreign Ministry declared.

But 15 companies and consortiums, including Russia's Novatec, Eni of Italy, France's Total and Petronas of Malaysia are all seeking licenses to drill in Aphrodite and 11 other exploration blocks off (Israel friendly) southern Cyprus.

So get this picture into your mind. There's a crowd forming that could turn into an angry mob with everyone wanting to plunder Israel's newly found riches.

The Israeli's and Cyprus plan is to funnel their gas through a joint pipeline through Greece to Western Europe to reduce Europe's dependence on Russia for most of its gas. Mr. Putin, the Russian President, isn't happy about the possibilities of losing a big customer for its natural gas production.

On the other hand, Turkey is determined to restore it's historical influence across the Middle East and Central Asia by applying pressure to transform its resource-poor country into the key energy hub between east and the west — a direct challenge to an Israel/Cypress plan to pipe oil and gas through Greece on to Italy to fuel the rest of Europe.

That increases the stakes in the eastern Mediterranean, with Russia, one of the world's top oil and gas powers, trying to find a way to cash in on the boom.

Moscow is nervous about Turkey's ambitious regional plans. Russian President Putin also intends to restore Moscow's Cold War influence in the region.

That places Russia and Turkey on opposite sides, including in the Syrian civil war. Moscow backs the Damascus regime, a longtime client; Turkey supports the rebels. And, neither appreciates Israel's newly found oil power, which threatens the entire eastern Mediterranean's balance of power.

Moscow is not without some links to the riches. It has strong links with the Greek Cypriots but its offers to help Cyprus is motivated in part by the prospect of losing Russia's naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus, it's only toehold in the Mediterranean. If the Syrian regime falls, Russia loses its military base in the region. So it's seeking an alternative base for its Black Sea Fleet in Cyprus — the epicenter of the oil discoveries.

Syria too, has great riches off its coast; a fact not lost on Russia. If the Syrian regime falls it is certain that Russia's desire to pick up the pieces (for its own) will be irresistible.

In summary, we have a newly enriched Israel powerful enough to completely change the geopolitics of the Middle East on one side. On the other, we have Turkey, determined to cash in — with force if necessary — to establish its own claim to riches while Russia, with its impoverished Muslim regional allies seeking attention. Then there's Persian-backed Lebanon, in need of development funding for its significant rich fields just offshore of it's own border.

As the old saying goes, "the best way to get attention is to start a fight."

And, that's exactly what will happen.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at

To Go To Top


Posted by UCI, June 26, 2012

This article was written by Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Contact him at The article is archived at

Egypt's longtime banned Muslim Brotherhood — the parent organization of nearly every subsequent Islamist movement, including al-Qaeda — has just won the nation's presidency, in the name of its candidate, Muhammad Morsi. That apathy reigns in the international community, when once such news would have been deemed devastating, is due to the successful efforts of subversive Muslim apologists in the West who portray the Brotherhood as "moderate Islamists" — forgetting that such a formulation is oxymoronic, since to be "Islamist," to be a supporter of draconian Sharia, is by definition to be immoderate. Obama administration officials naturally took it a step further, portraying the Brotherhood as "largely secular" and "pluralistic."

Back in the real world, evidence that the Brotherhood is just another hostile Islamist group bent on achieving world domination through any means possible is overwhelming. Here are just three examples that recently surfaced, all missed by the Western media, and all exposing the Brotherhood as hostile to "infidels" (non-Muslims) in general, hostile to the Christians in their midst (the Copts) in particular, and on record calling on Muslims to lie and cheat during elections to empower Sharia:

Anti-Infidel: At a major conference supporting Muhammad Morsi — standing on a platform with a big picture of Morsi smiling behind him and with any number of leading Brotherhood figures, including Khairat el-Shater, sitting alongside — a sheikh went on a harangue, quoting Koran 9:12, a favorite of all jihadis, and calling all those Egyptians who do not vote for Morsi — the other half of Egypt, the secularists and Copts who voted for Shafiq—"resisters of the Sharia of Allah," and "infidel leaders" whom true Muslims must "fight" and subjugate.

The video of this sheikh was shown on the talk show of Egyptian commentator Hala Sarhan, who proceeded to exclaim "This is unbelievable! How is this talk related to the campaign of Morsi?!" A guest on her show correctly elaborated: "Note his [the sheikh's] use of the word 'fight'—'fight the infidel leaders' [Koran 9:12]; this is open incitement to commit violence against anyone who disagrees with them.... how can such a radical sheikh speak such words, even as [Brotherhood leaders like] Khairat el-Shater just sits there?" Nor did the Brotherhood denounce or distance itself from this sheikh's calls to jihad.

Anti-Christian: It is precisely because of these sporadic outbursts of anti-infidel rhetoric that it is not farfetched to believe that Morsi himself, as some maintain, earlier boasted that he would "achieve the Islamic conquest (fath) of Egypt for the second time, and make all Christians convert to Islam, or else pay the jizya."

Speaking of Christians, specifically the minority Copts of Egypt, in an article titled "The Muslim Brotherhood Asks Why Christians Fear Them?!" secularist writer Khaled Montasser, examining the Brotherhood's own official documents and fatwas, shows exactly why. According to Montasser, in the Brotherhood publication "The Call [da'wa]," issue #56 published in December 1980, prominent Brotherhood figure Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah al-Khatib decreed several anti-Christian measures, including the destruction of churches and the prevention of burying unclean Christian "infidels" anywhere near Muslim graves. Once again, this view was never retracted by the Brotherhood. As Montasser concludes, "After such fatwas, Dr. Morsi and his Brotherhood colleagues ask and wonder — "Why are the Copts afraid?!"

Lying, Stealing, and Cheating to Victory: In a recent article titled "The Islamist Group's Hidden Intentions," appearing in Watani, the author Youssef Sidhom exposes a document "which carries the logos of both the Muslim Brotherhood and its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party." Written by the Deputy to the Supreme Guide, Khairat el-Shater and addressed "to all the Brotherhood branches in the governorates," the memo calls on Muslims to cheat, block votes, and "resort to any method that can change the vote" to ensure that Morsi wins, which, of course, he just did—amidst many accusations of electoral fraud. El-Shater concluded his memo by saying, "You must understand, brothers, that our interest lies wherever there is the Sharia of Allah, and this can only be by preserving the [MB] group and preserving Islam."

In short, the Muslim Brotherhood has not changed; only Western opinion of it has. As it was since its founding in 1928, the group is committed to empowering and spreading Sharia law—a law that preaches hate for non-Muslim "infidels," especially Islam's historic nemesis, Christianity, and allows anything, from lying to cheating, to make Islam supreme. Now that the Brotherhood has finally achieved power, the world can prepare to see such aspects on a grand scale.

UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel ( — is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"

To Go To Top


Posted by Nurit Greenger, June 26, 2012

Enough with speecherism! Enough of the underhanded plans to destroy or freeze Jewish life or heritage.

We want a genuine JEWISH government and we want it NOW! NEVER again must a hand be raised on a Jew by the purported Israel "security" elements or a home destroyed by them without JUSTICE.

Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu has given in to Arab terrorism and is establishing, in the heart of Israel, under the nose of every Israeli-Jew, an Arab-Muslim-Nazi state.

What would have his patriot brother, Yoni Netanyahu, say to that and what would have his Zionist father, Benzion Netanyahu, say to this?

After much brouhaha about the eviction of good Jewish souls from their homes in the Ulpana neighborhood in Beit El, Samaria, Ulpana residents walked away like "meek" sheep! They gave up on their Don Quixote of La Mancha fight with the government of Israel windmills.

I am afraid that the next to go like meek sheep will be the good Jews of Migron, another Jewish community the Netanyahu government is after and is due for eviction.

No Arab ever owned any piece of land in Migron. But if Migron falls we may say goodbye to Judea and Samaria.

Silence is an acknowledgement.

Naftali Bonnet, former spokesperson for Netanyahu, says that Jews do not evict either Jews or Arabs; period. — (In Hebrew:

As an executive member of Friends of Migron International I say, this cannot go on and must not!

That Israel's leadership have left Judea and Samaria as an orphan land for forty-five years, a land that belongs to no one — a land in dispute - is turning our Forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in their graves.

After all, Judea and Samaria is part of the land pact the world made with the Jews, when they gave them their homeland back, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, to build their nation state of the Jewish people, Israel.

Fellow Jews, something is seriously wrong with us!

We must help the residents of Migron get a fair trial: help them protect their democratic rights by legal and fair trial.

And so my friends, please dig deep into your pockets and HELP; please donate NOW to help our brothers and sisters, the good Jews of Migron, to raise $100,000 needed for their legal fight against the Israeli High Court's unjust ruling. Your donation will help give the 300 strong Migron community their democratic right for a just and fair legal hearing. Click here.

That is the least we can do.

To Go To Top


Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, June 26, 2012

This essay is from Beyond Words, The Selected Writings of Rabbi Meir Kahane, 1960-1990, Volume 7.

It was written in May, 1990.

TO anyone reading this Rav Kahane article and not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles written by Rav Kahane: if you would like to be, please contact me at:

To view previously e-mailed Rabbi Kahane articles go to:

To view Member of Knesset Michael ben-Ari who was a student of Rav Kahane,
go to:

Let it be clear as it could possibly be: The main motivation behind the extraordinary, demonic drive for a change in the Israeli political system is the desire and passion to destroy the political power of the religious parties and community in Israel.

Disgust with the present system of corruption and bribery and stealing from the public trough? Indeed, there is that and more, but for thirty years as Mapai and Labor-Left and its Mapam and kibbutz allies ruled the country with all the arrogance and contempt of some Stalinist Boss Tweed, corruption ran rampant and bribery was the order of the day, and they stole shamelessly by the light of the day. The Histadrut ran the country and ran the money and took the money and created a cadre wealthy arrogant political leftist labor leaders. The kibbutzim received the best land in the country and fully 30% of the water despite the fact that they totaled three percent of the population, at best. Parties decided how much money to take for their expenses and needs — at will. Never in Israel's history was there ever a single party able to form a government without a coalition, and how much political bribery was paid then! Knesset members switched parties, and all that the liberals and leftists suddenly find disgusting began and flourished for decades under the liberals and leftist. And no one shouted:

Change the system!

More, in those days they not only stole money, the stole people. They not only killed democracy, they kidnapped children and destroyed souls. The Sephardic immigrants who came to Israel were treated with contempt and with strong-arm tactics that were worthy of the Bolshevik Mafia that ran the country. The earlocks that were ripped from Yemenite children's heads went along with the forced irreligion that was thrust upon them in the Kibbutzim and Youth Aliyah institutions so proudly boasted of by the same Hadassah which, today, demands a change of the system. Six hundred Yemenite children, kidnapped after being born, and given to elite members of the political Mafia establishment, are still missing, and the results of the deliberate destruction of Judaism within hundreds of thousands of Sephardic Jews by the left-liberal Mafia can be seen today in the crime, violence, pornography and general destruction of values of the grandchildren of the Jews of Spiritual genocide. And no one shouted then: Change the system!

What was done to the religious Sephardic Jews then was deliberate, just as what is being done today is deliberate. Just as then the left-liberal Mafia feared the growth of the religious political power in the "democracy" that was Israel and so they went about destroying it, so, too, today the motivation behind the hypocritical call for change in the system in the name of "democracy" is an obscene fear that in a democracy the religious will win the day because of their population growth.

And so, the Nazi-like caricature that appear in the papers and the blatant incitement to hate against the religious. And the outrage over ten of millions of shkalim to religious institutions when the kibbutzim just had debts of billions wiped away, and the Histadrut's corrupt institutions are bailed out with hundreds of millions of shkalim from the Treasury, and the Likud — a partner in corruption ever since it got a taste of power — decides to raise the amount of money for the parties since it is deeply in debt.

If all that was troubling the "moralists of democracy" was the power of small parties, there is a simple solution to it and that is to raise the percentage of votes needed for a Knesset seat from the present 1% to three or four or five. That would eliminate all small parties and produce four major ones, as blocs are formed — right, left, cent and religious. Ah, but that is the problem. The religious would still be there and still be in a position to grow, through babies, and become more and more powerful and that is what disturbs all the "moralists" of the left. If instead of the black-garbed Rabbi Shach and others, the small parties that held the government captive were those of Ratz and Mapam and Shinui — that would have never led to the hysterical demands of "Change they system!" But it was the religious. And that brought out all the hate and racism that the moralists so deplore when used against Arabs.

It is difficult to understand the sheer bile that possesses the left-liberal secularists when they discuss the religious. It is an obsession with them. It is a war — not of culture but of belief, of being. Those who destroyed Jewish values and found themselves with a morally rotting state and children who are neither religious nor Zionist, but empty of all values except "Me," can never admit their failure. And so they hate the religious and they hate Judaism and they hate themselves. What did the Rabbis say (Psachim 49b)? "Greater is the hatred of the ignoramus for the scholar than that of the gentile for the Jew." And we see it daily in Israel.

Are the religious parties corrupt? Of course they are; shamefully so! Are they a disgrace to Torah? Of course they are, and in the words of the prophet Isaiah (1:6): "From the sole of the foot to the head, there is no soundness." And let the wise man understand ... But Labor and Likud make them look like pikers in comparison.

Change the system? And then things will be better? Has not history proven a thousand times over that it is not the system but the people who bring evil and corruption into the world? The same thieves and corrupt politicians with their money and power will create the same abomination in Israel under any system.

Do you know what they wish to do? They wish to create districts from which individuals can be elected. Districts that will guarantee that the religious, despite their larger population, will always be limited to 3-4 seats since they live together in 3-4 districts. Districts that make the vote infinitely less democratic (if that is what bothers you) than the present system of proportional representation. For under the present system, every vote counts. Under district voting, all those who did not vote for the winner see their votes go down the drain. Indeed, that is why in England today there is a great demand to change the system from district voting to proportional representation, as in Israel .... Democracy? They are not interested in democracy except that it will help them keep or get power.

And they tie all this to a demand for a constitution that de facto will turn Israel from a Jewish state into a Western democratic one in which Jewishness will not matter, and it will be "Israeliness" that will be the equal common denominator, with the non-Jewish Israeli equal common denominator, with the non-Jewish Israeli equal to the Jewish one and the very reason for a "Jewish" state destroyed.

When the All Mighty created the Torah He understood that it is not the "system" that makes things good or bad. It is the people. And that is why the same Torah that is so stringent concerning seemingly minor matters in a person's life has no definitive system for political organization or economic structure. For these things are not the important ones in building a society. Times change and structures change, but good and evil in the world come from Man. And the same corrupt, hypocritical thieves will continue their dirty business in any system. For a cesspool by any name remains just that.

And one final word.

As I watch the enormous success of the liberal-left drive to change the system. I will never forgive, until my dying day, those thousands and more "supporters" of mine who helped us lose Israel when we had a divine opportunity to save the land.

Watching the large rallies demanding a "change," I know that it is Kach that could have had the crowds and the rallies and the momentum in a demand for a Referendum. The disgust of the people with all the parties, our unbelievable popularity as the only clean and honest group — all this made for a golden opportunity to demand People Power, a Referendum! But we did not have the money that the liberal-left has, and so we lost the opportunity and I doubt if it will ever come again. And the reason we had no money was that the ones who cheer me and condemn the Left and the traitors and Peres and Likud, and thus get their pious preaching jollies so that they can feel pure and good and righteous, never made the sacrifices. Never gave me the money at a time when I saw the events coming. Again. Once again, the betrayal by the supporters and cheerers.

The country is falling apart. As small people haggle over seats and money and power, Iraq speaks of missiles and chemical warfare and Egypt nears a nuclear bomb and I sit in frustration knowing what might have been if my supporters and cheerers had cared enough to do more than gleefully condemn Peres.

And for that, for what they did to Israel, I will never forgive them.

To Go To Top


Posted by Stella Paul, June 26, 2012

I know you're busy writing to your friends to ask them to skip your birthday present this year and send the cash to Obama, but I just want to interrupt you for a minute to introduce you to 32 parents who probably won't be fundraising for Obama anytime soon.

Kent and Josephine Terry are the parents of slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who sacrificed his life protecting ours. Last week, they spoke up for the first time with a message to Obama, who has asserted executive privilege to hide documents on Operation Fast and Furious.

When asked what they'd say to Obama and Eric Holder, Kent Terry replied, "I probably couldn't say on camera what I'd like to say to them. But I'd say get their heads out of their butt anyway."

(Please don't share this quote with the "important" gay activists whom Obama invited to the White House, where they ran riot, kissing and exposing their middle digits to Reagan's portrait. They might get too excited.)

Brian Terry was murdered in December 2010 with guns from Obama's Fast and Furious program, which is politely (and fictitiously) described as a botched gun-tracing operation. Somehow this "botching" resulted in the most violent Mexican drug cartels being armed with thousands of assault weapons, which they used to slaughter 300 Mexicans and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

I'm not buying that Obama ever had any interest in reining in Mexican gangs. I think he and Holder looked across the border and said, "Hey, violent drug cartels with a bottomless capacity to launder cash and growing ties to Hezb'allah and Iranian terrorists. Those are our kind of guys!"

Which brings us to Mary and Amador Zapata, the parents of slain ICE agent Jaime Zapata. Last week, the Zapatas filed a $25-million wrongful death claim against the government.

Jaime Zapata was ambushed in a roadside attack in Mexico in February 2011, while working for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Highly informed sources say that Zapata was investigating Fast and Furious at the time of his murder.

The Zapatas' lawsuit claims that Jaime Zapata informed his supervisors that he had misgivings about the safety of his trip but was ordered to go anyway. "All of these legitimate concerns were put aside ... and agents Avila and Zapata were required to follow orders," the lawyers wrote.

But, of course, Obama's withholding of Fast and Furious documents from Congress via executive privilege is all about "the principle of the matter," as spokesman Jay Carney asserted last week, with an admirably straight face. Obama's heart is pure as the Chicago snow.

Next, I'd like you to meet Daris and Janet Long, the parents of the late Private William Long. In June 2009, 23-year-old "Andy" Long was murdered at an Army recruitment center in Little Rock, Arkansas by an American-born Muslim convert. Daris, an ex-Marine, is on a grief-stricken mission to see his son awarded a Purple Heart, since he was killed on active duty in a jihad-inspired attack.

But good luck with that in Obama's regime. The purported commander-in-chief threatened to veto the 2012 Defense Authorization Act, because Congress had inserted a clause awarding Purple Hearts to Andy Long and the 12 murdered soldiers of Fort Hood.

Obama delights in handing out awards to those he deems worthy: why, just a few weeks ago, he gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Delores Huerta, honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, which describes itself as "the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International."

But Obama is not terribly keen at recognizing the sacrifices of those who serve. (Although to be fair, he did tell troops stationed overseas, "You guys make a pretty good photo op.")

Obama's Department of "Justice" declined to press federal charges against Andy Long's murderer, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe. Instead, the murder of a uniformed soldier on Army property was treated as a drive-by shooting. Similarly, the murder of 12 soldiers and a civilian at Fort Hood was deemed a state-level offense of "workplace violence," despite the passionate jihadist proclivities of alleged shooter Major Nidal Hasan.

A riveting new documentary, Losing Our Sons, tells the story of Daris Long's quest for justice for his murdered son, and of Melvin Bledsoe's determination to expose the government's negligence that ruined the life of his promising son. Melvin, an African-American small business owner in Memphis, sent Carlos to Tennessee State University in Nashville. There he was recruited by radical Muslims, who sent him to a terrorist training camp in Yemen and brought him back to murder Andy Long.

Mike Huckabee featured Losing Our Sons on his Father's Day show on Fox, saying, "Get your friends and your family to see it. It opened my eyes to some things, and I thought I was fairly informed. And it is powerful. It is a gut punch."

When a mentally unbalanced bereaved mother named Cindy Sheehan theatrically pursued President George Bush for months after her son Casey was killed in Iraq, she was proclaimed to have "absolute moral authority" by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd.

Well, I hereby proclaim the absolute moral authority of the Terrys, Zapatas, Longs, and the parents of the 13 men and women murdered at Fort Hood.

Maybe these bereaved mothers and fathers should take inspiration from Cindy Sheehan and join together for some attention-grabbing theater inside the Democratic National Convention. Considering all the anxious politicians beginning to bail out, they should find plenty of empty seats.

How about it? Why not make some noise and raise some hell? America is on your side.

And to prove it, let's all go to and sign the petition to award a Purple Heart to Private William Long and the Fort Hood soldiers now.

Contact Stella Paul at This article is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by Laura, June 26, 2012

 This article was written by Anne Bayefsky and is archived at Anne Bayefsky is editor of EYEontheUN. Contact the organization at info@EYEonthe She is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College.

The Obama administration's political and financial backing of the UN Human Rights Council resulted in another win for Hamas on Friday, June 22 in Geneva. A Hamas-affiliated organization and its supporters held an "informal parallel meeting" promoting the destruction of the Jewish state at the UN's Palais des Nations.

The event was advertised on the UN website and listed on an official UN document headlined "Human Rights Council, twentieth session, 18 June — 06 July 2012."

Opening week of the Council's latest session, therefore, featured both friends of Hamas sporting UN passes and championing an end to a Jewish state, and Obama's Ambassador (and former California fundraiser) Eileen Donahoe painting the Council as the place to be to promote and protect human rights.

In recent months, top Israeli officials have pleaded with their US counterparts to end American legitimization of the Council in light of its virulently anti-Israel record. In fact, this is the first Council session in which Israel's observer seat is empty. Instead, the Obama administration has doubled-down on its support for the UN body and continues to trumpet its decision to seek a second term on the Council at elections this fall.

Hamas and company have now calibrated team Obama's evident priorities to their advantage.

One of Friday's three speakers was Sameh Habeeb, head of the media department of the "Palestinian Return Centre." The event flyer, which clearly identified the Center as a "coorganizer" and named its representative as a speaker, was authorized to be posted at the UN conference room and distributed on UN NGO-reserved tables. And yet, as the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center has documented, the Palestinian Return Centre is one of the central institutions through which Hamas operates in Britain.

Here is some of what Habeeb had to say while speaking in a UN room, at a UN-provided microphone, at a UN-advertised event associated with the UN's top human rights body: "In 1947, 1948 and 1949 the Palestinian refugees were ethnically cleansed by the Israeli gangs.... Some Arab armies came to Palestine to fight the Zionist project, which came from all over Europe to take over Palestine and to make it as a national home for the Jews, although it was always the national home for the Palestinians for thousands and thousands of years." Habeeb, a well-known radical and "one state solution" campaigner, didn't come alone. Various publications of his Palestinian Return Center were made readily available on UN premises.

There was the pamphlet with this bigoted diatribe: "a racist ideology is inherent in political Zionism and... is being implemented as a political project by the state of Israel. Political Zionism idealizes and advances a racist and chauvinistic... religion and nationalism."

And there was the map with the word "Palestine" splashed across the entirety of what is now Israel. Advocating the elimination of a UN member state, the most elementary violation of the UN Charter, is evidently acceptable literature in the belly of the UN human rights beast.

A third handout, entitled "Apartheid against Palestinians," analogized Israelis to Nazis: "The Israeli regime is based on... race and religious supremacy... Modern nation states formed through these corrosive ideals scarred the 20th century, including in Germany and the South African apartheid regime."

This is the second time in two consecutive sessions of the Human Rights Council that Hamas and its messengers have been allowed into the UN fold. At the last session of the Council in March, a Hamas member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Ismail al-Ashqar, was given a UN pass, seated in a UN room at the invitation of a UN-accredited NGO, and permitted to speak at another Council "side-event." Though UN organizers issued the standard disclaimer about what is said during such events, applications to hold any such meeting are first vetted and approved by UN staff.

The raft of anti-Israel informal meetings during Human Rights Council sessions which have been approved, and the nonstop Israel-bashing emanating from the Council itself, are not mere ships passing in the night. Forty-one percent of all the resolutions and decisions of the Council condemning a specific state have been directed at just one country among all 193 UN members, namely, Israel.

Nevertheless, today the UN Human Rights Council's lead promoter is President Obama.

As November's election fast approaches, UN Ambassador Susan Rice has been commissioned to explain the troubling disconnect with American values to disaffected voters.

At a synagogue in Boca Raton, Florida last month, Rice lectured: the administration had made "meaningful progress... at the Human Rights Council." That is, some are more equal than others. She also tried this contortion: "there's an important distinction to understand. Israel gets singled out at the UN, not by the UN. When Israel gets marginalized and maligned, it's not usually because of the UN Secretariat.... It's usually because of decisions by individual member states."

Actually, the decisions to facilitate public speeches and the distribution of documents by Hamas and its cohorts alongside the Human Rights Council were made by the UN Secretariat. And the point is, UN bodies empower and magnify the pernicious decisions of their members.

In what is bound to become standard Democrat fare in the coming months, Rice summed up her UN pep talk this way: "Efforts to chip away at Israel's legitimacy have been met with the unflinching opposition of the United States."

Except with Obama's representative settled comfortably into her Council digs while the Israeli chair lies vacant, it is obvious to all that this White House has blinked

Contact Laura at

To Go To Top


Posted by COPmagazine, June 26, 2012

 This article was written by Jim Kouri and is archived at Jim Kouri, CPP, the fifth Vice President and Public Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Contact him by email at

As part of President Barack Obama's "new immigration and deportation strategy," all U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers must complete a training program that stresses removing high-risk offenders while at the same time forgoing the deportation of illegal aliens with clean records and strong ties to their communities, said the ICE officers' union officials this week.

According to federal law enforcement officials, a majority of ICE's commanding officers and prosecuting attorneys have completed the training seminar.

But the National ICE Council, which represents the agency's more than 6,000 immigration officers, has not allowed its members to enroll in the new training program.

The tough and outspoken president of the National ICE Council, Chris Crane, has opposed many of the president's strategies, arguing that Obama's policies force ICE officials to disregard the law.

In separate statements, officials from the border patrol agents union have also criticized Obama's immigration and border security policies.

On one occasion, while testifying before the House Judiciary subcommittee, Crane accused Obama of pandering to Latino groups for political gain.

"Law enforcement and public safety have taken a back seat to attempts to satisfy immigrant advocacy groups," Crane told the panel of congressmen.

To Go To Top


Posted by Sergio Hadar Tezza, June 26, 2012

 This article appeared in Jihad Watch and is archived at to-cut-off-us-aid-to-egypt-and-repudiate-muslim-brotherhood.html

Spencer and West.
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Congressman Allen West

There are a few too many politically correct usages of "radical" in this statement, but no one in Congress knows more about the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism than my friend Congressman West, and it is noteworthy that he is the only Congressman courageous enough to call for these common-sense measures.

"The Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt shows Arab Spring is radical Islamic nightmare," by Congressman Allen West, June 24 (thanks to Wimpy):

A year ago there were those of us who warned the Obama Administration of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt. We were castigated as alarmists and loose cannons. Today our predictions have come to reality and the ominous specter reminding us of the Iranian revolution is evident. The Muslim Brotherhood claimed they would not run a presidential candidate. Clearly the Arab Spring is nothing more than a radical Islamic nightmare. Now we need to unequivocally reiterate our support to the Coptic Christians and Israel. What an incredible foreign policy faux pas by the second coming of President Jimmy Carter, the Obama Administration. I call upon President Barack Obama to cut off American foreign aid to Egypt, denounce the results of this election, repudiate the Muslim Brotherhood, and all radical Islamist political entities.

Sergio Tessa can be reached at

To Go To Top


Posted by FSM, June 26, 2012

 This article was written by Gregory D. Lee and is archived at After 39 years, Gregory D. Lee retired as a Supervisory Special Agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). He is the author of three criminal justice textbooks. On DEA assignment in Pakistan, he was involved in the investigation of several notable terrorism events and arrests.

Last week President Barack Hussein Obama took the unprecedented step to circumvent Congress and institute a form of the so-called "Dream Act" that the House of Representatives refused to enact into law.

By directing his Secretary of Homeland Security to cancel deportations of illegal aliens between the ages of 19 and 30 who came to the U.S. with their parents, and directing U.S. Attorneys to use "prosecutorial discretion," President Obama has unilaterally implemented his version of the Dream Act without any authority to do so. The president's excuse is that "It's the right thing to do." With an election year, President Obama must rely on Hispanic voter support for a second term in office. Surely this didn't have anything to do with his decision.

The president said that each illegal alien affected by his decision would be reviewed individually. His order applies to those 30 and under who were brought to the U.S. as children, have completed high school or earned a GED, and who don't have record of felonies or multiple misdemeanors. It seems to me that these illegal alien "children" have learned from their parents they are in the country illegally. A 28-year old high school graduate should be mature enough to know his or her mere presence in the country makes him/her subject to arrest and deportation. This illegal is now making an adult, conscious decision to remain illegally in the country. Did any of these people consider "doing the right thing," and returning to their home country to seek legal immigration?

In reading an AP report on how this new protected class of people feels about President Obama's decision, a recent UCLA graduate with a bachelor's degree in sociology said she could now seek employment to put her education to work. How did this illegal alien make it through a prestigious California University without being questioned about her legality? Liberal California politicians see no problem with an illegal alien taking a highly sought after seat at UCLA. They ignore the fact that illegal aliens are depriving the children of taxpaying U.S. Citizen California residents the opportunity to attend the college.

President Obama has no issue with these illegal aliens joining the workforce to further deprive U.S. Citizens of jobs, despite unemployment rates above eight percent. About 30 percent of all people between 19 and 30 cannot find work; now it will be even harder for them to do so. College educated illegal alien children will now compete with U.S. citizen college graduates for the opportunity to launch their careers, all for the sake of President Obama's re-election.

What the Hispanic community should be focused on instead is President Obama invoking executive privilege in the release of subpoenaed documents connected to the "Fast and Furious" debacle. Without the documents, it may never be clear if Attorney General Eric Holder, or possibly the president himself, was the "shot-caller" in the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms investigation that knowingly allowed fraudulently purchased semi-automatic assault weapons to be smuggled to Mexico for use by its violent drug cartels. Allowing those weapons to "walk" to Mexico without any chance of their being traced to the cartels and recovered, directly led to the killing of hundreds of Mexican citizens and American Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Where's the hue and cry from the Hispanic community about this?

President Obama is assuming two things: Hispanics will overwhelmingly vote Democrat this next election cycle because of his backdoor amnesty, and all illegal aliens want to become U.S. Citizens. Many Hispanics are social and fiscal conservatives, and many illegal aliens are simply in the U.S. to earn what they can before returning to Mexico or Central America with more money in their pockets than if they had worked in their home countries.

Hispanics want the same things as other ethnic groups: financial security. When they realize President Obama's economic and domestic policies have failed after three and a half years of trying, many will seek a change in leadership, trumping the immigration issue in favor of their own pocketbooks.

Legal Hispanic immigrants realize that blanket backdoor immunity further lessens their chance of securing employment, and that is obviously the wrong thing to do.

To Go To Top


Posted by Shavei Israel, June 26, 2012

As the resumption of the Bnei Menashe aliyah draws closer, we would like to share with you the stories of some of the new immigrants Shavei Israel will be bringing to Israel on that historic first flight from India.

Over the coming weeks, we will be publishing short profiles - written by the Bnei Menashe themselves - here in our newsletter, on Facebook and on our website.

But behind each profile stands a real person: an individual or the head of a family who will need our support once they arrive in Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel).

For each new immigrant who fulfills his or her life-long dream of settling in the Jewish homeland, Shavei Israel must raise more than $3,000. That includes $1,200 for transportation from northeastern India and another $1,800 to cover initial absorption costs.

The timeline for the arrival of the new Bnei Menashe immigrants is very tight. The first 50 families, numbering some 250 people, are slated to come to Israel within the next three months.

We turn to you now with unprecedented urgency. Unless we can find the funding for the immigrants on this initial flight, we are in danger of having to turn them away. We cannot let this happen!

(UPDATE: here is a Bnei Menashe boy and his friends and family at the airport some months after this article appeared.)

The Bnei Menashe, or "sons of Manasseh," are descendents of one of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. They were expelled from Zion more than 2,700 years ago. We now have the remarkable opportunity to right this ancient injustice.

Look into the faces of these earnest Bnei Menashe families. Read their stories Then please make your generous donation. Or call us directly at 972-2-625-6230. We are located at 58 King George Street, Heichal Shlomo, Jerusalem 94262. We will provide you with more details on how your help can make an incredible difference.

To Go To Top


Posted by Steven Shamrak, June 26, 2012

Hamas Plays Terror "Cat and Mouse" Game

After a group of Border Police officers was hit by a missile fired from Gaza at Ashkelon Tuesday night, one of the nine injured men is in critical condition, Hamas sent a note to Jerusalem claiming that the group can't stop firing missiles into Israel as long as Israel keeps hitting Gaza targets. Hamas took responsibility for the almost hourly barrage of 40 Qassam missiles launched against Israel. Military facilities in Ashkelon, Sderot, the Eshkol and Shear Hanegev districts were targeted. Predictably, despite a so-called "cease-fire" announced by Hamas, terrorists from Hamas-controlled Gaza fired three rockets towards the city of Ashkelon on Thursday evening. (Hamas' military wing says it agrees to an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire. It is not the first time they have terrorised Jews in Israel and avoid punishment by declaring a fake ceasefire. Yesterday a leader of the Hamas said that the group has agreed to try a new ceasefire with Israel, after six days of rocket firing from the Gaza Strip)

IAF aircraft targeted a terrorist squad that was preparing to fire a rocket at Israel from central Gaza on Friday afternoon. During the past week over 130 rockets hit Israel.

The Peace Process is Clinically Dead

Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said that the peace process with Israel is "clinically dead" just days before PA negotiator Saeb Erakat meets US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Negotiations between Israel and the PA have been moribund since late 2010, with the PA refusing to return to negotiations without pre-conditions. (Yes, the Oslo Accords expired a long time ago, bringing more misery and political defeat to Israel. It is time to do what is good for Jewish people, not for our enemies!)

PA: Release Terrorists and We Might have Useless Talks

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas demands the release of 123 long-term prisoners before agreeing to meet Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, said PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat. Abbas wants Israel to free terrorists detained before the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993. Abbas is demanding that Israel accept the indefensible pre-1967 lines as final borders, release all Arab terrorists from its jails, and halt construction in Judea, Samaria and east Jerusalem for a second time before talks begin. (If peace is dead, why is he still talking? Why does Abbas still set conditions?

Ramle Terrorist Tries to Burn Family Alive

A local Arab man hurled a firebomb at a car as a woman and her young children sat inside in the central Israel city of Ramle. (Jews are endlessly terrorised by Arabs not just in Judea, Samaria or Gaza)

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

It is not apparent yet, but quite soon the world will realised, due to the Islamic agenda of so-called the "Arab Spring" and the expansion of the Wahhabi ideology of Saudi Arabia, the importance of Israel's existence, as a front line of defence, for the survival of the Western democracies and other "infidel" cultures!

Example Israel Must Follow

An Israeli truck driver, beaten over the head with an iron bar by three armed Palestinians in a holdup at the Samoa junction south of Hebron a week ago, pulled out a pistol and shot two of them dead. The third robber was injured. (Israel is a victim of a holdup committed by Arabs and an anti-Semitic world. It is time to take decisive defensive measures!)

Iran Responsible for Attacks on Israeli Diplomats

In India, local agencies told ministers a bomb attack which badly injured the wife of the Israeli military attaché in New Delhi in February was the work of an Iranian "security entity". Their conclusions have not previously been made public and Indian officials have made significant efforts to avoid blaming Tehran, an ally and oil supplier. The governments of Georgia and Thailand, which both uncovered bomb plots on the day of the Delhi attack, have also not officially blamed Iran.

Romney: Obama Weak on Combating a Nuclear Iran

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney labeled his rival weak on combating a nuclear Iran, saying President Barack Obama is more worried about Israel, an American ally, taking preventative military action than about Iran itself. "This president has communicated in some respects that he might even be more worried about Israel taking direct military action than he is about Iran becoming nuclear,"

Russia and China Provide Military Protection to Syria

Military tensions around Syria shot up again Monday, June 18, with an Iranian report that a joint Russian-Chinese-Iranian exercise is to take place in Syria, called "the biggest of its kind ever staged in the Middle East," with 90,000 personnel, 400 air planes and 900 tanks taking part. This would be the first time Russia and China have deployed substantial military strength in the Middle East. It points to their determination to deter a US-lead military operation. (Superpowers are free to do anything they like! Must Israel helplessly suffer from terrorist aggression for over 60 years? International hypocrites have been disallowing Israel to end the occupation of Jewish land!)

But They Love Jewish Money

Five Palestinian Authority Arabs who entered Israel illegally were found to be among the workers building the fence on Israel's border with Egypt. The five were discovered in a surprise inspection. They had apparently fooled their employers with fake work permits.

Arming and Training Enemies is a Bad Move

US media report CIA officers in South Turkey are deciding which rebel groups will receive the heavy weapons - RPGs, ammunition and antitank arms - passed across the Turkish border by Syria's Muslim Brotherhood (? - See below) and other intermediaries, and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. When will the US learn that the nature of the Islamic beast cannot be changed. CIA did the same in Afghanistan, helping Al Qaida against USSR. We also saw the result on 9/11)

Editor of Pro-Israeli Iraqi Magazine Goes Missing

Mawlud Afand, an Iraqi Kurdish editor of a magazine that advocates relations between Kurdistan and Israel, is the editor-in-chief of the Israel-Kurd Institute's magazine and has been missing since June 8. (So much for building democracy and freedom of speech in Arab countries)

Quote of the Week:

"Apart from those who have been virtually 'blind' since childhood, all the other moderate Zionists have long since understood that there is not even the slightest hope of ever obtaining the agreement of the Arabs of the Land of Israel to Palestine becoming a country with a Jewish majority." - Ze'ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky, "The Iron Wall (1923)" - Those "moderate Zionists" have a short memory. Unfortunately, 'liberal' Jews have never learnt the lesson from abuse by anti-Semitic beasts. Appeasement of the enemies does not work for Jews!

Muslim Brotherhood Fact Sheet compiled by StandWithUs

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!" - The Muslim Brotherhood's goal is to turn the world into an Islamist empire. The Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, is a revolutionary fundamentalist movement to restore the caliphate and strict Shariah (Islamist) law in Muslim lands and, ultimately, the world. Today, it has chapters in 80 countries.

"It is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." - Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna.

The Brotherhood wants America to fall. It tells followers to be "patient" because America "is heading towards its demise." The US is an infidel that "does not champion moral and human values and cannot lead humanity." - Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Badi, Sept. 2010

...The Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat in 1981 for making peace with the hated "Zionist entity." It also assassinated Egypt's Prime Minister in 1948 and attempted to assassinate President Nasser in 1954.

Hamas is a "wing of the Muslim Brotherhood," according to the Hamas Charter, Chapter 2. The Charter calls for the murder of Jews, the "obliteration" of Israel and its replacement with an Islamist theocracy. The Brotherhood supports Hezbollah's war against the Jews. Brotherhood leader Mahdi Akef declared he was "prepared to send 10,000 jihad fighters immediately to fight at the side of Hezbollah" during Hezbollah's war against Israel in 2006.

The Brotherhood glorified Osama bin Laden and mourned his death. Osama is "in all certainty, a mujahid (heroic fighter), and I have no doubt in his sincerity in resisting the occupation, close to Allah on high." - Former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Mahdi Akef, Nov. 2007

...The Brotherhood advocates a deceptive strategy in democracies: appear moderate and use existing institutions to gain power. "The civilizational-jihadist process... is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house... so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious overall other religions," reads a US Muslim Brotherhood 1991 document. It believes it can conquer Europe peacefully: "After having been expelled twice, Islam will be victorious and reconquer Europe ... I am certain that this time, victory will be won not by the sword but by preaching and (Islamic) ideology." - Muslim Brotherhood Spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, "Fatwa," 2003

The Brotherhood uses democracy, but once in power it will replace democracy with fundamentalist Shariah law because it is the "true democracy." "The final, absolute message from heaven contains all the values which the secular world claims to have invented... Islam and its values antedated the West by founding true democracy." - Former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Mahdi Akef, Nov. 2007

...The Brotherhood will not treat non-Muslim minorities, such as Coptic Christians, as equals. "Allah's word will reign supreme and the infidels' word will be inferior." - Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Badi, Sept. 2010

...The Brotherhood has anti-Semitic roots. It supported the Nazis, organised mass demonstrations against the Jews with slogans promoting ethnic cleansing like "Down with the Jews!" and "Jews get out of Egypt and Palestine!" in 1936; carried out a violent pogrom against Egypt's Jews in November 1945; and made sure that Nazi collaborator and Palestinian Mufti al-Husseini was granted asylum in Egypt in 1946.

The Brotherhood remains virulently anti-Semitic. "Today the Jews are not the Israelites praised by Allah, but the descendants of the Israelites who defied His word. Allah was angry with them and turned them into monkeys and pigs... There is no doubt that the battle in which the Muslims overcome the Jews (will come)... In that battle the Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them." - Muslim Brotherhood Spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement and currently lives in Melbourne, Australia. He publishes internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict. This article is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by Roger Bodle, June 26, 2012

Thought you might like to read this letter to the editor of a British national newspaper. Ever notice how some people just seem to know how to write a letter?.

Here is a woman who should run for Prime Minister!

Written by a housewife, to her daily newspaper.

This is one ticked off lady.

'Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores in July 2002, and in New York Sept 11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so since? Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day in Washington, and in downtown Manhattan, and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting against in a brutal insurgency.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques and behind women and children.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of Nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the British media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home to hear about them when something happens.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a British soldier roughing up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this:-

I don't care or give a Tinker's DAMN.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take this to the bank:

I don't care a continental DAMN!.

When I hear that a prisoner - who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and 'fed special food' that is paid for by my taxes - is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts:

I don't care a DAMN.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.' Well, believe me!! guessed it ......

I don't care a DAMN!!

Contact Roger Bodle at

To Go To Top


Posted by P. David Hornik, June 25, 2012

Iran, Hamas Relish Muslim Brotherhood Win in Egypt

In comments posted by Iran's Fars News Agency that are ominous but not surprising, Egypt's newly elected Muslim Brotherhood president Muhamed Morsi said Egypt's peace treaty with Israel will be "revise[d]," blasted Egypt's military leaders for dissolving its Islamist-dominated parliament, and asserted that forging relations with Iran is "part of my agenda" and would "create a strategic balance in the region."

The Iranian Armed Forces, for their part, lauded Morsi's victory as "the first stage of Egypt's revolution in the era of Islamic Awakening." They also called on the Egyptian military—the main opposition to the Egyptian Islamists—to "welcome this divine blessing with open arms" and share in the building of Egypt "based on Islamic foundations...."

Under former president Hosni Mubarak, Sunni-Arab Egypt led the regional bloc that opposed Shiite-Persian Iran. In one case in 2009, Egypt rounded up an Iranian-backed Hizbullah espionage ring in the country that aimed to bring down Mubarak's regime.

It is, of course, always notable how easily Sunni and Shiite radicals—who in other contexts, like Iraq in recent years, fight each other savagely—will sometimes emerge as the best of friends. In this case, visions of jointly destroying Israel and subjugating the whole Middle East have evoked an orgy of smiles between Tehran and the Islamist faction in Cairo.

Hamas, too—formerly an Iranian client and recently moving back into the Brotherhood's embrace—celebrated Morsi's win in Gaza along with the population. Hamas head of government Ismail Haniyeh told Reuters TV that "We will look to Egypt to play a big, leading helping the Palestinian nation get freedom [and] return home...."

Another Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, said, "We are ready to sacrifice our blood to protect Egyptian soldiers" as sweets were handed out to Egyptian-flag-waving civilians in the streets.

Naturally, Israel's reaction to Morsi's triumph is quite different.

Israelis are aware that Egypt's Supreme Military Council (SCAF) made a major move last week—in addition to earlier dissolving the parliament—to curtail the Islamists' powers, including the president's power to declare war. Eyal Zisser, a Middle East specialist at Tel Aviv University, noted that "The military is hoping that Morsi loses his momentum quickly"—and also "hope[s] to get rid of him in the same manner that they dispersed the parliament.

But Zisser added: "We can only hope won't be the Islamists who have the last laugh. In Turkey, after all, the generals who anticipated Erdogan's political demise after he won the premiership are now sitting behind bars."

Veteran military commentator Ron Ben Yishai was also somber, writing that "for the first time in Egypt's history, the country's government adheres to blatant religious-Islamist ideology... regardless of the ongoing power struggle between the Muslim Brotherhood and the generals of the Supreme Military Council."

Such a regime, says Ben Yishai, "will be hostile to Israel based on its very nature and worldview.... This is what happened in Iran in the 1970s and more recently in Turkey, Gaza and Tunisia."

And, further:

Should the Arab domino effect continue to favor political Islam, the chance of securing a peace agreement with the Palestinians is nil. Moreover, under this state of affairs, the peace treaty with Jordan faces a significant threat, and we may also find various terror groups associated with the Brotherhood, the Salafists and Global Jihad on our borders with Syria and Jordan.

Another commentator, Dan Margalit, stated morosely that "The flag of peace between Israel and Egypt, which was always at half-mast, has dropped to the quarter mark following the Arab Spring."

And another one, Boaz Bismuth, sounded a note of bitterness, writing that

[Muslim Brotherhood founder] Hassan al-Banna had a vision: He and those who inherited his legacy were supposed to topple the existing regimes in Arab countries one after another and unite them under a singular international Islamic regime with the slogan "The Quran is our constitution." That was his dream, which was blocked by a dam, until U.S. President Barack Obama came and breached the dam.

Egypt's own Ahram Online reports that Egypt's secular and liberal parties share the perception that the U.S. backed the Brotherhood candidate and helped him win, with Osama Ghazali Harb of the Democratic Front Party "claim[ing] the US was pressuring SCAF to hand over power to the Muslim Brotherhood."

Notably, except for right-of-center Bismuth, none of the above-quoted Israeli commentators is a right-winger. But the hope that Egypt's Islamist tide can still be contained, without a deterioration into intensified terror if not war, is hardly a divisive right-left issue.

It was, however, Israel's trade three decades ago of the entire Sinai Peninsula for a peace treaty with Egypt—albeit carried out by Likud prime minister Menachem Begin—that launched the land-for-peace paradigm. And it was left-wingers who latched onto it with gusto, seeking to apply it hastily and enthusiastically to the Syrian and Palestinian fronts—with dire effects of drastically increased terror in the latter domain.

Today Israel is a country still undergoing a maturation process, which involves more realistically assessing the roiling, unstable surrounding entities instead of projecting dreams and hopes onto them. Obsessive talk about just which concessions would finally convert the Palestinians into paragons of peace has been replaced by worried, nonpartisan speculations about the future of Gaza, Sinai, and Egypt itself.

Israel is also a country that is mostly hoping for a new U.S. administration that would be more inclined to back the right instead of the wrong side in Middle Eastern disputes. Of course, from now till the end of this year—with the Iranian, Syrian, Egyptian, and other situations remaining very much unresolved—anything could happen.

P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Beersheva. He blogs at This article appeared today on FrontPage Magazine and is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by YogiRUs, June 25, 2012

 This article was written by Robert Satloff and is archived at Policywatch 1958

While the authority of Egypt's new president may be circumscribed, it is a mistake to underestimate his ability to influence political change at home and abroad. Before any further embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood leader, the Obama administration needs clarity on how Morsi's policies are likely to affect critical U.S. interests.

For both Middle Easterners and Americans, Muhammad Morsi's victory in Egypt's presidential election is a watershed moment. Eighty-four years after an obscure schoolteacher founded the Muslim Brotherhood, and nearly sixty years since the Egyptian army overthrew the king and established a republic, Morsi's success raises the prospect of Islamist governance in the most powerful and populous Arab state. For the United States, Morsi's election, coupled with Usama bin Laden's killing a year ago, underscores a shift from the threat of violent Islamist extremism to a new, more complex challenge posed by the empowerment of a currently nonviolent but no less ambitious form of Islamist radicalism.

Strangely, this is not how "conventional wisdom" sees Morsi's victory. The New York Times, for example, described his election as only a "symbolic triumph." That is because the military men who are hanging on to power in Egypt — the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) — stripped the presidency of considerable executive authority when they issued a "constitutional declaration" last week, arranged for the dissolution of the Islamist-controlled parliament by judicial authorities a few days earlier, and created a situation in which they retain control over both the process of writing a new constitution and the timing and rules for new parliamentary elections.

It would be a grave error, however, to fixate on the obstacles the army has put in the way of the Islamists without appreciating the latter's remarkable ability to fill any political vacuum they are permitted to fill — first, by stepping into Tahrir Square to inherit a revolution waged by secularists, second, by trouncing all comers in winning three-quarters of the seats in parliamentary elections, and third, by taking the presidency. At every point in the past seventeen months, when Egypt's Islamists have faced a political challenge, they have triumphed. Betting against them now, merely because the SCAF has neatly executed a rearguard holding action, is probably unwise. And depending on how the SCAF plays the cards left in its hand, the obstacles it has thrown in the path of Islamist monopolization of power may not be tools to derail the Brotherhood's ambitions, but instead gambits to negotiate the best deal possible and retain military prerogatives in an Islamist-controlled state.


It is difficult to exaggerate the regional implications of a Morsi victory. The key is not that Egypt will begin to flex its muscles in Middle Eastern politics — quite the contrary. With domestic politics sure to be roiled for at least the balance of 2012, Cairo will continue to be the nonplayer on the Arab, African, Mediterranean, and peace-process stages that it has been for quite some time. But the potent imagery of Brotherhood victory is likely to transcend that gritty reality. Even with Morsi's powers hollowed out by military fiat, and even with the drama of his victory whittled down by the nearly weeklong wait for confirmation, the example of Ikhwan political success will be a powerful intoxicant for some, and a poison to others.

While confirmation of Morsi's victory may spare Egypt a potentially violent faceoff between Islamists and the military, the shockwaves will be felt across the Middle East. This ranges from the wilderness of Sinai, where more-violent Islamists will push the Ikhwani leader toward confrontation with Israel; to the suburbs of Aleppo and Damascus, where the Morsi example will be a fillip to Islamists fighting Alawite rule; to the capitals of numerous Arab states, especially the monarchies, where survivalist leaders mortified by the prospect that Islamist revolutions could trump their claims of religious legitimacy will double-down on their velvet-glove/iron-fist strategies to fend off the fervor for change.

Reactions will differ by country. Wealthy Gulf states, more fearful of the Brotherhood's populist message than welcoming of its Islamist content, will offer aid to Egypt, but only enough to keep the country hungry without starving. Jordan, caught between an Egyptian Islamist rock and a Syrian jihadist hard place, will move closer to Washington and Israel. For its part, Israel will cling to the SCAF, with whom it has more intimate contact and better relations today than at any point in years. In other words, everyone will play for time.


The Obama administration is clearly not distraught at the idea of a Morsi presidency. Fearful of the mass violence that could have broken out at the announcement of an Ahmed Shafiq victory, the White House no doubt heaved a sigh of relief when the winner was declared. Even when it had the chance — before the second round of presidential voting — to signal its concern that a Morsi victory could negatively impact U.S. interests in terms of regional security or civil liberties, the administration chose not to do so. Instead, it limited itself to anodyne statements about "building a democracy that reflects [Egypt's] values and traditions" — whatever that means, given the country's 5,000-year history of Pharaonic and autocratic rule.

Indeed, only when it no longer mattered — after the Morsi victory announcement — did the White House issue an official statement specifically underscoring the importance of "respecting the rights of all Egyptian citizens — including women and religious minorities such as Coptic Christians," and noting that it is "essential" for Egypt to maintain its role as "a pillar of regional peace, security and stability." Those are powerful words that might have resonated with key constituencies if issued earlier. Assuming that the election was reasonably clean, that same message — delivered publicly and personally by the vice president or the secretary of state before the election — could have affected the outcome.

Morsi's victory may have averted a domestic Egyptian crisis in the near term, easing the burden for a U.S. administration that already faces at least two other urgent Middle East crises (the collapsing nuclear negotiations with Iran and a Syrian-Turkish flare-up that might suck Washington into the anti-Assad war it is avoiding at all costs), but its longer-term implications are potentially dire. Even with his powers circumscribed, Morsi will have considerable sway over three key national decisions: first, whether Egypt's new government addresses its urgent economic problems by acceding to populist demands for "social justice" or international and business-oriented demands for investment-focused market reforms; second, whether it prioritizes the Islamization of public space as a way to reward supporters and counteract the bitter pill of economic austerity; and third, whether an emboldened Brotherhood will export its political success to the West Bank, Jordan, Syria, or elsewhere as part of an effort to invigorate Egypt's dormant regional role. It is difficult to imagine a Morsi-led Egypt adopting policies that align with U.S. interests on all three of these questions; indeed, he may well pursue problematic policies on each of them.

Figuring out Morsi's direction on these issues — and gauging his reaction to costs Washington should consider imposing in the event he chooses a confrontational course — is a top U.S. priority. Morsi's early calming words notwithstanding, President Obama should refrain from giving further stamps of approval until the incoming leader and the government he will head clarify their approach on these core issues. In policy terms alone, it makes little sense to embrace Morsi before then, never mind the political downside of scheduling an early Washington visit for a doctrinaire leader who extols Hamas, promises to "revise" the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, founded the Committee to Fight the Zionist Project in Sharqiyah, and drafted the Brotherhood's anti-women, anti-Coptic election platform just five years ago.

Such clarity will also offer a clue to an even more fundamental question. A decade ago, bin Laden offered a model of Islamist governance — austere, Manichean, and bloodthirsty — that the Muslim masses rejected not for its ideological goal of creating an Islamic state, but for its sadistic, inhumane tactics, especially regarding innocent Muslims who were either targets or incidental victims of bin Laden's butchery. The Brotherhood's model of Islamist governance is undoubtedly different from bin Laden's, but is it a difference in means, ends, or both? Before that model goes viral across the Middle East — with what many Middle Easterners view as Washington's blessing, no less — the Obama administration should fashion a series of policy dilemmas for Egypt's new president and his colleagues to clarify answers to that key question. Given the blood and treasure expended to prevent the spread of al-Qaeda's message, failure to secure clarity on this critical issue could spell disaster for America's remaining partners in the Middle East.

Contact YogiRUs by email at

To Go To Top


Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 25, 2012

 This article is archived at citing-muslim-threats/

At the last minute, the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles canceled a Sunday morning event where Pamela Geller was scheduled to speak on the issues of war in the Middle East and the historical hatred of Jews in the Muslim world.

Citing security concerns that the building might be stormed by Muslim activists, the Federation informed the Zionist Organization of America — which was hosting the event — that the speech would be called off.

"We said, 'we will pay for additional security so there will be no problems,'" Morton Klein, President of the ZOA, told The Algemeiner. "They rejected that, saying 'we're not going to let Pam Geller or any of your people in the building.'"

Klein says the event was posted for weeks on the Federation's website and that everything was done transparently throughout the process of scheduling Geller to speak, and that the timing of the cancellation was upsetting.

"If there was a problem, we should have discussed it earlier, but we shouldn't cancel a talk because of threats and condemnations from radical Muslim groups or other anti-Semites," Klein said.

The Jewish Federation of Greater LA has not returned requests for comment on this story.

Geller, who is a controversial author and activist criticized by some for her beliefs towards Islam, says the Jewish Federation in LA has set a dangerous precedent.

"I think it was a disaster. Zionism is not welcome at the LA Jewish Federation," she said in an interview with The Algemeiner. "It was almost a historical moment where they would cave to a group who is affiliated with Hamas," she said, referring to reports that the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has been linked to the terrorist group by the U.S. Congress, was responsible for the event's cancellation.

According to the Los Angeles Times, CAIR representative Hussam Ayloush says his group will not be affected by people like Geller.

"We will not be affected by the noise of people who hopefully become more and more irrelevant," Ayloush said. "Unfortunately, outrageous rhetoric gets attention because it's outrageous, and Pamela Geller knows that very well."

Suggestions that the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles may have made their decision based on threats from "left-wing" donors, and not Muslim activists, were made to The Algemeiner by numerous sources.

And according to Klein, officials from the Federation have acknowledged the late cancellation to the ZOA.

"They called and told us they made a mistake by waiting to the last minute to discuss the issue" he said.

"We have nothing against the Federation. They do important work and they help Israel," Klein added.

UPDATE: Following clarification from the Zionist Organization of America of comments made by Mr. Klein, the following amendments have been added to this article.

1. The event featuring Ms. Geller was posted on the Federation website for three weeks preceding the event as opposed to "months" as reported originally.

2. Mr. Klein's reference to threats and condemnations from "the Muslim world" was clarified as threats and condemnations from "radical Muslim groups or other anti-Semites."

3. Mr. Klein's mention of an apology from the Federation as previously reported was clarified to be in actuality only an acknowledgment of their mistake in waiting to discuss and cancel the event at the last minute.

Contact Barbara Sommer at

To Go To Top


Posted by COPmagazine, June 25, 2012

 This article was written by Jim Kouri and is archived at Jim Kouri, CPP, the fifth Vice President and Public Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Contact Jim Kouri by email at

A homegrown terrorist who threatened the makers of the adult cartoon show South Park is headed for federal prison. (South Park/DOJ)

A New York-based radicalized Muslim convert was sentenced to 11 years in prison on Friday after he entered a guilty plea and admitted he threatened the writers of the Comedy Central "South Park" television show following the show's depiction of the Prophet Mohammad, according to U.S. officials.

Jesse Curtis Morton, a/k/a Younus Abdullah Muhammed, will also serve three years on probation when released from federal prison. The sentence was pronounced in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, according to the U.S. Justice Department.

Morton reportedly owned a web site that preached violent Jihad against enemies of Islam. He entered his guilty plea in February admitting to making threatening communications, using the Internet to frighten people, and being the founder and leader of the so-called Revolution Muslim's Internet sites while conspiring to commit murders.

According to prosecutors, Morton worked with another American Islamist, Zachary Chesser of Virginia, who pleaded guilty in October 2010 to sending threatening communications to the "South Park" writers.

Morton was arrested in Rabat, Morocco, last year extradited back to the United States, where he pleaded guilty. He originally faced a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.

"Jesse Morton sought to inspire Muslims to engage in terrorism by providing doctrinal justification for violence against civilians in the name of Islam. His crimes not only put people's lives forever in danger, but they also chilled free expression out of fear of retaliation by violent terrorists," U.S. Attorney Neil MacBride said in a statement.

To Go To Top


Posted by COPmagazine, June 25, 2012

 This article was written by Jim Kouri and is archived at Jim Kouri, CPP, the fifth Vice President and Public Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Contact him by email at

The news emanating from the United States regarding the political firestorm of Operation Furious and Furious and its connection to the killing of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, has renewed interest in another murder that's linked to the controversial gunrunning operation, a drug enforcement official formerly assigned to duty in Mexico told the Law Enforcement Examiner on Sunday.

According to the drug enforcement source, Mario Gonzalez, the brother of a Mexican law enforcement official, was abducted in 2011 by Mexican drug cartel enforcers who then tortured him and forced him to make a bogus confession al-la al-Qaeda-style videotaping. When the video was completed, the cartel killers savagely executed him.

While American officials offered their condolences to the sister of cartel's victim, they never dreamed at the time that the weapons used by those cartel enforcers were firearms that U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed to be smuggled into Mexico and into the hands of vicious cartel members, said the Law Enforcement Examiner source who requested anonymity.

According to several government and news media reports, U.S. ATF agents had allowed AK-47 assault rifles — later found in the killers' arsenal — to be smuggled across the border under the notorious Fast and Furious gun-walking program.

"U.S. officials also kept mum as other weapons linked to Fast and Furious turned up at dozens of additional Mexican crime scenes, with an unconfirmed toll of at least 150 people killed or wounded," said the source.

Almost a year after U.S. congressional hearings and the reassignment of the acting chief of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, top Mexican officials say American authorities still have not explained the operation or the dreadful results of that operation, the source said.

Patricia Gonzalez, the top state prosecutor in Chihuahua at the time of her brother's kidnapping, said she has worked closely with U.S. law enforcement officers for years and was stunned that she did not learn until many months later, through media reports, about the link between her brother's death and Fast and Furious weapons, according to the Mexican news media.

Operation Fast and Furious weapons were also tied to other deadly incidents in Mexico. In May 24, a helicopter carrying Mexican federal police during an operation in the western state of Michoacan was forced to land after bullets from a powerful Barrett .50-caliber rifle pierced its fuselage and armor-reinforced windshield. Three officers were wounded.

To Go To Top


Posted by Sergio Hadar Tezza, June 25, 2012

 This article was written by Tzvi Fishman and is archived at Tzvi Fishman was awarded the Israel Ministry of Education Prize for Creativity and Jewish Culture for his novel "Tevye in the Promised Land." For the past several years, he has written a popular and controversial blog at Arutz-7.

When the Spies returned from Eretz Yisrael with their evil report of the Holy Land, they put ashes on their heads, sat on the ground, and began to wail out in a loud voice so that all of the congregation could hear:

"Gevalt! There are giants in the Land, and we'll have to enlist in the army to fight them! Gevalt! Gevalt! Gevalt!"

Influenced by their dramatic cries and their flamboyant display of righteousness, the rest of the Jews joined them on the ground until a great roar was heard all over the wilderness, "GEVALT! GEVALT! GEVALT! WE'LL HAVE TO ENLIST IN THE ARMY!"

This scene came to my mind as I read this morning's top headline in The Jewish Press: "Sack and Ashes Rally Against Haredi Draft," with an accompanying photo of the protestors who "repeated chapters of Tehillim, verse by verse, and sat down on the ground in mourning just as Jews do on the day of Tisha B'Av."

Funny, Tisha B'Av was the day when the Spies returned with their devastating report which brought about the death of that whole generation in the wilderness until a new, de-galuted generation of Jews born into freedom arose to conquer the Land.

The Spies were diehard adherents of galut. They wanted to remain with the Torah of galut, and sit all day learning the Torah of galut in their four cubits of the Beit Midrash of the wilderness, protected by the Clouds of Glory, eating the manna and bottled gefilte fish without have to exert themselves in any mundane matters like defending the nation and cultivating crops for food.

But the Holy One Blessed Be He wanted something else entirely for His Holy People. It was time to give up the miniaturized Torah of galut and begin to observe the complete Torah of Eretz Yisrael!! No one loves Torah more than Hashem, but nonetheless, He wanted the Spies, and all of their yeshiva students, to take up their journey, and their rifles and swords, and go up to conquer the Promised Land!! Hashem wanted them to till the fields of the Holy Land, plant seeds, and harvest their own food! He wanted them to establish a holy Torah society, not in the wilderness of galut, in a geodesic dome, protected by the Clouds of Glory, but in the hills and valleys of the Land of Israel, the Holy Land, the unique place on the globe which Hashem Himself created for the Jewish people and Torah.

Only Yehoshua ben Nun and Calev ben Yefune had the courage and faith to stand up and shout out: "NO! THE LAND IS A GOOD LAND. DON'T BE AFRAID!! JUST AS HASHEM HAS BEEN WITH US UNTIL NOW, HE WILL LEAD US TO CONQUER OUR ENEMIES!"

But the "adah" of devout and righteous Jews yelled out "GEVALT!! WE'LL HAVE TO ENLIST IN THE ARMY!!"

The Jewish Press reports that the newspaper ads calling yeshiva students to this morning's protest in Mea Shaarim stated: "We are prepared with the utmost devotion to fight for the integrity of our holy Torah and not sacrifice any one from Israel to the military Molech."

My dear friends, let it be as clear as the noon sun in a cloudless blue sky, without that military Molech know as the Israel Defense Forces, all of those devout holy Jews in Mea Shaarim wouldn't survive more than ten minutes before Ishmaelite murderers stormed into their yeshivot and slit their throats from ear to ear until their blood reddened all of their pages of Gemara, just as the Arab savages did to the devout holy Jews in Hebron and the Old City during the pogrom of 1929 when there was no Israel Defense Forces to protect them.

Take a look at the photos of the pogroms yourself. True, they are black and white, but you can picture the rivers of bright crimson blood spilled all over the pages of Talmud as the devout holy Jews were butchered in the study halls of Torah that they so cherished.

Every morning after their davening, the devout holy Jews of Mea Shaarim should rush out to the streets of the city, find themselves one of those soldiers of Molech, fall down on their knees and kiss the soldier's boots for risking his life 24 hours a day to protect the devout holy Jews of Mea Shaarim from the bloodthirsty Arabs who are just waiting for the chance to flood the streets of Mea Shaarim with glatt kosher blood.

"We don't need your Molech army!" they say. "Torah is all we need! The Torah will protect us, not your airplanes and tanks!"

Rubbish! Nonsense! Stupidity! The Torah didn't protect the devout holy Jews who had their throats slit open during the pogroms of yesterday, just as the Torah didn't protect all of the millions of devout holy Jews from Nazi firing squads and gas chambers.

Dear friends, let me assure you. The devout holy Jews at the rally this morning don't love the Torah more than I do. Yet I served in the Molech Israeli Army. My sons serve in the Molech Israeli Army. All of the Jews in the Holy Land today can live here in the Holy Land precisely because the Holy One Blessed Be He has enabled us to have our own Jewish army after being slaughtered helplessly for 2000 years in galut at the whims of the goyim.

When Moshe led the war against Amalek, he didn't just pray on the mountain — he sent Yehoshua to lead the soldiers of the Molech Israelite Army to fight in hand-to-hand combat down below on the battlefield. Yehoshua didn't merely blow shofars in conquering the Land, he cut off the heads of the enemy. King David, who knew a little himself about reciting Tehillim, didn't rely on Tehillim alone when he set forth to battle, he took up his sword, flung his mini-Torah over his shoulder, and rushed forth with great joy until he had sliced all of Israel's enemies in half! And who was a greater scholar than Rabbi Akiva? To defend the Land of Israel from the Romans, he closed his Gemorah, rushed to the battlefield, picked up Bar Kochva's weapons himself and accompanied him into battle!!

So don't give me the Hasidic song and dance that I've heard so many times, "We don't need your Zionist army! The Torah will protect us, not your airplanes and tanks!"

Nonsense! It simply isn't true. That isn't Torah. That isn't Judaism. Yes, the Torah protects us — when we study, and when we pray, and when we arm ourselves with rifles and tanks and go out to destroy the enemy!

I wholeheartedly agree that the Government of Israel must make certain that the army is revamped to meet the special needs of all of its new holy recruits. No women in their platoons and army camps. Glatt kosher food. Adequate time to pray. Regular daily Torah study.

Once all of that is in place, yalla boys! It's a mitzvah to serve in the Israeli army! Instead of weeping in sack cloth, get up and serve Hashem with simcha! Not only is serving the army a mitzvah, it is a gigantic mitzvah of Clal Yisrael! Personally, I never felt holier than when I was wearing the green khaki uniform of Tzahal. When you are in the Israeli Army, you attach yourself to all of Clal Yisrael, to all of the Nation. Instead being a private individual person, you become a giant guardian of the Clal, cleaving to the traits of HaKodesh Baruch Hu, the Guardian of Israel, Shomer Yisrael.

Yes, dear friends, it is a very great mitzvah indeed to serve in the armies of Israel. A mitzvah from the Torah itself! That's right. If the occasion demands, the Torah commands us to go forth to battle, to fight what is called a "Milchemet Mitzvah," the mitzvah of war, as clearly set forth by both the Rambam and the Ramban (Rambam, Laws of Kings and Their Wars, 5:1-2; Ramban, Supplement to the Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Command 4.)

Don't be deceived by cries of "Gevalt!" and all kinds of holy curses. The armies of Tzahal, the Israel Defense Forces — what some devout holy Jews in Mea Shaarim call Molech — is a precept of the Torah! Not only a precept — it is a double precept — in enabling us to conquer and maintain Jewish control over Eretz Yisrael, and in saving Jewish lives from enemies who rise up to kill us.

True, within the army there are many problems that need to be corrected to insure that our camp remains holy, but serving in the armies of Israel is a mitzvah of the Torah, especially now, when millions of enemies surround us, yearning to wipe Mea Shaarim off the map.

(God willing, we will continue with this important discussion tomorrow.)

Sergio Tessa can be reached at

To Go To Top


Posted by Billy Mills, June 25, 2012

Gotta raise holy hell over this one.... more insidious than immigration! With this one, we're TOAST. Pls forward!

Very, very serious business... Your liberty and freedom are on the line.
Ratified treaties do trump our US Constitution!
LOST will cause us to lose our way.
bigg bill

 This article was written by Phillis Schlafly and is archived at

But at this very moment, a cabal of RINO's and Democrats are scheming to sneak this measure through the United States Senate... a UN-style treaty that is actually designed to hand over US sovereignty to a Third World, United Nations front-organization on a silver platter.

It sounds too strange to be true but they're actually planning to voluntarily cede control of the oceans and seas to an international, America-hating, United Nations front-organization and force us to pay "GLOBAL TAXES" for the privilege of doing just about anything on the open seas... that is... IF and WHEN we're ALLOWED by the America-haters of the world to do ANYTHING on the open seas.

Of course, we're talking about the insane Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and it must be stopped.

In a nutshell, LOST is an "international agreement" that hands over control of the high seas and the ocean floor to an organization which calls itself the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a wholly owned subsidiary of the United Nations and the Third-World.

Make no mistake, if this cabal of Democrats and globalist RINOs succeed and ratify LOST:

  • LOST would instantly become a permanent part of United States law and America would immediately surrender control of the free oceans and seas to the International Seabed Authority (ISA)... a United Nations front organization.
  • The ISA would have the sole power and authority to issue "permits" for fishing and drilling and mining operations at sea. In other words, if we wanted to drill for oil under the ocean, we'd have to crawl on our knees, tin cup in hand, and beg for permission from a gang of America-haters.
  • And even U.S. fishermen would have to come to ISA, hat in hand, and plead for the right to cast their nets into waters that have previously been open to all fishermen.

The greatest threat to our sovereignty (LOST) is back. Globalist stooges in the United States Senate, on both sides of the aisle, tried to sneak it past us under the cover of darkness and ram it down our throats in 2004 and 2007. Both times, patriotic Americans, like you, helped expose this plot, beat it back... and with your help we're going to do it again.

LOST Was Bad News Thirty Years Ago And It's Still Bad News Today.

The fight over LOST is nothing new. Globalists in the United States Senate first tried to push LOST down our throats over 30 years ago, but President Ronald Reagan drew a line in the sand back then and said that LOST would become United States law "over my dead body" ... and it was no exaggeration... he meant it. As a matter of fact, Reagan was so passionate in his opposition to LOST that, when he took took office, he made it a point to FIRE the State Department personnel responsible for promoting this treasonous treaty during the Carter Administration. If you really want to know what is wrong with LOST, Reagan summed it up best some thirty years ago: "No national interest of the United States can justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth's surface over to the Third World." According to Carrie E. Donovan of the Heritage Foundation, Reagan had three major objections to LOST.

  • First, he objected to the International Seabed Authority (ISA), an organization designed to "shake-down" United States mining and maritime companies by requiring an "application fee" of $500,000, an "annual fee" of $1 million, and a percentage of profits - up to 7 percent. Moreover, US companies would have been required to share sensitive and proprietary technology with unfriendly nations. And yes, as a direct result of these "fees," the ISA would have had the effective power to tax American citizens.
  • Second, Reagan understood the true purpose of restricting the world's supply of minerals by limiting access to the sea floor. It was to force nations (read that, us) to buy more from land-locked and often unfriendly third-world countries.
  • And third, he objected to the establishment of a United Nations-style court to rule the waves and rule against the USA.

Unlike Barack Hussein Obama, Reagan regarded himself as President of the United States rather than Savior of the Third World. He wasn't willing to surrender an inch of American sovereignty and would never condone forcing Americans to kneel and pay tribute to a bunch of third-world despots. And we know today what President Reagan knew then. If this treaty is approved by the Senate, Americans will surrender freedoms they can never regain and we must act now to preserve our freedom and our sovereignty.

And Yes, There's More.

If LOST is ratified, the International Seabed Authority would have the power to impose taxes on the people of the United States. The ISA will call them "assessments," "fees," and "permits," but they would be taxes that American businesses... and therefore consumers (that's you) would be forced to pay to third-world despots. Oh yes, that cost of doing business will be passed along to you. How much do you pay in taxes now for such exploration? Not one penny. Can you see any reason why Americans should be forced to pay a United Nations style bureaucracy to do something we now do for free? Of course not. But that's not all. This treaty from hell would not only tax Americans, it would also imperil our national security.

  • LOST would empower the International Seabed Authority to cripple the United States Navy - one of the most powerful forces for good in the world today - and leave us vulnerable to attack.
  • It would forbid our Navy from gathering intelligence in waters proximate to our nation's enemies.
  • U.S. submarines would have to travel on the surface in those same waters.
  • And we would be obliged to share our intelligence with the International Seabed Authority, where it would be funneled to Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other tin-pot lunatics around the world - all of whom have vowed to destroy the Great Satan.

Today the United States Navy can go anywhere in the world, not only because it is the most powerful force afloat, but because it enjoys the respect of virtually every nation. Why surrender this power and freedom to an inconsequential, international cabal of America-haters? We live in a dangerous world, where tiny nations like Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons programs and would have no qualms about incinerating one of our cities to please whatever brutal gods they worship. If we approve this treaty, we might well be signing a suicide note.

All Hail The New World Order. Lest You Think We Exaggerate, Or Have LOST Our Minds; Here's What Other Respected Conservatives Say About LOST.

Ed Meese, Reagan's Attorney General, and William Clark, his National Security Adviser, once called LOST "a dramatic step toward world government" and warned us against "the increasingly brazen hostility of the United Nations and other multilateral institutions to the United States and its interests."

James Malone, President Reagan's Special Representative for the Law of the Sea Conference and Chief of the Delegation, said about LOST: "The Treaty's provisions were intentionally designed to promote a new world order - a form of global collectivism known as the New International Economic Order (NIEO) - that seeks ultimately the redistribution of the world's wealth through a complex system of manipulative central economic planning and bureaucratic coercion."

Oliver North once said: "LOST also opens the door to a long-sought U.N. goal: the redistribution of wealth by taxing Americans. The International Seabed Authority (ISA), a bloated, multi-national bureaucracy headquartered in Jamaica, has the mandate to distribute revenues and 'other economic benefits' on the basis of 'equitable sharing criteria,' taking into account the interests and needs of developing States."

Steve Groves, of the Heritage Foundation, an expert on LOST, wrote: "In addition to needlessly exposing itself to baseless environmental lawsuits, the United States would be required to transfer billions of dollars in oil and gas the International Seabed Authority for redistribution to the developing world."

Senator Jim DeMint said: "This treaty would subordinate American sovereignty to the United Nations, impose an international tax on U.S. energy production that would raise costs for American families, and act as a backdoor Kyoto Protocol that could allow foreign nations to regulate U.S. energy emissions."

Forbes columnist Larry Bell reported that "as much as 7 percent of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast would be meted out to poorer, landlocked countries."

Tad Cronn, the editor in chief of The Patriots Almanac, wrote: "The treaty, which was endorsed by the former Soviet Union, would reduce our military power, rob us of rights over our own coastal resources, subject U.S. actions in international waters to the authority of foreign countries and submit our country to an international taxing agency that would 'redistribute' our wealth to other nations, including some of our enemies. ... As for increasing our national security, only a liberal could think that joining a treaty that requires us to give away secrets and our best technology to foreign nations that may use it against us is a way to secure the country."

But conservative icon, Phyllis Schlafly may have said it best: "It is global socialism. It is world government... It is a trap!" We could tell you that LOST is an Obama power-grab, but that would be a bold-faced lie. In actuality, it's an Obama power-giveaway... a treasonous attempt to sublimate the United States to the global community. It should be obvious that this treaty was designed with one purpose is mind: to cripple and rob the United States of America and we're not about to let that happen.

We've Got Some Bad News And We've Got Some Good News.

The bad news is that far too many of our so-called Republican Senators are swallowing the globalist Kool-Aid. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee WILL (repeat, WILL) send the Law of the Sea Treaty to the full Senate for ratification, possibly by the time you read this urgent appeal, and try to fast-track a vote on this treasonous treaty before the American people are any the wiser.

Why do we say "WILL?" Three of the nine Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar (RINO-IN), Bob Corker (RINO-TN) and Lisa Murkowski (RINO-AK), were on the Committee back in 2007 and voted in favor of LOST... and they'll do it again. And there's no doubt, if this treasonous and unconstitutional treaty passes in the Senate, the Great Usurper and Apologist-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, WILL sign it into law.

But there's also good news. Treaties can only pass the United States Senate with a two-thirds majority and that means we only need 34 United States Senators to stand in opposition to LOST. That's extremely do-able. You can make a difference right now, but it won't be easy.

The globalists in the United States Senate wouldn't be pushing LOST again unless they felt certain they could reach across the aisle and muster the votes to pass it. They're desperate... they see the handwriting on the wall... they know that the American people will reject Obama-Socialism at the polls in November and they're trying to ram through what they believe can be rammed through before the election. Make no mistake. A vote in the Senate on LOST could be close and that's why each and every Republican in the United States Senate needs to hear from you right here and right now.

Liberals are already putting on a full court press. Using the Alinsky tactic of ridicule, they're trying to shame the Republicans who are against LOST into voting for it through a campaign of lies and propaganda. The radical website, Think Progress, admonishes us: "One hundred and sixty-two other countries have ratified it, and the United States remains the only industrialized nation that has not joined the international community. (Other nonsignatories include such heady company as North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Libya.)" Get it? Only barbaric totalitarian morons have any objections to LOST.

According to Radio Boston: "Members of the U.S. Navy, the countries' business community and most of the country's former secretaries of state are in support of the U.S. signing onto the treaty." Give us a break. Of course high-ranking elitists support LOST. That's news?

And speaking of elitists, Stewart M. Patrick, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says that those who oppose LOST are "still trotting out long-discredited talking points."

The fact that such a statement (it's a crock, by the way) is coming from a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations just about says it all. We rest our case. But the latest scuttlebutt in Washington is that ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty would "give the United States a seat at the table."

RINOs in Congress love that expression.... they used that same idiotic rationale a couple of years ago to justify their support of ObamaCare... BEFORE you successfully demanded that they fly right and oppose it. And it's a rather ridiculous statement when you think it through. The United States doesn't need anyone's "permission" to "sit at the table." It's tantamount to inviting your friends (and some of your enemies) over to your house for Thanksgiving dinner, cooking the meal, and then begging them for a "seat at the table" once you've served the meal.

The United States doesn't need anyone's permission to conduct business in open waters and the United States doesn't need the Law of the Sea Treaty. We're not going to let this treasonous treaty gain any traction.

The time to stop it is now! Use this hyperlink to send your urgent Blast Fax messages to EACH AND EVERY Republican Member of the United States Senate. While too many RINOs have swallowed the globalist Kool-Aid, we only need the support of 34 Senators to scuttle the so-called Law of the Sea Treaty and you can make that happen right here and right now.

To Go To Top


Posted by Act for America, June 25, 2012

 This article was written by Lisa Piraneo, Director of Government Relations for Act for America and is archived at

Last Wednesday, I attended Chairman Peter King's fifth hearing addressing Islamic radicalization in the United States. This particular discussion was entitled: "The American Muslim Response to Hearings on Radicalization within their Community." The hearing room was filled to capacity. The witnesses were all Muslims or Muslim-Americans and the hearing was designed to take their pulse on the effectiveness of the Committee's approach to addressing the problem of Islamic radicalization throughout American communities.

To accompany the hearing, Chairman King released a report entitled, "The Radicalization of Muslim-Americans: The Committee on Homeland Security's Investigation of the Continuing Threat."

In 2010, prior to the start of the 112th Congress, Congressman King promised that if he were to serve as Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, he would place a top priority on understanding and addressing the threat of Muslim radicalization within our nation. The Chairman has proven true to his word — but it hasn't been an easy road for him.

As Congressman King noted in his opening remarks, from the moment he announced the hearings, he was "attacked by politically correct special interests and their unthinking allies in the media..." He noted that more than 1000 protestors came out in the rain to rally against him in Times Square, just days before the first hearing. Even so, Chairman King stayed the course. Why? Because as he put it, "the necessity of these hearings was obvious — and there should have been bipartisan support."

Unfortunately, after almost two years of his Chairmanship, that bipartisan support has yet to materialize. This is disappointing to say the least. As Brigitte Gabriel likes to say, "the threat of radical Islam to our national security is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue, it's an American issue."

The witnesses for this particular hearing were all of the Muslim faith:

  • Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, MD, President and Founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, who spoke about the importance of the separation of Mosque and State and noted that "ten years after 9/11 our heroes at the Department of Homeland Security remain occupied predominantly with a highly sophisticated whack-a-mole program..."
  • Ms. Asra Nomani speaking as a "Private Citizen," though she was a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and a journalist who reported on extremism for the last decade for publications such as the Daily Beast, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and Washingtonian magazine. She titled her statement, "Toward an Islam of Grace: Owning Up Instead of Being Wound Collectors." Ms. Nomani told the Committee that "inside much of our Muslim communities, we have departed from our very clear sense of holding ourselves accountable...we are very much a culture of denial, fixated on perceived wounds."
  • Dr. Qanta A. A. Ahmed, a British citizen and Permanent Resident in the United States, currently working with the World Trade Center First Responder patient population in New York. Dr. Ahmed's fellowship at the University of Cambridge in England was on the "psychological manipulation of Islam into the service of terror." She spoke of how her family not only has supported Chairman King's hearings on radicalization, but has welcomed them, even though they "remain aware of the risks" that her participation as a witness "can pose to me in my everyday life."

Ms. Faiza Patel, Co-Director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Ms. Patel expressed her opposition to the Chairman's hearing topic as she felt they did not "rest on a firm factual basis." She elaborated that the hearings "proceed from a premise — which is contrary to empirical evidence — that 'radicalization' is prevalent among American Muslims and poses an existential threat to our country. Moreover, they adopt a view of 'radicalization' that treats religious belief as a precursor to terrorism."

Yesterday's hearing presented yet another wonderful opportunity to understand and address the threat of radical Islam within our nation — this time spoken by those of the Muslim faith. Unfortunately, some members of the Committee used this as an opportunity to sidetrack the discussion, frequently in a way that was rude and disrespectful to the witnesses.

For example, the Committee's Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (D-MS), asked witness Dr. Qanta Ahmed if she was a U.S. citizen. When she replied that she was not, he insinuated that because she didn't have "any kind of security clearance or anything" she wasn't qualified to speak on the issue. Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA) responded that he was "kind of bewildered, frankly, by some of the questions and comments by my colleagues — that somehow your testimony isn't valid because you don't have a security clearance." He continued, "The longer I'm here, I guess, the less I'm surprised by what I hear at times." I think he spoke for many Americans that were watching the hearing from back home.

Congresswoman Laura Richardson (D-CA) belittled some of the panel's Muslim witnesses by saying, "This Committee — we're not a talk show, this isn't Oprah, this isn't entertainment, this isn't radio. This is the United States Congress. I would just ask that in the future, if we are going to have a U.S. Congressional hearing...I believe that at least some of the panelists should be people who have the authority, who receive the regular information to give us the most accurate and helpful information as possible." I found it amazing that after almost 6 years serving her constituents in California's 37th congressional district, Congresswoman Richardson apparently believes hearing from a regular U.S. citizen was beneath her and her colleagues.

As a final detailed example, Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) reminded those in the committee room of the Japanese internment camps, warning the Muslim witnesses who supported examining the Muslim religion when attempting to understand the Islamist threat, "be careful what you wish for. Our nation has a history that we don't like to connect often times, but be careful what you wish for in America."

I was impressed with Dr. Ahmed's response to Congresswoman Clarke: "Having these hearings is not going to lead to the internment of Muslim-Americans. It is exactly the lack of that kind of nuance which I draw to your attention respectfully, madam, that can damage the outcome of what is something that can be so positive. It's the lack of nuance in our academic community, our politics and our media that's missing."

You can see for yourself how the different committee members handled themselves by viewing the archived video of the entire hearing. If you missed today's hearing (and especially if one of your Representatives sits on the Committee), I encourage you to watch it in its entirety so you can be informed about how your legislators are addressing the issue of Islamic radicalization.

We are approaching the final months of the 112th Congress, and a very important election cycle is upon us. I don't know if Chairman King plans to hold any more hearings on Islamic radicalization during this term. What I do know, however, is that we should be tremendously thankful to him for his efforts to increase the visibility, and maintain the discussion, of the Islamist threat in America — and for his unrelenting work to protect our nation by finding a solution to that threat. That is one reason he will be awarded the 2012 National Security Eagle Award (our top honor) at our National Conference in Washington, DC next week.

As the Chairman stated during yesterday's discussion, "to somehow deny that there is any correlation between certain people of the Muslim faith and the greatest terrorist threat facing this country today just defies just does not add up at all."

ACT! for America's 235,000 grassroots members thank you, Chairman King, for all that you do on behalf of our national security.

To Go To Top


Posted by Yoram Ettinger, June 25, 2012

A nuclear Iran would be a clear and present threat to pro-US regimes in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, would lead to a violent, regional and global slippery slope, thus severely undermining the US economy and national security.

A top official from Bahrain told me, at the office of a senior member of the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, that "Saudi Arabia and Bahrain expect the US to alter its policy, and resort to steps which are required to remove the Iranian nuclear threat." A national security advisor to a senior member of the US Senate Armed Services Committee shared with me that "Pro-US Persian Gulf leaders are panicky about the rising Iranian nuclear threat."

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf regimes — which are considered apostates by Teheran's Ayatollahs - are aware that, unlike nuclear Pakistan and North Korea, the Ayatollahs of Iran have imperialistic-megalomaniac aspirations to dominate the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and (at least) the entire Moslem World.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States realize that "effective sanctions" is a contradiction-in-terms, since Russia and China, as well as India and Japan, and probably parts of Europe, do not cooperate with the US. Forty years of diplomacy and sanctions have paved the road to a nuclear North Korea and are paving the road to a nuclear Iran.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States presume that the current multi-lateral policy towards Iran leads to a lethal slippery slope, featuring a belligerent nuclear Iran; a meltdown of pro-US Gulf regimes; a breakdown of the oil supply system; a collapse of global economies; an escalation of nuclear proliferation in the Middle Eat and beyond; a radicalization of Islamic terrorism against traditional Muslim regimes and Western democracies; an eruption of local, regional and possibly global wars; or, a submission by pro-US Gulf regimes and Western democracies to Iranian demands.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are convinced that a unilateral US policy is required to prevent the slippery slope. They vie for a massive military preemption — with NO boots on the ground — to devastate Iran's nuclear, air defense and missiles infrastructures, minimize Iran's retaliatory capabilities, and preclude the calamitous ripple effects of a nuclear Iran.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are concerned that avoiding military preemption would further erode the US posture of deterrence and military power projection, which constitute the backbone of their national security. It would fuel fanaticism on the Arab Street, and would doom pro-US Saudi and Gulf regimes.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States assume that a decisive military preemption — with no ground troops — is a prerequisite to a regime change, which failed in 2009 due to Western vacillation. One cannot expect the domestic opposition to defy the Ayatollahs, while the US and/or Israel refrain from defiance. In 1978 and 2011, the US deserted the Shah of Iran and President Mubarak, thus facilitating anti-US regime change. In 2012, a military preemption would expose the vulnerability of the Ayatollahs, providing a significant tailwind to a pro-US regime change.

During the 1960s, the US failed in its attempt to appease Nasser and snatch him from the Soviet Bloc. It was the 1967 Six Day War - and not US diplomacy — which devastated Nasser and aborted his efforts to topple the pro-US regimes in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.

In 2012, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States expect the US to recoup its posture of deterrence and avoid past critical errors, which have jeopardized their survival and have advanced the nuclearization of North Korean and Iran.

Will the US fulfill such expectations by altering its policy? Or, will the US sustain the failed policy of sanctions and diplomacy, which will force Israel to preempt, in order to avert a clear and present danger to global sanity?

Ambassador (ret.) Ettinger, the Executive Director of "Second Thought: A US-Israel Initiative," an expert on Middle East politics and US-Israel relations, served as Minister for Congressional Affairs at Israel's Embassy in Washington and Consul General in Houston, Texas. He regularly briefs Israeli and US legislators and their staff on US-Israel strategic ties, Mideast politics and overseas investments in Israel's high tech. His articles are published at: This article is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by COPmagazine, June 24, 2012

 This article was written by Jim Kouri and is archived at Jim Kouri, CPP, the fifth Vice President and Public Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Contact him by email at

In what has become an all too commonplace scenario in Mexico, another fourteen dismembered corpses were discovered on Saturday inside a parked van in the lot of a shopping center in a northern city, according to a U.S. police source who monitors Mexico's ongoing war against drug-trafficking organized crime gangs.

The Law Enforcement Examiner source stated that the body parts were said to belong to 10 men and four women and crime scene investigators discovered a handwritten message meant for the leaders of the Gulf Cartel.

In a separate incident on June 7, as reported by the Law Enforcement Examiner, police officers discovered at least 14 mutilated and dismembered corpses packed into a large truck abandoned on the median of a highway in Veracruz, a drug enforcement source reported.

The van was located on the Alamo-Potrero del Llano Highway near the border with Tamaulipas state, the scene of the worst gang violence in northeastern Mexico, according to the DEA source.

The Veracruz General Attorney, Reynaldo Escobar Perez, called in Army and Navy personal to help the police officers remove the bodies and transport them to the federal forensic laboratory. Eventually, the remains were transported to the state capital and Gulf coast port of Veracruz, according to an official statement.

Calderon's conservative National Action Party, or PAN, appears likely to lose power in the presidential election on July 1, due partly to rising frustration with the drug-related violence.

This week, Mexico was left red-faced after authorities admitted they had mistakenly claimed to have captured a son of the country's most-wanted man, drug lord Joaquin "Shorty" Guzman.

To Go To Top


Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, June 24, 2012

National Union MK says leftist vandals should have been treated like settlers, hareidim.

 This article was written by Gil Ronen for Arutz-7 and is archived at

In a letter to the Public Security Minister, MK Michael Ben Ari (National Union) has protested what he sees as "the police's weakness in dealing with anarchists from Tel Aviv."

"[Protest leader] Daphni Leef, the tzfonbonit [a term used to denote uppity well heeled residents of northern Tel Aviv — ed.] has no special rights and the police should treat her and her friends just as they treated the settlers in Amona and the hareidi demonstrators in Meah She'arim," he wrote.

Ben Ari also mentioned Shai Malka, a Jewish Leadership activist who was arrested for the duration of proceedings against him for organizing the blocking of roads during the Disengagement.

"It is beyond me why the police are treating Daphni Leef and her friends with kid gloves, and why the lady was released a few hours after she was arrested. Why was a charge sheet not filed against her? Why did the police not ask for her arrest until the end of the proceedings for this act of mutiny?"

Ben Ari stressed that he supports the struggle for social justice and that he, too, opposes the Netanyahu government, "but there is a difference between freedom of expression and freedom of incitement. The rule of law must be respected."

Contact Barbara Ginsberg at

To Go To Top


Posted by Arny Barnie, June 24, 2012

 This article is archived at documents-detailing-the-cost-to-taxpayers-for-michelle-obama-s-family-trip-to-africa/

Charges for the Aircraft and Crew Alone Amount to $424,142

Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained mission expense records and passenger manifests from the United States Air Force related to the June 21-27, 2011, trip taken by First Lady Michelle Obama, her family and her staff to South Africa and Botswana. Judicial Watch obtained the documents pursuant to an August 19, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Air Force (No. 11-1496)). Judicial Watch is investigating the purpose and itinerary of the trip as well as a breakdown of the costs to taxpayers.

On June 28, 2011, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request seeking the mission taskings, transportation records, and passenger manifests for Michelle Obama's Africa trip. Documents were only provided after Judicial Watch filed suit:

  • According to U.S. Department of Defense's published hourly rates for the C-32A aircraft used for the trip, Judicial Watch calculated the total cost to American taxpayers was $424,142 for use of the aircraft (34.8 flight hours x $12,188 per hour). (The C-32 is a specially configured military version of the Boeing 757.) Other expenses — meals (off the plane), transportation, security, various services, etc. — have yet to be disclosed.
  • The passenger manifests confirm the presence of Obama's daughter's, Malia and Sasha on the trip. The two girls are listed as "Senior Staff." The manifests also list Mrs. Obama's mother, Marian Robinson, and niece and nephew, Leslie and Avery Robinson, as well Mrs. Obama's makeup and hairstylist (Carl Ray and Johnny Wright).
  • The expense records also show $928.44 was spent for "bulk food" purchases on flight. Overall, during the trip, 192 meals were served for the 21 passengers on board.

The professed purpose of Michelle Obama's trip to South Africa and Botswana was to encourage young people living in the two growing democracies to become involved in national affairs; and during her scheduled stops in Pretoria and Cape Town, South Africa and in Gaborone, the capital of Botswana, the First Lady used the opportunity to speak on education, health and wellness issues. The trip also included such tourist events as visits to historical landmarks and museums, plus a nonworking chance to send time with Nelson Mandela, a meeting that Mrs. Obama described as "surreal." The trip ended with a private family safari at a South African game reserve before the group returned to Washington on June 27. "This trip was as much an opportunity for the Obama family to go on a safari as it was a trip to conduct government business," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This junket wasted tax dollars and the resources of our overextended military. No wonder we had to sue to pry loose this information."

Contact Arny Barnie by email at

To Go To Top


Posted by Midenise, June 24, 2012

 This article was written by Gunny John McClain, USMC

Abusing The Rule of Law

A short time ago, prisoners being held in Afghanistan in the security zone were found to be writing notes in the margins of their Korans, and surreptitiously exchanging them, to communicate with each other.

Today, seven subordinates, six Army Soldiers and one Navy serviceman have announced they will face administrative disciplinary action for burning those confiscated Korans as part of their assigned duty that fateful day. They were offered Non-judicial punishment in lieu of courts martial. Such allows one to accept the summary judgment of the commanding officer, and avoid a court martial, and avoid a felony conviction a court martial finding of guilt provides.

The official story is the Korans were those issued to prisoners held for acts of terrorism or collaboration. Guards noted the prisoners were annotating in the margins, and trading Korans under cover. Once discovered, translators demonstrated the use of these Korans as tools to plan for escape, uprising, or any action possible, any action any prisoner of war would attempt, and something we, who have faced that possibility, can easily both understand, and note what would be our own actions, in the same situation.

The Korans were inspected; those with messages were bundled into heavy canvas bags, tied up, and put with the mass of detritus for burning, usually several times a day (my experience having been in Beirut, not Afghanistan, where I have not served). The remaining ones were returned to their owners, according to the reports.

The crime these Seven are said to have committed is the burning of Korans. They did not per se "burn Korans", they burned the "burn pile", the fact the command had placed the confiscated to be destroyed Korans in it was no responsibility of the accused.

Those assigned to burn the trash were not given orders to burn everything like normal, except those bags. They were simply those who fell into the daily duty of burning the trash, the classified documents, the confidential information, the normal communications, and in this case, the Korans being abused by the prisoners in an attempt to maintain communication with each other.

As a point of law, it would have been a court martial offense for any of them to have opened any closed or sealed envelope, bag or package, as such are routine with classified material being destroyed, and they must have orders to open anything, no matter how innocuous, and no one can ever suggest those bags, carefully tied off were "innocuous". Each and every item set to be burned had to be done so with themselves as legal witnesses, signing in a logbook, and without any authority to even read a line off a piece of paper.

These Seven Patriots, men who volunteered with the whole of their lives, and accepting orders to war, without qualms, they were given a simple order: "you have burn detail today, make sure it is all completely burned before you sign off". For all they knew, they may as well have been taking the trash to the curb, except there is no pickup service.

Not one of them chose this duty, and not one of them has any responsibility for what was put out for them to burn. They are not being taken to court martial because they have violated no law, but merely followed orders. I can't know the personal story of each of these "accused", but the issue is not one of a crime they committed, but only an issue of the enemy inciting the Afghan people into riot. The response of our leaders was selecting seven junior enlisted innocents, and a sham punishment, rather than deal with the issue in full truth in the light of day.

This Nation's sole standing as an honorable Nation is our principle of "the rule of law" being applied equally for all Citizens, across the board, no exceptions, no special dispensations. Our standard established a new paradigm for the world to consider. We established the law was to apply to the least of all exactly as it applies the highest in authority. Where is "the rule of law"?

The order to destroy those Korans came from the Commander of the base. If he did not issue it, the order was issued in his name. Not one of those accused had any authority to even question what was being burned, much less the authority to look and discover.

The whole of this issue is simple. We run a prison, while we attempt to help establish a government in Afghanistan. We run it according to our law, for our self-protection, with greater liberty and rights for prisoners than any other venue they could experience. In the routine of doing so, the prisoners used their Korans to try to communicate, and we took them.

If the intent were anything other than maintaining order, there is no shortage of means to desecrate. Those Korans were properly confiscated, properly put to be burned, and the entire issue is a matter of the Commander of the forces not willing to confront the Afghans with the fact we won't tolerate any act to break out of prison, and willing to cede seven innocents to be offered up instead of the truth.

If the Commander has any testicular fortitude at all, he would have stood up with his opposites of the Afghan side, clearly stated what took place, stand on the fact the burning of the Korans was the only way to destroy them without deliberate desecration, and take the full weight of the action upon his own shoulders, and put our standard of Honor in their faces, with enthusiasm and vigor, denying any honor in their stand on the issue.

We don't have a general over there, we have a political appointee, instead, and as usual, politicians have no problem offering enlisted Soldiers and Sailors up for sacrifice.

Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav.

To Go To Top


Posted by Midenise, June 24, 2012

Have you ever been to a Muslim hospital, heard a Muslim orchestra, seen a Muslim band march in a parade, witnessed a Muslim charity, shaken hands with a Muslim Girl Scout, seen a Muslim Candy Striper, or seen a Muslim do anything that contributes positively to the American way of life????

The answer is no, you did not. Just ask yourself, WHY???

Barack Obama, during his Cairo speech, said: "I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's history."


Dear Mr. Obama:

Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed? Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.

Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.

Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution? Declaration of Independence? Bill of Rights? Didn't think so.

Did Muslims fight for this country's freedom from England? No. Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America? No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery.. Your own half-brother, a devout Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black Muslims as "pug nosed slaves." Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family's "rich Islamic heritage," doesn't it Mr. Obama?

Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not present. There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.

Where were Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage era? Again, not present. In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hajib' or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband. Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights, aren't they?

Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi's in killing Jews.

Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001? If they weren't flying planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East. No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day. Strangely, the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo, Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11. To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.

And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here in America. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates. They were Muslim. And now we can add November 5, 2009 - the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. That, Mr. Obama is the "Muslim heritage" in America.

Muslim Heritage, my ass.

Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav. This article is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 24, 2012

I waited until the official presidential election results in Egypt were announced before doing this post. Word has just come out from the Supreme Presidential Electoral Commission that, in the presidential election run-off, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Mohamed Morsi (or Mursi), has garnered 51.7 % of the vote, defeating former general Ahmed Shafik, who was prime minister under Mubarak.

Morsi, it should be noted, is a US-educated engineer, and spent time in jail during Mubarak's regime.

This is the first time in 60 years that the president of Egypt will not have come out of the military.

In Tahrir Square, where tens of thousands of Islamists had been waiting impatiently for the results to be announced, a cry of Allahu Akbar ("God is great") went up.


Egypt is still badly divided and fraught with tensions, however, and it remains to be seen how a variety of factors will play themselves out with regard to Morsi's leadership:

What sort of government he will form.

How much control the military will retain.

What his relationship with the US will be.

Whether he will work to retain the peace treaty with Israel.

Whether he will seek to regain and sustain control of the Sinai.

What his relationship with an ecstatic Hamas and other terrorist groups will be.


That Egyptian Islamists are jubilant at the moment is not a fact that warms the hearts of Israelis. This is what Dore Gold wrote recently:

"...on May 1, 2012, an Egyptian cleric, Sawfat Higazi, who shared the stage with Morsi announced: 'we can see how the dream of the Islamic Caliphate is being realized, Allah willing, by Dr. Mohamed Morsi and his brothers, his supporters, and his political party.' He added 'Our capital shall not be Cairo, Mecca, or Medina. It shall be Jerusalem, Allah willing our cry shall be: "Millions of martyrs march toward Jerusalem."'"

Morsi may end up making Mubarak's "cold peace" look warm: he has made statements indicating that he will retain the peace treaty with Israel, but that he will not meet with Israeli leaders, and will make the "Palestinian issue" a priority.

He has also gone on record as saying he wants a larger military force in the Sinai. The rationale here would be the need for that force in order to gain control of the area. But this would contravene the peace treaty — which very deliberately structured the Sinai as a non-militarized area between Egypt and Israel — and would present a threat to Israel should matters deteriorate.


Obama has courted the Brotherhood in a variety of contexts.

(See, for example, Jihad Watch on this here: -with-muslim-brotherhood-speeds-pace-of-aid-to-egypt.html.

And so it's a reasonable bet that he will reach out to the new Egyptian president now.

In fact, it's even worse than this. According to the Gold piece cited above:

"...spokesmen for the U.S. State Department and the Pentagon decided [just days ago] to press the Egyptian Army to relinquish the governing role it is seeking to carve out for itself."

Obama had a hand in the situation that led to the election of a member of the Brotherhood to the Egyptian presidency. We need yet more destructive meddling?


There have long been tensions between Egypt and the Saudis. The current situation exacerbates this, as neither Saudi Arabia nor the Gulf States are comfortable with the turn of events in Egypt.

And that leads to other information that I'm picking up, strictly unofficially, regarding enormous Saudi discontent with Obama.


There are several issues I would like to simply touch upon here, with the understanding that most if not all require close watching and likely further comment:

There was a continued barrage of rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza over Shabbat and into last night. These included Grad rockets that were stopped by Iron Dome installations.

Presumably a "cease fire" was arranged via Egypt, but, after some hours of quiet, it was broken again late in the day today. Netanyahu made an announcement about how quiet will be met with quiet, but if we continue to attack we will respond with force. This is all so terribly deja vu.

Of course, the responses by the IAF, such as they may be, are insufficient to really stop what's happening. Routinely, when we've been in this situation — which is totally unacceptable to Israeli civilians in the south — I've called for an appropriately harsh response.

This time, I have not gone in this direction, simply because I understand that we may be gearing up for something a great deal bigger and so cannot afford to draw on resources here now. I will not second-guess this situation.


Deputy Prime Minister Mofaz ended up meeting with President Obama during his visit to Washington last week. There had been no official visit scheduled. It was, rather, one of those carefully choreographed "spontaneous" meetings in which "the president dropped by." Mofaz, who was meeting officially with US National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, assured an undoubtedly delighted president that with the new coalition here in Israel (now including Kadima), there was a new window of opportunity for peace negotiations.

"A new window of opportunity." What a hackneyed and over-blown political phrase.

I ask again the question I posed the other day: Is Mofaz blowing in the wind, or has something been cooked up?


When thinking about what might be done — Heaven forbid! — to entice Abbas to the table, please consider this greatly unsettling item, which I picked up from IMRA (with commentary):

"As a goodwill gesture to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who arrives here [Israel] June 25, military officers have proposed that Israel approve a long-delayed transfer of some 50 Russian armored troop carriers to Ramallah.

"Moscow donated the used vehicles several years ago to augment the Palestine Security Forces' ability to maintain order in the West Bank, but they have been languishing on the Jordanian side of the border since 2010 pending Israeli technology transfer approval."

Bolstering PA military capacity is a VERY bad idea and generates risks for Israel. There is a history of members of PA security forces turning their weapons on Israel.


I'm seeing a variety of commentaries, all somewhat speculative, regarding both the enormous likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran, and the possibility of US military support in this regard.

As I said, speculative. But worth a mention.

The scuttlebutt — and this has been my own unofficial speculation — is that if we do hit, it will be before the US election. This is merely a question of logic: when facing the electorate, Obama would be constrained in his response to Israeli military action; after the election, if — may it not happen — Obama were to be re-elected, the dynamic would be different.


Lastly, I mention here the issue of the huge cache of non-conventional weapons (chemical and gas) that Syrian president Assad possess. As the situation in Syria becomes more and more unstable, the concern is that these weapons might fall into the hands of a terrorist group, most notably Hezbollah. The situation is being watch closely, both by international forces (including the US) and by Israel.

Either the US or Israel is very likely to act on this, should Assad be on the verge of falling — either securing the area around the cache with military or hitting the relevant sites.


This post, with its battery of very grim reports, begs for an up-beat ending. And so some good news from There truly is a great deal that is "very good." A brief sampling:

[] Israeli men have the 3rd longest life expectancy. Only men in Switzerland and Iceland live longer. How about that?

[] Hebrew University researcher Dr. Lital Magid has designed and synthesized compounds of marijuana that reduce brain inflammation and promote healing.

[] Israel leads the world in water technology. In 2015 when water taps in Israel are turned on, 75% of the water will come from desalination plants. Today, already 80% of water used in agriculture is recycled wastewater.

[] Mosab Yousef — the son of Hamas's founder, who had a radical change of heart — spoke to thousands of Druze soldiers during Druze Soldier Day in Tiberias. "It is time that the neighbors will learn from Israel what the value and holiness of life is."

[] Evogene Ltd of Israel has signed a cooperation agreement with India's Rasi Seeds Ltd. to develop drought resistance rice with better crop yields.

[] A new paper, co-authored by Ph.D. student Noam Josef and Dr. Nadav Shashar of Ben Gurion University's Department of Life Sciences, on how the octopus makes itself invisible, suggests that octopi focus on a limited selection of nearby objects in order to determine their disguise. See this incredible YouTube video:


Contact Arlene Kushner and visit her website:

To Go To Top


Posted by Michael Devolin June 24, 2012

David Horowitz, in his book Hating Whitey, wrote, "The fact is that it is not tolerable in America to hate blacks, but it is okay in our politically correct culture to hate white people." Mr. Horowitz points out a little later that, "A paradox of the current civil rights debate is the way in which the terms of the historic conflict have been reversed. Martin Luther King Jr.'s triumphant crusade to extend America's constitutional covenant to all citizens is today scorned by the very heirs to his legacy....It is the traditional civil rights activists who now march to oppose civil rights initiatives that seek to defend the principles for which King stood, and it is their efforts, which if successful, would put that historical process in reverse."

It was reported in the Associated Press this past week that Alice Walker (one of those heirs to King's legacy) has forbidden an Israeli publisher to release the Hebrew-language edition of her Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Color Purple because she says "Israel is guilty of apartheid and persecution of the Palestinian people." She protests that she grew up under "American apartheid" but that the Israeli version suffered by the Palestinian people "was far worse." How very interesting.

My first thought about Alice Walker's very general excoriation of the State of Israel and the defense of its sovereignty and Jewish citizenry against Arab Muslims who wish all Jews, both within and without her present borders, the very worst of fates, is that African Americans, unlike their Jewish counterparts, were already living within the bounds of an established nationhood when their protestations against racism began to be heard beyond those bounds. Jews, on the other hand, even after achieving a second sovereign nation (where the first one used to be) as a refuge from future threats of total annihilation, have always been faced with the nagging reality that simply living peaceably alongside their Arab-Muslim neighbors (the so-called Palestinians included) is dangerously insufficient to garner peace with those same Arab-Muslim neighbors, especially when the only other alternative for Israel — ironically, the very alternative proposed by her Arab-Muslim enemies — is the extirpation of Jews and Jewish nationhood from the Middle East altogether.

Alice Walker has now descended from the basic Sharpton type anti-white racism into the darker regions of overt anti-Jewish hatred. An accomplished writer like Alice Walker will surely understand how someone like me, a non-Jew and self-educated, might accuse her of anti-Semitism and intolerance by reason of her broad and very public condemnation of the State of Israel, a condemnation with the added punishment of depriving from anyone who reads Hebrew the freedom of reading her stirring novel The Color Purple. I would have thought that someone of her intellectual capacity could perhaps trust in Israel's Jews (a people not without a reputation for genius) — if it were so that their nation really is so evil — to find enough inspiration from her novel about "American apartheid" (to borrow her definition) to turn away from their own version of such pandemic racism.

Instead, her objective in withholding the Hebrew-language version of her book from Israel's Hebrew-speaking majority remains unclear and obviously counterproductive. Alice Walker's "affirmative action" of late betrays an anti-Jewish hatred, in my opinion, which would explain her very public reassurances of having had "the joy of working beside" certain and undisclosed "brave Israeli activists," some of whom just happened to be Jewish.

Alice Walker is proudly defending Arab Muslims, a people who, apparently unbeknownst to her, have been murdering for decades now not only Jewish men women and children simply because they were Jewish, but also their own Arab Muslim homosexuals, mothers and daughters, and anyone who is even suspected of doing business with Israeli Jews. These are the same Arab Muslims who elected, democratically no less, Hamas as the governing body of Gaza.

America cleansed itself long ago from an apartheid ("segregation") that really did exist. The State of Israel, however, has nothing to repent of. Apartheid does not exist in Israel, never has; it's as simple as that. So why are Israel's leaders, therefore, inculpated by Alice Walker for simply defending their Jewish citizens from Arab Muslims who wish them dead? Such anti-Jewish hatred, in Alice Walker's case, is nothing but an aging yet still very fashionable anti-white racism now dressed up in pro-Palestinian clothing, shouting anti-Jewish canards. Once a racist, always a racist. Once an anti-Semite, always an anti-Semite.

Norman Mailer wrote that, "Once a newspaper touches a story, the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonists." My take on Alice Walker is that she is, like so many other shouting and screaming anti-Semites in the world today, infatuated with sounding off against the State of Israel and her Jews, regardless how misinformed her protestations, regardless how incitive her unctuous blather.

Janet Lehr of IsraelLives has written recently that certain Jewish organizations in the Diaspora have "set out to, and have achieved, the separation of Jews away from Israel, toward their homelands in the diaspora and, further encouraged them to view themselves first as citizens of the world, not as 'special', not as Jews first." I'm guessing those Jewish friends Alice Walker boasts of "working beside" are of the same feather and strive for the same goals. They are definitely not Zionists. And being a Pulitzer Prize winning writer does not excuse anyone — not even Alice Walker, an African-American — from the shame that eventually and inevitably tarnishes all those exposed as anti-Jewish bigots. Ask Mel Gibson. Or as the wise King Solomon wrote long ago, "A little folly outweighs wisdom and honour."

This article appeared in the Magic City Morning Star.

To Go To Top


Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 23, 2012


President Obama established a Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF). He chose Turkey as co-chair of the Forum, to take place in Istanbul.

The U.S. invited Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, China, Russia, India, and some Western European governments. Not invited was Israel, although Israel has more experience countering terrorism than the other countries invited, and Israel cooperates with the U.S. against terrorism.

Why did the Obama administration bar Israel? The U.S. did not let Israel come because Turkey's President Erdogan objected.

Meanwhile, a U.S. official who briefed the press before the opening session claimed that the GCTF has overcome divisions between Western and Muslim countries.

GOP politicians contend that the Administration is working with Muslim states at Israel's expense. Pro-Israel sources note that Turkey opposes declaring Hamas a terrorist organization. Pres. Erdogan considers it a "resistance movement." On the other hand, the attempt by the Kurdistan Workers Party to establish a Kurdish state in parts of Turkey and Iraq is called by Turkey and the U.S. terrorist (06/10/12, Ran Dagoni, Washington-Globes from IMRA).


It is sad to see Turkey joining the Arabs in praising terrorism against Israel while pretending to oppose terrorism. Calling terrorist attacks on Israel "resistance" does not make them legitimate. What makes those attacks terrorist is that they target civilians. The methods are what make an organization terrorist, not the purpose. Nor is the purpose of the PLO and Hamas national liberation but the opposite, destruction of Jewish national liberation.

Consider some of the members. Saudi Arabia is the financial and educational source of much jihad. Pakistan fosters terrorism that kills U.S. troops. China and Russia protect some sponsors of terrorism such as Iran. Arab states stave off international action against mass-terrorism by Sudan. The Turkish government has close ties to the terrorist organization that attacked Israeli commandos stopping the flotilla.

Kurds have committed terrorism against Turkey. But if Turkey thinks that the PLO and Hamas engage in national liberation, why not accord the Kurds the same status? The answer is that some countries, notably Saudi Arabia, oppose terrorism against themselves but not against certain other countries. It depends whose ox is being gored, the usual basis for a double standard.

B. Syria: Will Jihadists Take Over? U.S. Role?

Al-Qaeda and Salafists in Syria are coordinating their efforts against the regime. Muslim fighters are coming into the country from all borders. Notice the increase in suicide bombing. Al-Qaeda coordinates the radicals. Radicals are becoming the major influence in the rebellion, while also causing Syrians, who dislike the Brotherhood more than they dislike Assad, to rally around Assad.

Fighting also has flared in Lebanon between Alawites and Sunnis. Lebanese Alawites are aided by Hizbullah and Iran, and actively are opposed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and assorted Radical Muslims. Turkey and Libya side with the Syrian rebels and ship in arms, and Russia sides with the Syrian regime. An Islamist militia seems to have burglarized Libyan arms warehouses, and sent arms to Syrian rebels. The Libyan militia head, Abd el-Hakim Beljah, is the commander of an al-Qaeda militia of 700, and is a member of the Transitional Government.

The Syrian National Council is unable to unite the opposition factions. (Jacques Neriah, Jerusalem Issues Briefs Vol. 12, No. 13, 6/28/12, from

Some time ago, Assad claimed that terrorists were involved in the rebellion. Nobody paid heed, and possibly he was lying at the time. Now we know terrorists are involved, but still no heed is paid. The U.S. quietly is helping the rebels, just as it did in Libya, where Radical Muslims now have more influence than before.

Obama foreign policy harms the U.S. national interest.

C. U.S. Demands Egypt Turn Power Over to Brotherhood

On pain of canceling billions of dollars in military and civilian subsidy, the Obama administration demanded that Egypt's military turn full power over to the elected civilians. The military had assigned full power to itself, leaving the elected officials without the power to rule. The U.S. calls this undemocratic, and the news report calls the election Egypt's first free one (from an Egyptian media source via IMRA, 6/20/12).

Call that a free election, when the religious fanatics know how to win votes but their opponents do not? It's premature to expect democracy to spring up immediately, there. What is so good about civilian rule, when it would be Islamist, sure to persecute minorities even more, probably make war, and very likely turn that country further totalitarian?

It was bad enough that the Obama administration helped destabilize Egypt in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood. Now he is insisting the Brotherhood be allowed to take over. Whose side is he on?

A common thread in the Obama administration is support for Radical Islam and opposition to Israel. The enemy is within. Americans voted for "hope" and got a Trojan horse for jihad.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email

To Go To Top


Posted by nutella59, June 23, 2012

 This article was written by Nathan Burstein and is archived at

David Duke
After his release from prison, KKK leader David Duke endorses anti-Israel candidate from Brooklyn. He backs Charles Barron's Democratic primary bid, citing shared hostility to 'Zionist control' (photo credit: Burt Steel/AP)

A shared hostility toward Israel is apparently what it takes for an ex-Ku Klux Klan leader to endorse a black Democrat from Brooklyn.

David Duke, the former KKK Grand Wizard who served as a Republican state legislator in Louisiana, has spoken out in support of New York City politician Charles Barron, citing his opposition to Israel. "I certainly agree with Barron that Israel is the worst rogue, terrorist state on earth," Duke says in the statement, posted Wednesday on YouTube.

"Barron is certainly right about Zionist control of our media and our government and the treason that's existed in our Congress," he later adds.

Duke, whose YouTube account describes the statement as a "qualified endorsement," goes on to criticize Barron's positions on race-related issues, but blames "Zionists" for sowing discord between white and black Americans. "The Zio-masters want constant conflict between the two groups so that they can utilize a divide-and-conquer strategy over us all," he claims.

Barron's campaign — part of a Democratic primary for a Congressional seat representing Brooklyn's eighth district — has distanced itself from Duke. ""We're staying focused — and we demand respect for our campaign," the politician, currently a member of the city council, told the New York Daily News. "I don't think that's a campaign issue. I don't think it's intelligent."

Barron's opponent, Hakeem Jeffries, comes in for harsh criticism from Duke, who describes the state Assemblyman as a "complete Zionist sellout." A spokesman for Jeffries told the Daily News, "Hate and extreme rhetoric have no place in our society. We denounce David Duke's remarks in [their] entirety and urge the other candidate in this race to do the same."

Brooklyn voters will choose between Barron and Jeffries on June 26.

Closer than expected, the race has focused renewed attention on Barron's support for dictators such as Robert Mugabe and Muammar Gaddafi, as well as his attacks on Israel, including a description of Gaza as a "concentration death camp."

To Go To Top


Posted by Donald Hank, June 23, 2012

I started writing about this topic even before the Arab Spring was announced, at a time when very few others were even mentioning the hardships of Christians in the Middle East. They were all too busy running with the herd and demanding the removal of the most stabilizing leaders in the region. Aside from this article by Farah, I still don't see many writers reporting the stark truth about Christians in the Middle East.

On the other hand, Obama, after gauging the reaction to his military policies in the Middle East, has restrained himself from taking military action there.

If Joseph Farah wants to be absolutely forthright, he needs to admit that the real war hawk on Middle East affairs is Mitt Romney, who has urged the US to arm the Islamic Syrian rebels.

Mitt said in May:
"...The United States should work with partners to organize and arm Syrian opposition groups so they can defend themselves." syrian-rebels-lead-effort-oust-bashar-assad/8ASReNmBrMHqY1DpUz2bWN/story.html

Mr. Farah. Your criticism of the current regime is well taken, but Obama is not the chief offender. If you write as forthrightly about Romney as you did about Obama, Romney will be forced to backtrack. And that is what must be done to protect your Christian brothers in Syria.

I beg you to do so, in the Lord's name.

I am not asking anyone not to vote for Romney, just to make it clear that he must change his position on this issue.

Don Hank

This below was written by Joseph Farah, who sees genocide of Christians should Assad regime fall. Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. He is the author or co-author of 13 books, including his latest, "The Tea Party Manifesto," and his classic, "Taking America Back," now in its third edition and 14th printing. Farah is the former editor of the legendary Sacramento Union and other major-market dailies.

There's a certain eery consistency to the Obama administration's foreign policy.

It's always wrong.

U.S. support for the rebellion in Syria is a sad illustration.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have always been a staunch critic of Bashar al-Assad and his tyrant father before him. But, in the Middle East, the choice is often between bad and worse. And, predictably, Barack Obama has chosen worse by siding with Islamists over the authoritarian dictator with plenty of faults of his own.

For Americans, our prime concern should be humanitarian in a conflict like this. While Syria is an anti-Semitic and anti-Israel police state, what will inevitably follow the fall of Assad will make the current regime look like a benevolent picture of stability by comparison.

Syria is the home of one of the largest Christian populations in the Middle East. That is largely due to the Christian refugee crisis that was brought about largely due to the turmoil in Iraq since the U.S. intervention there. While Assad is a bad actor, he has been tolerant of religious minorities, including Christians. In fact, Assad, an Alawite, is part of a religious minority himself.

But if the Assad regime falls, it will mean genocide for the Christian community. In fact, the escalating rebellion is already taking its toll on Syrian Christians.

This hits home for me as the descendant of Christians who fled Syria and Lebanon long ago, as Islam gained more and more influence.

The radical Islamists who form the vanguard of this rebellion are forcing Christians to flee their homes as they advance and intensify their fight to topple Assad.

At least 9,000 Christians from the western Syrian city of Qusayr were forced to seek refuge after an ultimatum from a local military chief of the armed opposition, Abdel Salam Harba, reports the Fides news agency.

In the latest outburst of violence, a Christian man was shot dead by a sniper in Qusayr, which neighbors the restive city of Homs.

There have been reports that some mosques in the city have announced from the minarets: "Christians must leave Qusayr within six days."

Two Catholic priests who fled Qusayr confirmed to the news agency that they heard the ultimatum "with their own ears" repeated from the minarets.

"The situation is unsustainable in the area and exposed to total lawlessness," Fides sources on the ground say. They also fear that the fate of Christians in Qusayr could soon affect the 10,000 believers who live in other villages in the area.

The areas controlled by the opposition are witnessing the rise of radical forms of Sunni Islam with the extremists not willing to live in peace with the Christians. Many of these gangs and armed groups operate independently of the Free Syrian Army, which officially rejects such kinds of discrimination against minorities.

Two generations of the Assad regime have guaranteed secular rule in Syria, protecting Christians from discrimination and guaranteeing their rights.

Last week, an armed group broke into and desecrated the Greek-Catholic church of St. Elias in Qusayr.

"It is the first time in the ongoing conflict that such an episode has occurred in which sacred symbols are deliberately hit," a local source told Fides.

Some 2 million Christians make up about 10 percent of the country's population with most belonging to the denomination of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch.

The chaos and sectarian violence in post-Assad Syria "will be confessional [religious], and war in the name of God is far worse than a political struggle," Patriarch Ignatius Joseph III Yonan warned last October, just seven months into the uprising. "And this is what we fear."

A similar situation has already unfolded in Iraq, where violence has caused more than one-half of the country's 1.5 million Christians to flee since the beginning of the American-led invasion in 2003. More than 70 churches have been bombed in Iraq during the past eight years, many by al-Qaida insurgents. One of the most serious incidents took place in October 2010, the so-called Black Sunday Massacre, when terrorists opened fire on a service in Baghdad's Our Lady of Deliverance Chaldean Catholic Church, killing 53 Assyrian Christians.

After the fall of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, about 10,000 Christians have been forced to leave. The trouble is there's no place for Christians to go in the Middle East. While Jordan is still hospitable, it may also be the next domino to fall to the Muslim Brotherhood revolution sweeping through the region — with the support of the Obama regime.

Is this what Christian America wants to see?

Interventionism in the Middle East is often a bad idea. But it's worse when the U.S. intervenes on the wrong side.

To Go To Top


Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 23, 2012

 This article was written by Charles Krauthammer. Contact him at

"With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations [of immigrants brought here illegally as children] through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed." — President Obama, March 28, 2011

Those laws remain on the books. They have not changed. Yet Obama last week suspended these very deportations — granting infinitely renewable "deferred action" with attendant work permits — thereby unilaterally rewriting the law. And doing precisely what he himself admits he is barred from doing.

Obama had tried to change the law. In late 2010, he asked Congress to pass the Dream Act, which offered a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants. Congress refused.

When subsequently pressed by Hispanic groups to simply implement the law by executive action, Obama explained that it would be illegal. "Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. ... But that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution was written

That was then. Now he's gone and done it anyway. It's obvious why. The election approaches and his margin is slipping. He needs a big Hispanic vote and this is the perfect pander. After all, who will call him on it? A supine press? Congressional Democrats? Nothing like an upcoming election to temper their Bush 43-era zeal for defending Congress's exclusive Article I power to legislate.

With a single Homeland Security Department memo, the immigration laws no longer apply to 800,000 people. By what justification? Prosecutorial discretion, says Janet Napolitano.

This is utter nonsense. Prosecutorial discretion is the application on a case-by-case basis of considerations of extreme and extenuating circumstances. No one is going to deport, say, a 29-year-old illegal immigrant whose parents had just died in some ghastly accident and who is the sole support for a disabled younger sister and ailing granny. That's what prosecutorial discretion is for. The Napolitano memo is nothing of the sort. It's the unilateral creation of a new category of persons — a class of 800,000 — who, regardless of individual circumstance, are hereby exempt from current law so long as they meet certain biographic criteria.

This is not discretion. This is a fundamental rewriting of the law.

Imagine: A Republican president submits to Congress a bill abolishing the capital gains tax. Congress rejects it. The president then orders the IRS to stop collecting capital gains taxes and declares that anyone refusing to pay them will suffer no fine, no penalty, no sanction whatsoever. (Analogy first suggested by law professor John Yoo.)

It would be a scandal, a constitutional crisis, a cause for impeachment. Why? Because unlike, for example, war powers, this is not an area of perpetual executive-legislative territorial contention. Nor is cap gains, like the judicial status of unlawful enemy combatants, an area where the law is silent or ambiguous. Capital gains is straightforward tax law. Just as Obama's bombshell amnesty-by-fiat is a subversion of straightforward immigration law.

It is shameful that congressional Democrats are applauding such a brazen end run. Of course it's smart politics. It divides Republicans, rallies the Hispanic vote and preempts Marco Rubio's attempt to hammer out an acceptable legislative compromise. Very clever. But, by Obama's own admission, it is naked lawlessness.

As for policy, I sympathize with the obvious humanitarian motives of the Dream Act. But two important considerations are overlooked in concentrating exclusively on the Dream Act poster child, the straight-A valedictorian who rescues kittens from trees.

First, offering potential illegal immigrants the prospect that, if they can hide just long enough, their children will one day freely enjoy the bounties of American life creates a huge incentive for yet more illegal immigration.

Second, the case for compassion and fairness is hardly as clear-cut as advertised. What about those who languish for years in godforsaken countries awaiting legal admission to America? Their scrupulousness about the law could easily cost their children the American future that illegal immigrants will have secured for theirs.

But whatever our honest and honorable disagreements about the policy, what holds us together is a shared allegiance to our constitutional order. That's the fundamental issue here. As Obama himself argued in rejecting the executive action he has now undertaken, "America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that."

Except, apparently, when violating that solemn obligation serves his reelection needs.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at

To Go To Top


Posted by COPmagazine, June 23, 2012

This article was written by Jim Kouri and is archived at Jim Kouri, CPP, the fifth Vice President and Public Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Contact him by email at

On Friday, President Barack Obama visited Florida on a campaign stop and spoke to a crowd of Latinos about his end-run around the U.S. legislature when he announced his new non-deportation policy. But not everyone in the Sunshine State was enamored with Obama, least of all Rep. Allen West, according to political strategist and attorney Michael S. Baker.

Many Floridians and politicians, such as Rep. West, believe that Obama's action is unconstitutional and are pondering what action will be taken by U.S. lawmakers, public-interest groups and political organizations to stop the Obama administration's latest Chavez-esque power grab, Baker noted.

On Friday, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) said he is challenging Barack Obama on "his shocking usurpation of Congressional lawmaking powers under the Constitution, as Obama effectively declares Amnesty for nearly a million illegal immigrants in the U.S. [thereby] defying Congress' refusal to pass any such exemption to existing immigration law."

Rep. West argues that the constitutional position, that any significant changes of policy or enforcement are to be matters of legislation, reside as the sole responsibility of the Congress. And he does so correctly, according to many legal scholars who believe in the separation of powers.

At the very least, such a profound shift in the obvious intent and effect of standing law as originally passed by Congress would require the subsequent approval of Congress, said Congressman West, a decorated Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army.

"We have representative government," West said in a statement, "and I think right now this shows that we're getting away from government that's based upon the consent of the American people, and we're starting to live under a rule by edict or Executive Order."

"The devil is in the details of [Obama's edict]," said the former combat officer.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano claims the administration's new program for young illegal immigrants, taken from the oft-failed DREAM Act legislation that has not been successful in passing several sessions of Congress, is "not Amnesty," despite the fact that it will remove them from the deportation process, allow them work and education privileges, and unrestricted opportunities for reapplication for deferred status.

"In my book, that's amnesty. In most sane people's books, that's amnesty. This whole controversy shows exactly how the left controls the language and the definition of words. George Orwell and Joseph Goebbels and Saul Alinsky would be proud of the Democrats," said former police captain and security director Jeff Fitzgerald.

"At a time when American citizens are struggling to find work, the president has added an additional one million or more immigrants to compete for jobs that should go to the children of citizens. Plus illegal aliens get to pay in-state college tuitions which are much less expensive, while American children must pay out-of-state fees that are double or triple the tuition rates. Obama calls that fair?" asks Fitzgerald.

Meanwhile, Rep. West and fellow African American Republican Congressman Tim Scott (R-SC) are working to even the playing field for black conservatives who are treated viciously by the Democrats and their media sycophants.

For example, Tennessee congressional candidate, Brenda Lenard, who calls herself a Frederick Douglass Republican, often surprises audiences when she tells them that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a registered Republican not a Democrat, since the Democrats and Ku Klux Klan were closely aligned in the South during Dr. King's civil rights movement.

To Go To Top


Posted by Jen Kutner, June 23, 2012

  The Jewish Week article quotes Avi Posnick, StandWithUs New York Regional Coordinator, who attended TIAA-CREF's annual shareholder meeting.

AS They Falsely Boast They Convinced TIAA-CREF To Divest From Caterpillar Inc.

(New York) — On June 21 Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and other anti-Israel boycott and divestment activists once again shamelessly misrepresented both the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and their own track record. They issued press releases boasting that their anti-Israel campaign had convinced the giant pension fund TIAA-CREF to drop Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) from its "Social Choice Portfolio." They claimed that TIAA-CREF had embraced their false accusations against Israel.

But their claim was false, their declared victory a hoax. The anti-Israel boycott and divestment campaigners simply exposed their lack of credibility yet again.

TIAA-CREF did drop CAT from its "Social Choice Portfolio," but the decision had nothing to do with the anti-Israel campaign. CAT was dropped by MSCI, a research firm that ranks companies that should or should not be included in "socially responsible" funds. According to MSCI officials, CAT was downgraded because of labor disputes in Canada, not because of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. TIAA-CREF's "Social Choice Portfolio" dropped CAT from its fund only because of the MSCI downgrading. But TIAA-CREF still holds millions of shares of CAT in its other portfolios.

JVP and its allies should have known that TIAA-CREF did not drop CAT because of their pressure. In 2011 at the annual TIAA-CREF shareholders' meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina, TIAA-CREF CEO Roger Ferguson unequivocally told the campaigners, "It is not likely that engagement is going to get the outcome you're looking for. We have decided, in the way in which we manage the portfolio, that this is not something in which we're going to engage."

This is not the first time the anti-Israel boycott campaigners have misled the public by claiming nonexistent victories. In August 2010, they claimed that Harvard University's investment company had dropped all holdings in Israeli firms because of Israel's unacceptable policies. In fact, just the reverse proved to be true. The Harvard Management Company upgraded Israel's status from an emerging to a developed market because it was doing so well economically. The Israeli holdings no longer qualified for Harvard's emerging market fund, and many were transferred to other qualified funds. Similarly, in February 2009, boycott activists declared that Hampshire College had divested from a fund because several of its companies did business with Israel. In fact, the decision to divest from the fund had nothing to do with Israel, as Hampshire College officials repeatedly explained.

Anti-Israel activists target CAT for divestment even though CAT also sells its products to Palestinians through the Jallad Group and the Palestinian Tractor Company, which is the CAT dealer in Ramallah and Gaza City. Palestinians have used CAT equipment during the building boom and economic growth now happening in the West Bank and Gaza.

StandWithUs: JVP Misrepresentations on TIAA-CREF. CAT, Harvard, ShareholdersWell-meaning people who want to make socially responsible investments should beware of exaggerations made by anti-Israel activists. The activists' dishonesty about their own success is paralleled by their dishonesty and bias about the history and events of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They support anti-Israel extremists. Their goal is to punish and ultimately dismantle the one Jewish state in the world, not promote peaceful coexistence. The anti-Israel boycott and divestment they advocate are destructive, punitive measures that will not help the Palestinians.

"Boycott and divestment campaigners are waging a war to spread hostility toward Israel. They have shown that they cavalierly and consistently misrepresent facts — probably because they know that if the actual facts were known, they could not persuade others to adopt their prejudice against Israel. Fortunately, the responsible people at TIAA-CREF, Hampshire College, and Harvard have not been influenced by their incessant lobbying. People of good will who want to see peaceful coexistence should condemn their malicious, destructive campaign and their misrepresentations," said Roz Rothstein, CEO of StandWithUs.

To Go To Top


Posted by Midenise, June 23, 2012

 This article was written by Kent Terry, Sr. and Josephine Terry of the Brian Terry Foundation ( The article is available at family-our-son-didnt-have-to-die?clienttype=printable

Brian Terry

It has been more than 18 months since our son, Brian Terry, was shot and killed by a Mexican drug cartel armed by a failed U.S. Department of Justice "gunwalking" operation known as "Fast and Furious."

The pain that Brian's death has caused our family is indescribable. No matter what words we use in this letter to you, we will never be able to justly convey how much suffering we have endured. We still grieve every day, and we are resigned to the fact that the agony of his death will stick with us for the rest of our lives. Not because he didn't achieve his dreams ... not because he didn't live his life to the fullest. and not because he didn't leave anything behind that we couldn't celebrate or remember.

Our family will be forever grief-stricken because Brian didn't have to die.

We wish we could take solace knowing that Brian died doing what he loved to do. After all, it was his childhood dream to make a career in law enforcement and become a federal agent.

As a youngster, Brian was inspired by his Uncle Bob, a Michigan police offer who would give Brian tours of the police station and share stories of what it was like to be a police officer. From then on, Brian believed he was destined for a career in law enforcement. He joined the Marine Corps after high school and served four years in Naples, Italy before becoming a police officer in Lincoln Park, Michigan — just like his uncle. But Brian's ultimate dream was to become a federal agent, and so he applied to the United States Border Patrol.

In 2007, he attended the Border Patrol Academy in El Paso, Texas, graduating as president of his class before being assigned to the Naco station near Bisbee, Arizona, only a few miles from the U.S.-Mexican border.

Brian accomplished exactly what he wanted to. But all of what he had worked for - and all our family had come to adore and love - was taken away so abruptly ... so needlessly.

On December 14, 2010, Brian was conducting operations as a member of the Border Patrol Tactical Unit in Nogales, Arizona. He and his team encountered five Mexican drug cartel bandits in the "Peck Well" area near Rio Rico, Arizona. Not knowing the bandits were carrying the latest military grade assault weapons provided by the Justice Department as part of Operation Fast and Furious, there was an exchange of gunfire and Brian was shot in the lower back.

He died on December 15, 2010. Before then, our family was expecting Brian to return home for Christmas. What we were not expecting was that he would return home in a flag-draped casket. All because of an ill-conceived government gun trafficking investigation gone horribly awry.

The Justice Department's "gunwalking" operation called for American gun dealers to sell weapons to "straw purchasers" tied to Mexican drug cartels between 2009-2011. The intention was to track the guns as they were sold to Mexican drug lords, which would theoretically lead to the arrests and dismantling of the cartels.

But that's not what happened. It turned out that there was no actual plan to track the movement of the guns as they were "walked" into Mexico.

As a result, one of our four children and as many as 200 Mexican citizens were killed with weapons connected to the operation.

Still, hundreds of guns sold as part of Operation Fast and Furious remain unrecovered, putting more brave law enforcement personnel along the border - like our son - at unnecessary risk.

Even though our son fell in the line of duty more than 18 months ago, we still don't have answers that explain why he had to die.

Unfortunately for our family and the families of others who have been injured or killed with these weapons, our son's death has ballooned into a national controversy. Currently, the House Oversight Committee is moving forward with contempt proceedings against Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General and head of the Justice Department, for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena requesting all of his communications regarding Operation Fast and Furious. Our hope is that the Justice Department is not withholding information that could expose those who are responsible for our son's death.

It has been nearly eight months since Mr. Holder was served his subpoena, and we know little more now than we did then. We think our family and Brian's memory deserve better.

So even though this government investigation drags on and prolongs our family's suffering, we are taking action.

We have established the Brian Terry Foundation not just to preserve Brian's memory and honor his service to our country, but to also help families of other U.S. Border Patrol Agents who have been killed or injured by providing ongoing emotional and financial support, establish educational scholarships, recognize the heroic efforts of current Border Patrol Agents, and raise public awareness of the flawed Fast and Furious investigation. It is also our personal mission to guarantee that any mistakes made by the Justice Department are never made again.

So please, we urge you - not just for our son, but for all U.S. Border Patrol Agents who came before him and who will come after him - to join our cause and give as generously as you can. We have to make sure that nothing like Fast and Furious ever happens again, and without grassroots support from folks like yourself, our mission fails. This failed government operation cost our son his life, but that doesn't have to stop us from saving the life of someone else's son.

In the loving and enduring memory of Brian A. Terry,

Kent Terry, Sr. and Josephine Terry

Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav.

To Go To Top


Posted by Anne Bayefsky, June 22, 2012

The Obama administration has fallen into an unfortunate habit in its desperation to burnish strong foreign policy credentials — claiming its representatives have made robust statements to an international audience that they haven't. On Monday this week it happened again. The State Department posted what was alleged to be a hard-nosed speech delivered by UN Human Rights Council Ambassador Eileen Donahoe in Geneva at the opening of the Council's latest session. Listening closely to what she actually said, the tough talk wasn't uttered.

Here is what the State Department claims Obama's Ambassador said, but didn't:

The United States demands an end to the Assad regime's outrageous crimes against the people of Syria. Those who committed these atrocities must be identified and held accountable.

Here are more words from her purported "speech" that Donahoe failed to mouth:

Some believe that the Human Rights Council should not address country-specific situations. We disagree. The credibility of the UN's human rights machinery depends on its capacity to address urgent and persistent human rights situations where and when they emerge; to make a difference in the lives of the people who suffer under oppressive governments; and to protect those around the world who work to advance the cause of human rights.

This isn't the first time that the Obama administration record has been doctored.

In September 2010, two months after a series of systematic mass rapes began in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there was an informal meeting on the subject over a Human Rights Council session lunch break. Very deliberately it was not a meeting of the Council itself, there was no advertisement in the UN bulletin, no webcast, no recording service, and no UN press release on the event. But the U.S. mission to Geneva issued a press release with the title: "United States Welcomes Engagement by Human Rights Council on Abuses in DRC." The press release included a large file photo of a full meeting in the Council chamber — though the "informal dialogue" had purposely not been scheduled in that chamber. The press release also quoted Ambassador Donahoe as saying: "Today's meeting demonstrated that the Council can react to events in real time." A few days later, Donahoe wrapped up the Council session with the praise: "I also recognize the forward movement made on other important human-rights issues this session. ... I welcome the council's engagement on the issue of the mass rapes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This showed the council's ability to react to real events in real time and to contribute its voice to this important issue." Not only was two months later not "real time," but the Council itself had not reacted at all.

Again in September 2010 the U.S. UN mission to Geneva gave UN officials a copy of a Donahoe "speech" to the Human Rights Council — that was duly posted on the UN website —containing a spirited defense of Israel. Israel was under attack for having prevented Turkish-backed thugs from breaking its lawful blockade of Hamas-run Gaza. But here are the words in the posted statement that Donahoe did not in fact deliver:

In contrast to the unbalanced mechanisms adopted under this agenda item, Israel has been conducting its own process of credible investigations, and Israeli officials have been actively engaged in scrutinizing doctrinal issues. Israel has also established an independent public commission to examine the Israeli mechanism for investigating complaints and claims raised in relation to violations of the laws of armed conflict. This commission is headed by respected Israeli jurist Yaakov Turkel and includes two international observers: Nobel Peace Prize laureate Lord David Trimble and former Canadian Judge Advocate General Kenneth Watkin. This commission, along with the ongoing inquiries and changes in combat doctrine demonstrate Israel's ability to conduct credible investigations and serious self-scrutiny, and we urge this Council to consider these factors as it deliberates.

Here's another. The Council continued its Turkish flotilla discussion in September 2010 and the State Department website claims that Donahoe delivered a speech in which she said: "We have received the lengthy report of the fact-finding mission. We are concerned by the report's unbalanced language, tone and conclusions." But what she actually said was: "On an initial reading, we are concerned by the report's unbalanced language, tone and conclusions."

And again. In June 2010 the State Department posted a hard-hitting speech supposedly delivered at the Human Rights Council on the subject of Iran by the Norwegian Ambassador on behalf of a group of countries including the United States. In point of fact, after being interrupted by fourteen separate points of order and a two-hour suspension of the meeting, the Ambassador carefully omitted the word 'Iran' three times from the original written text and cautiously sputtered: "We call on "the aforementioned government" to live up to the commitments it has undertaken ... and to fulfill its obligations. ... [We] wish to see an improvement in the human rights situation of individual people "in this country." Donahoe even acknowledged the walking back, telling Reuters that the statement "is intended as a show of solidarity with the human rights defenders, rather than a condemnation of the government" — but the alleged tough rebuke of Iran still graces the Obama administration website.

In short, team Obama has given new meaning to the caveat — which they don't bother to use — "Check Against Delivery."

A version of this article by Anne Bayefsky appears today on PJ Media. The article is archived at Contact the organization at info@EYEonthe Anne Bayefsky is editor of EYEontheUN. She is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College.

To Go To Top


Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 22, 2012

This article was written by Christine William and is archived at She has her own interview show in Canada called On the Front Line. It is hosted by CTSTV. From this article you can appreciate that she does her homework well and writes well.

This hatred has nothing to do with the so-called "occupation," as Palestinian schoolchildren are taught to believe, but is instead fuelled by Israel having a different ideology of true Democracy and Human Rights in a region where most leaders are hostile to both.

The United Church of Canada has released the 26 page report of its Working Group on Israel/Palestine Policy, which the church will consider introducing as policy when the denomination's 41st General Council convenes in Ottawa August 11-18. The Working Group indicates that its recommendations were put forth in search of truth, justice and reconciliation when in fact it does little or nothing of the sort. It refers to Israel as the "thief," the "occupier," and the "oppressor," and compares Israeli policies to those of South Africa under apartheid, and more shockingly to Sudan, despite the fact that people from Africa risk their lives to get to Israel to escape the Islamist apartheid rampant throughout African countries such as Sudan, South Sudan and Nigeria, to name but a few.

While acknowledging Israel's right to exist, this biased and scathing report against Israel calls for "Christian economic action" against it, and points out that Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967. Nevertheless it omits that these territories — under dispute — were taken by Israel in a defensive war, the second that united Arab countries had initiated against it since Israel's founding in 1948. It is difficult to imagine a view advanced by the United Church working group, along with the automatic majority of autocracies in the United Nations, that countries which start wars and then lose them should be rewarded. The Group also omits that Canada is the greatest friend to Israel and that it opposes anti-Israel labels, as well as attempts to exterminate Israel economically by means of divestment, boycotts and sanctions [BDS].

Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird recognized immediately what this working group failed to recognize: he stated in May that "the world cannot take the words of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran as mere rhetoric and risk appeasing these malicious actors in the same way the world appeased the Nazis.... Under our prime minister, and under this foreign minister, Canada will stand with the Jewish state and people as they struggle to protect their very right to exist."

The three-member working group exerts a feeble attempt to justify the contents of its report by stating that anti-Semitism does not entail calling Israel into so-called accountability. In addressing the report's repeated referral to Israel as the "occupier," the so-called "occupation" must be understood through the lens of the historic 1967 six day war of which an inevitable preventative strike by Israel against the nations of Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq occurred as these nations were preparing for a united attack upon the Jewish State.

The Syrian Defense Minister, Hafez Assad, and President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq had both declared that it was time to wipe out Israel's existence (reminiscent of Iran today), and Egypt — preparing for war — had illegally closed off the Gulf of Aqaba in preparation for attack. In response, Israel launched a preventative strike and won the strategic territories of the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula (Egypt), the West Bank and East Jerusalem (from Jordan), and the Golan Heights (from Syria) — all land which it is accused today of "occupying," even after giving back to Egypt 100% of its land in exchange for a peace treaty that as of this writing might be in danger of being abrogated by Egypt.

Israel's having taken this land in war was not from greed, but for Israel's strategic survival against mortal enemies that sought its destruction. With this in mind, it is worth remembering that nearly every state has achieved its current existence as a result of wars, most from greed. Our continent is no exception. According to the criteria of the stone-throwers against Israel, we too are "occupiers" on native lands, which includes the three-member United Church working group, who, being themselves "occupiers," have their own Christian "sins" to contend with.

Another historic event alluded to by the working group is the war that broke out when the British withdrew from the Palestinian region in 1948. The British Response to Jewish immigration in fact set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs — a practice followed for the duration of the Mandate for Palestine. The British placed restrictions on Jewish immigration while allowing Arabs freely to enter the country. As the British withdrew from the region in May 1948, Israel was attacked immediately (the next day) by five surrounding Arab nations. While acknowledging the attack on Israel, the working group report nevertheless emphasizes the Palestinian refugees created by this war, while leaving out the fact that Palestinian Arabs continued to refuse to recognize Israel, and instead began launching terrorist attacks from the Palestinian Arab community that became increasingly organized and dangerous through the course of time with the creation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization of which Yasser Arafat would eventually become Chairman. The Palestinian Authority in its revised charter still calls for the elimination of Israel, by stating that the revised charter incorporates everything in the previous version.

As the Working Group zeroes in on Palestinian victimhood, the exponentially growing number of Palestinian refugees each year is, in fact, a calculated scam — one that is costing Western nations tens of billions of dollars per year in mandatory "donations." The number of refugees is projected to balloon to 20 million in the next 50 years, and would, at that time, include something like the great-great-great-great grandchildren of the original refugees, who by then would long since have died. By that token, is everyone in Greece now a refugee from the Peleponnesian War?

Although there are indeed poverty stricken areas in the Palestinian territories — and often shocking discrimination against the Palestinians in (and by) their Arab host countries — according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, GDP growth in the Palestinian Territory of the West Bank was astronomically high at 9.9% in 2011, and the Gaza strip a staggering 23%. Ironically, the Palestinian Territories are, at this moment, enjoying greater growth than the North American taxpayers who are funding them.

The most basic problem at the root of the Palestinian-Israeli issue is not the so-called "occupation," as stipulated by this working group, but the refusal by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to recognize Israel's right to exist, and the murderous hatred expressed by these leaders against the state of Israel and the Jewish people.

Even as Egypt was preparing itself for a runoff election, Hamas leader Ghazi Hamad said a win by Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi would be a boon to Palestinians, ending the frosty relationship between Hamas and Egypt. Hamad added that no one in Hamas supports recognizing Israel as a nation.

While the United Church Working Group acknowledges Israel's right to exist, it does so only in lip service, without taking into consideration Israel's need to protect itself. Israel has long faced threats of suicide bombers seeking to inflict as much injury as possible on victims, as well as trying unsuccessfully to cripple them with fear. The Working Group's objectives do not even take into account the Jihadist call to war against Israel, and children being taught in Palestinian schools to hate and kill Jews. This hatred has nothing to do with the so-called "occupation," as Palestinian children are indoctrinated to believe, but is instead fuelled by Israel having a different ideology of true Democracy and Human Rights in a region where most leaders are hostile to both. Israel is not an Islamic caliphate and herein lies the problem. The the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, worked hand in hand with Hitler during World War II and during the Holocaust to destroy the Jewish people simply because they were Jewish. Al-Husseini blocked attempts to rescue thousands of Jewish children from several countries under German control, effectively sentencing them to death. Few know that Yasser Arafat was a blood relative of the Grand Mufti; and that Arafat's his real name was Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa Al-Husseini. Few also know that Arafat, whose mother was a cousin of the Grand Mufti, was a great admirer of this work.

As this working group attacks Israel, there are those Christians in abundance who support Israel, understand the struggles it faces, and also recognize the plight of the Palestinians as they are used as pawns by their own leadership to feed an agenda of hatred against the Jews and against the West in an effort to distract their people from the true source of their misery: the corrupt and wretched governance at home. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has lauded such Christian support, which even includes Mosab Yousef, the eldest son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, a founding member of Hamas.

Mosab Yousef, who converted to Christianity, now exposes what is truly behind the "peace process." And speaking of conversions, an admirable moderate Muslim in Canada refers to what happened to a Christian convert in a Muslim regime as he discusses the brutality in Muslim societies where a " young man is pinned to the ground, his head is twisted and a knife held against his throat. In a few minutes the head is severed and held up for display to the public, who are loudly chanting, "Allahu Akbar!" ["Allah is Greatest!"]. In the video of this gruesome public execution of an apostate, the victim had converted to Christianity from Islam."

This brutality seen in Muslim societies brings us to a critical point outlined by the United Church working group: "holding Israel, like any other modern democratic state, accountable for its actions is one way civil society strengthens democracy and justice;" and, further, that Israel should be held to a higher standard than the surrounding non-democratic countries. This is nothing short of a highly racist statement, implying that the surrounding "barbarians" are capable of nothing more than savagery, so why expect anything of them or hold them accountable? In other words, they are the brown people from whom we should expect little more than violence and brutality. "Those Muslims" are quite capable of being civilized and should be called to the same — admittedly flawed but higher — standard as any other Western nation — as many Muslim Reformists are trying to do today in efforts to protect the rights of women and human rights overall.

By contrast, in Israel, which is branded apartheid, Arabs are allowed full voting rights; positions in Knesset; employment rights, and for that matter, the freedom to be homosexual — the last, in their own countries, grounds to be murdered.

While all evidence attests to Christians having been driven out of Bethlehem by Muslims, the Working Group asserts, in yet another misinformed allegation, that it was the "occupation" that has driven out the Christians. The Hamas and the Palestinian Authority in fact violated — and continue to violate — the human rights of Christians through beatings, intimidation, fire-bombings of their institutions, torture, kidnapping, and sexual harassment, thus leading to their exodus from Bethlehem: the very place honored as the birthplace of Christ.

In conclusion, the United Church working group needs to do its homework along with some other Church groups that condemn Israel. Israel is increasingly bullied by the OIC-dominated United Nations, as well as surrounding enemies that have historically sought its destruction. There are still many maps that exclude Israel, including one which was displayed at the U.N. and which was used to mark the commemoration of "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" on November 29, 2005. "The working group takes seriously questions about why Israel is currently the only country in the world being challenged by a global boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement (BDS)." In asserting this, the United Church would do well to observe its own faith by remembering that Christ, too, was ganged up against; so it is a moot argument to inquire why Israel is being challenged by a global BDS movement — that is unjust and reprehensible — as this small nation continues to fight for its existence.

Contact Barbara Sommer at

To Go To Top


Posted by The Patriot Post, June 22, 2012

 This article is archived at

"Let justice be done though the heavens should fall." — John Adams

Brian Terry
Border Agent Brian Terry, killed by Fast and Furious

Since at least April, the economic "recovery," such as it was, has nearly ground to a halt. But Barack Obama doesn't want to talk about that. Instead, his politically adept administration is working overtime to come up with as many distractions as possible to keep voters' minds off of the economy. Caveat emptor. Such is the backdrop for this week's events, albeit with a scandal that is far more than mere distraction.

From 2009 to 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran Operation Fast and Furious (a.k.a. Project Gunrunner), ostensibly a program to track U.S.-purchased firearms headed to Mexican drug cartels. Our readers know the history well — thousands of guns "walked" across the border, and hundreds of lives were lost. The real purpose, of course, was to undermine the Second Amendment by vilifying gun owners and sellers, followed by instituting tougher gun control.

While most of the Leftmedia did their best to ignore the story, recent events forced even the networks to grudgingly acknowledge it as an issue worth coverage. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 23-17 along party lines Wednesday to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for his lies, inconsistencies and lack of cooperation during the investigation of Fast and Furious. The whole House will vote next week on the matter, and a contempt citation could lead to a civil lawsuit since Holder obviously wouldn't pursue a suit with a U.S. attorney. Holder called the contempt vote "unwarranted, unnecessary and unprecedented," a characterization that better describes Fast and Furious itself.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House committee, requested that the Justice Department release thousands of documents related to the inner workings of Fast and Furious, including details about the deaths of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata at the hands of murderers wielding weapons obtained through the ill-conceived operation. DoJ released some 7,000 documents to date, but that's a fraction of what Issa requested, and most of the paperwork handed over is only tangentially related to what the committee is seeking.

On Feb. 4, 2011, the Justice Department sent a letter to Congress denying the operation even existed. Ten months later, Justice retracted the letter. Holder insisted that the buck stopped with him, and he halted the program when he became aware of it. This week, Holder claimed that former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey knew about it, which is impossible given that it didn't begin until after the Obama administration took office. Challenged on this, Holder retracted his claim, though White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who couldn't remember Agent Terry's name, made the same absurd claim Thursday.

Then the administration moved to solidify its stone wall. Knowing full well the political consequences, Barack Obama claimed executive privilege, theoretically putting the documents out of Congress's reach, and escalating the not-the-economy debate. By claiming executive privilege, the president is implicitly admitting his own knowledge of or involvement in Fast and Furious, even though he has heretofore disavowed any advance knowledge. How then can executive privilege apply to something with no White House involvement? Either Obama was involved or he's making the bizarre claim that the Justice Department, which was not created by the Constitution but by Congress, is not, in fact, accountable to Congress.

Obama is overreaching, and his actions highlight his hypocrisy. As a senator in 2007 criticizing George W. Bush's White House, Obama expressed the view that executive privilege is really just a tool presidents use to hide inconvenient truths that they don't want to face. In fact, in seeking the cover of executive privilege from Obama, Holder cited Bush administration arguments regarding the firing of several U.S. attorneys — the very episode Obama criticized in 2007, though in reality completely different from the one at hand.

Nevertheless, the facts here are so inconvenient as to merit Obama's spending his own political capital to bail out Holder and the Justice Department. Or worse, Obama is bailing himself out. Surely, Hispanic voters wouldn't take kindly to an Obama program that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Hispanics.

The bottom line, however, is that the crimes committed are far worse than the stonewalling and cover-up. Fast and Furious was a deadly disaster in conception and execution, and the White House and Justice Department must be held accountable.


Federal Reserve Downgrades Outlook

The Federal Reserve issued its latest report for 2012 economic and job growth and there is cause for worry. The Fed lowered the outlook for 2012 GDP growth to a range of 1.9 to 2.4 percent, while in April, the Fed was predicting still-anemic 2.4 to 2.9 percent growth. Indeed, beginning in April, markets began to look increasingly fragile, particularly as Europe deteriorated. The Fed also lowered its expectations for unemployment, now predicting 8 to 8.2 percent in the fourth quarter, whereas previous predictions were 7.8 to 8 percent. Looking ahead, the Fed expects unemployment to remain well above 7 percent through 2014.

Not to worry, though. Barack Obama's Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack, says the U.S. economy has "obviously turned the corner," and things are looking up. The economy may have turned a corner, but it's a hard left and the bridge ahead is out.

And as for unemployment, we understand that the Obama campaign is hiring hecklers to follow Mitt Romney's campaign. Given the things they're shouting, we would definitely call these "shovel ready jobs."

Income Redistribution: Putting Drunken Sailors to Shame Sometimes it seems as if Uncle Sam spends money just because he can. A prime example is the admission by a Congressional Research Service "expert" that the federal government spent $10 billion in stimulus money to create 355 permanent "green" jobs as part of the Department of Energy's 1603 renewable energy grant program. DoE defended the program, saying it "played a critical role in the dramatic expansion of America's renewable energy industry [by] leveraging more than $25 billion in private-sector investments." If individuals want to be foolish enough to chase these boondoggles, that's one thing, but taxpayers didn't ask for this waste.

From spending almost $60 million for loan guarantees to sweeten the deal for a Louisiana plant to create bio-based chemicals — compounds that are already readily available — to losing more than $250 million on failing battery maker A123, it seems as if the Obama administration has no problem throwing billions at the wall and seeing what, if anything, sticks.

Even the numbering system the government uses to identify contractors is under question. Dun and Bradstreet developed the current system three decades ago, and its nine-digit identifier, called the DUNS number, has been in use ever since. At a cost of $19 million a year, the government is now pondering how to improve the system, but chances are it won't be cheaper as federal officials will only add more complexity to the system.

Regulatory Commissars: Canadians Move Ahead With Pipeline Because Barack Obama dragged his feet on approving the Canadian connection of the Keystone XL pipeline, the Canadian government is considering other options for selling its oil, including building a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean and allowing export to energy-hungry China. More important, though, the Conservative Canadian government is pulling out all the stops to get this infrastructure built, including streamlining the approval process and cracking down on the excesses of environmental groups that hold up progress.

By pandering to environmentalists, another Democrat constituency was thrown under the bus by Obama's actions: Labor unions haven't had the opportunity to start the Keystone pipeline, losing out on tens of thousands of jobs.

Study: Fracking Doesn't Increase Earthquake Risk

This probably could have easily fallen under the category of common sense, but a study by the National Research Council confirmed that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, "does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events." The study further concedes that even the wastewater injection process, which does slightly increase seismic risk, has created few incidents when compared to the sheer number of wells in place.

The finding isn't going to stop radical environmentalists, though. The Sierra Club is still pressing on with an initiative called "Beyond Natural Gas," in which the goal is to prevent, by any means necessary, new natural gas power plants from being built. Just a few short years ago environmentalists hailed natural gas as a clean energy alternative to coal; that is, until it became significantly cheaper to produce domestically through processes such as fracking. They're also aghast that improvements in the technology of hydraulic fracturing led to the creation of thousands of jobs that don't meet their idea of green employment.

Since the price is right and more are employed in the industry, natural gas is now a dirty word to the Sierra Club. They must really hate the smell of progress in the morning.


Immigration Front: An Executive Power Grab

Last Friday, we noted a brand new immigration policy issued by Barack Obama. By executive order, he more or less enacted parts of the DREAM Act, which has yet to pass Congress. Specifically, for the next two years, Obama's Department of Homeland Security will no longer enforce deportation law on the children of illegal aliens, and tose who are old enough to work will be granted work authorizations. To qualify, one must have been in the country for five years, have no criminal record and be enrolled in high school, college or the military.

The administration insists it is exercising "prosecutorial discretion," not legislating from the Oval Office. It is true that law enforcement officers, lawyers and judges have some discretion in enforcing and prosecuting laws, but it appears in this case that the administration will make the exception the rule. It's one thing to prioritize enforcement; it's another thing to issue a blanket exemption from the law for an entire class of people.

Even Obama admitted to a Hispanic crowd last year that he doesn't have the authority he just commandeered: "The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works." In another instance, he said, "America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law."

In yet another case, Obama was even more explicit. "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case," he explained, "because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. And ... you know that we've got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws." All that just went out the window.

There are other implications here, as well. First, between 800,000 and 1.4 million illegal aliens are affected by this policy change. With headline unemployment at 8.2 percent and un/underemployment at 14.6 percent, what will an influx of a million people do to the job market? What will it do to the education system?

Second, Obama's action killed any hope of immigration reform in the near future. Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) cosponsored a version of the DREAM Act that Kyl said would be greeted with "tolerance by our most conservative friends, and enthusiasm from the rest." That, of course, is debatable, as immigration is a contentious topic, but all the same, the legislative branch is now robbed of its ability to work out a compromise. Rubio lamented, "People are going to say to me, 'Why are we going to need to do anything on this now. It has been dealt with. We can wait until after the election.' ... And it is going to be hard to argue against that."

It's pretty clear that Obama deliberately derailed congressional action. After all, one of his mantras is running against the "do-nothing Congress," and he can now say he was prodded to action because they wouldn't do anything. More fundamental, though, is the utter contempt for Rule of Law that is the hallmark of this administration.


Warfront With Jihadistan: Progress Report

The more things change in the Middle East, the more they stay the same. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently examined U.S. relations with the Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes the petroleum-rich countries of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, and the committee didn't like what it found. In just two days this week, Kuwait suspended its parliament for a month due to growing internal political strife, and Saudi Arabia named Defense Minister Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud successor to the throne after the weekend death of Crown Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz al-Saud. Toss in the continuing uncertainty of the Arab Spring, chaos in Syria and the rise of radical Islamists in Egypt, the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq and, finally, Iran's nuclear program with the existential threat it poses to Israel, and one can't help but think the region is fast approaching a tipping point.

With this in mind, the U.S. is planning a significant and continuing military presence of 13,500 troops in Kuwait in order to have the flexibility to respond to unexpected contingencies in the region. Several members of Congress wanted a core U.S. force to remain in Iraq, but the two countries couldn't come to terms. Instead, this U.S. force in Kuwait preserves the so-called "lily pad" basing that allows U.S. forces to move and strike quickly in the region.

Also this week, the societal sickness that plagues the Muslim world showed itself again in Pakistan, as Taliban commander Hafiz Gul Bahadur announced a ban on polio vaccines for children as long as the U.S. continues drone strikes in Pakistan, one of only three countries that have not yet eradicated polio. Bahadur commands Taliban forces based in North Waziristan, which is one of the main safe havens for terrorists fueling the Afghan insurgency that has been pounded by drone strikes. What more need be said about a culture that uses the threat of inflicting injury on its own children as a weapon of war?

To Go To Top


Posted by Robin Ticker, June 21, 2012

The Payoff! Et Tu Arutz-7? Et Tu Jewish Voice? Et Tu Jewish Press? Et Tu Zev Brenner?Et Tu 5 Towns Jewish Times? Anyone Left Out There? Did You Sell Your Jewish Voice? Sounds Of Silence....


Dear Arutz-7. You, our most beloved, and others, our very dearest of friends and true lovers of Eretz Yisroel, being bought off by $$$? Who knows where this $$$ originated from. Maybe Soros or EU?

We are told. Netanyahu doesn't really believe in the 2 State Solution. Ronald Lauder doesn't believe in a 2 State Solution. They are master politicians who have to say what they say for PR purposes. They are interested in enhancing their Public Opinion image but they are not stupid.

Bill Narvey wrote: Lauder is not worth getting worked up about.

Why get worked up over Lauder's initiative on behalf of the World Jewish Congress to reach out to Abbas to implore him to come to the bargaining table? It's a nice gesture, but it won't mean a thing to Abbas and his Palestinian cadre.

I suspect Lauder knows that, but has an ulterior motive. He really wants to put front and center for all Americans to see that the WJC is pro peace via the 2 state solution. It's a publicity positive image stunt initiative for the WJC to play to the U.S. Jewish community, for the Obama administration and for Americans at large.

But whether or not Netanyahu or Lauder actually believe in a 2 State Solution, the left make sure that they must prove that they mean what they say.

That's how your paper or radio show is being used. A brilliant PR strategy campaign of the left. And they unlike us have very deep pockets.

It starts with just one ad. Then when they see a publisher can be bought off, it continues and before we realize, choices of what to print is under their influence. Paid journalists will follow the direction of the publisher or risk being fired. Of course a journalist with strong convictions has the option of quitting and put his entire faith in G-d for his livelihood.

In working with right wing media, the main goal is to neutralize any negative press against the Gov't of Israel especially when the gov't of Israel implements a "publicity positive image stunt initiative" as Narvey suggests, like destroying HaUlpana. The Gov't of Israel doesn't really want to be anti Settler. They just want to be perceived by the world as "Pro Peace".

And the leftist world is demanding that they show proof that they are serious and not just playing a political game.

Re the right wing media: Let me review the rules of what you may or may not print once your are under "the influence". This is of course speculative. I would appreciate your input to get a clearer understanding. Let me know if I am on target. After all I am not a journalist and these are my observations. The following apply especially on front covers and back covers and all parts of the paper that get the most exposure.

  • Never print anything critical of Netanyahu and the Government of Israel's policies. We are paying you very good money so...If you have a very right wing audience, say nothing overt against a 2 State Solution. You might sneak in some poll against the 2 State Solution to make your paper credible but don't make it very obvious or put it on the front page..
  • Don't speak out against the NGO's like NIF, leftist operatives within Israel, and don't give a voice to those who protested NIF marching in the Israel Parade. If you have a Right wing base of readers, just leave this controversy out of the news altogether. When you can, take the side of the JCRC and Federation who is paying you good money and receive their funding by leftists.
  • When dealing with a religious population, always talk about Unity and against Lashon Hara. Therefore, in order to be unified we must never speak against the leaders of the State of Israel publicly. We don't want to raise the level of antisemitism which you claim happens when we speak negatively against our own people. You claim that talking against any Religious and Public leaders divides us and is Lashon Hara! This works wonders when you want to silence the opposition or want to Silence protest. If your readership is sympathetic towards the settlers, and your audience is, just be neutral and don't validate their ideology. Don't validate the Settlers struggle for our right to live in all parts of Eretz Yisroel. If you must, only do so embedded in your paper. We allow you to portray them in a sympathetic and human light. After all we don't want to lose your readership completely. We will leave the leftist papers who are totally under our control to demonize them.
  • Never print anything to suggest that the government of Israel is not as democratic as people believe. That would destroy the argument that the gov't won in a democratic election and if you don't like their position, elect a different gov't. However, if they are not really democratic it makes it much more difficult to elect a different gov't because they control the election process. Therefore no news about the Election fraud between Netanyahu and Feiglin and the fact that the numbers were fabricated in the last Primary..
  • Don't display pictures of any destruction of outposts or families being thrown out of their homes in high profile spots. It would only make the gov't of Israel look bad. It would generate too much sympathy for the settlers. A little sympathy is ok to make you credible but you can not over do it.
  • Don't let people know that the military rule under the Civil Administration orders under Barak won't afford the same civil rights to those living in Judea and Samaria as other Israeli citizens.
  • Don't let your readers to know that our 2nd ammendment right, the freedom of self defense and to protect oneself does not really apply in Judea and Samaria. Even soldiers are not really allowed to shoot or use force when threatened because if they do they are subject to reprimand and possible demotion.
  • The more friendly pictures between the Rabbanim and the gov't officials the more trusting the public will be of the gov't of Israel's motives.
  • Have pictures of Rabbanim like Rav Steinsalz and influential politicians like Peres in pictures together especially on the front page so that it is perceived that that the Rabbanim are sanctioning the gov't policies like supporting a 2 State Solution.
  • It is ok to report positively about growth in Judea and Samaria and the latest building permits approved only when you have to counter any negative press about expulsions and when the gov't is destroying places like HaUlpana. This card must be used sparingly. Sometimes there is no choice and you have to play your cards right. Make sure that people won't believe that the gov't is doing anything substantial to hurt the settlers and give your readers the impression that the gov't is really on the side of the Settlers..
  • Don't report on the unofficial building freeze over the last few years in Judea and Samaria that has starved the settlements of much needed housing and services. It would only take away the brownie points gained from the la test building approvals that were part of the deal to sweeten the destruction of the HaUlpana homes. Readers might come to the conclusion that these deals are as a result of desperation by the Settlers and this would make the gov't look bad.
  • Don't report how certain Yesha Council members betrayed the Gush Katif people by collaborating with the gov't and it seems the same thing is happening once again.
  • Definitely don't publish this or my next email to you. Or else.. There are no shortages of media personnel who will sell their soul for a buck. We are davka choosing you and not the others. We are offering more to you than others because you risk losing your base of loyal readers, and we desperately want you to keep your audience in order to influence these readers to take a passive role. It would be stupid of us to want you to lose your base. Don't be too obvious in changing your orientation. Our goal is merely to neutralize any negative press against us and the leftist policies. We want your audience to be passive and not actively engaged in protest. We don't really expect you to outwardly support our agenda.
  • Just follow our rules and you will be taken care of...

CHEVRA, each and every one of you can take your paper and turn it into a weapon against a Palestinian State! You can take it into a weapon and fight for God Or you can take the money and be Silent You can take the money and tell yourself you are a grasshopper in the scheme of things and your voice won't make any difference anyway. You can hide the truth and take the money. But will your children pay the consequences? How will you answer them when they ask you "How come your were silent?"

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Buddy Macy wrote:

One cannot determine from the World Jewish Congress advertisement, below, whether Arutz Sheva (Israel National News - INN) supports the position taken by Ron Lauder in his letter appearing in the ad. However, one knows for sure that INN has accepted compensation for an ad which contradicts the values and beliefs of most, if not all, of its readers and supporters!

Four of Israel's most esteemed Knesset Members: Moshe Ya'alon - Israel's Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs and former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces; Dr. Arieh Eldad - Brig. Gen., Retired, who served as the chief medical officer and was the senior commander of the Israeli Defense Forces medical corps for 25 years and head of the burns unit at Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem during the height of the Intifada; Yuval Steinitz - Israel's Finance Minister and the former chairman of both the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and the Knesset Subcommittee for Intelligence and Secret Services, and an active member of Peace Now before Oslo; and, Danny Danon - chairman of World Likud and Chair of the Knesset Committee for Aliya, Absorption and Diaspora Affairs, have all stated publicly that implementation of the two-state "solution" would result in the destruction of Israel.*

That Ron Lauder, an American citizen, has chosen to promote a policy which the above four respected and admired Knesset Members believe would lead to the demise of Israel, is more than curious. And, Arutz Sheva's acceptance of compensation for the promotion of Lauder's personal beliefs through his position at WJC, is more than questionable. For the sake of clarity and truth, I urge Israel National News to issue a public statement as to its official position regarding the two-state "solution."

Most sincerely,

Buddy Macy


Robin Ticker is an activist and a lover of Eretz Yisroel, Am Yisroel and the Torah. Yehi Zichrono Baruch. Her website is called:

To Go To Top


Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, June 21, 2012

The true face of the "Arab Awakening' continues to manifest itself. According to Al Sawt, prosecutors associated with Jordan's Salafi movement have brought a lawsuit to the Sharia Court of Amman—a lawsuit being called "the first of its kind" in modern Jordan: they are charging a man with "apostasy from Islam." Journalist and writer Salih Kharisat is accused of publishing an article in the media, which, according to prosecutors, "used expressions that indicate apostasy," including rejection of the supernatural, "contempt for the Noble Koran," and calls for universal humanism. The writer naturally denies these accusations and is calling for aid from the international community.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Contact him at This article was cross-posted from Jihad Watch and is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 21, 2012

In his first term, PM Netanyahu turned most of Hebron over to the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Arabs have access to 97% of the city, but Jews have access to only 3%.

One area from which Arabs are barred is a one kilometer length of Shuhada/King David Street. The IDF closed off that street after numerous Arab terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Arabs had bombed, shot, stabbed, threw acid, and suicide-bombed, etc.. An alternative route was arranged for Arabs. The pretense by protestors against that separation is that it is an imposition motivated by discrimination and injurious to civil liberties. You can see the justification for it, Muslims' imposition upon the civil liberties of Jews.

Israel's Supreme Court, sympathetic to the Arabs as it is, approved the restriction as a valid preventive against crime.

Nevertheless, people are agitating to have the street reopened for Arabs. They have organized a press conference and protests. Who are they?

The protestors want Israel destroyed. Among them are: Yesh Din, Gush Shalom, Physicians for Human Rights — Israel, attorney Michel Sfard, Breaking the Silence, Bimkom, Peace Now, Gush Shalom, Adalah, the Geneva Initiative, the Committee for Peace and Security, and B'Tselem.

They work with, and incite, local Arabs to commit violence against Israeli troops and civilians. They engage in stone-throwing riots. They work against peaceful coexistence. They want Jews out of Hebron, as they do out of Israel. But they present their case in Hebron as if it is not part of an overall ethnic cleansing or genocidal agenda.

The leaders of the Jewish community try to work with people to prevent violence and to promote tolerance. Unfortunately, hardened anarchists and jihadists will not work with them.

Who subsidizes those anarchists: "the British, Swiss and Irish governments, Christian Aid, the Ford Foundation, DanChurchAid (funded by the Danish government), Diakonia (funded by the Swedish and Norwegian governments and the EU), Trócaire (funded by the Irish and UK governments), Dutch, British, German and Norwegian governments, the EU, and George Soros's Open Society Institute." (David Wilder, Hebron Community Spokesman, 6/14/12

So much for supposed European decency, either naive or an outright cover for antisemitism.

What need is there to reopen that street, when all the Arab stores were relocated to a modern market area? None. One may conclude that the effort to reopen the street is intended to get Arabs near where they can harass or kill Jews, until the Jews have to move away. The organizations that want to reopen the street advocate many things, all with the same end: eviscerate Jewish self-defense and national self-expression.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email.

To Go To Top


Posted by AFSI, June 21, 2012

Helen Freedman is Executive Director of Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI). Ben Shapiro is a lawyer and author. He is editor-at-large of and a Shillman Fellow at the Freedom Center.

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? by Helen Freedman.

Be'er Sheva, Sderot, Ashkelon, Mitzpeh Ramon, Lachish, the Sdot Negev Council district, Netivot, the western Negev's Eshkol Regional Council district, are all under bombardment. 93 rockets, Katyushas, Grads, Qassams, landed in southern Israel over this past Shabbat, June 15/16. Three quarters of a million people, one-sixth of Israel's Jewish population have spent their days and nights in shelters. A war is being waged against Israel's civilians. Where is the outrage?

A Grad Kayusha rocket struck just outside Be'er Sheva, the largest city in the Negev, requiring school closings, with residents responding to the Tzeva Adom (Color Red) alarm system throughout the night. In March of this year, more than 200 missiles were fired at southern Israel, causing over 200,000 school children to miss classes with more than one million Israelis trapped in their homes. In all of 2011, there were a total of 653 rockets that landed in Israel. The number of rockets launched by Hamas against Israel since the beginning of this year is over 400. We are only half way through the year.

Although there have been no reported deaths from the recent rocket attacks, four Israeli Border Police officers were badly injured. There have been deaths from terrorist attacks associated with the rocket bombardment. Sgt. Nathaniel Moshiashvili, a 21 year old soldier from Ashkelon, was killed on June 1. The previous week, another officer and soldier from the Golani Brigade were wounded by Gaza sniper fire. Sa'ed Fachachte, an Israeli Arab from Haifa, working for the Defense Ministry along the border fence with Egypt, was killed by Arab terrorists who opened fire and set off an explosive on Monday morning, June 18. Although the terrorist threat from Arabs has been downplayed in the Israeli press, informed sources tell us that 2,000 terrorists were arrested last year for attempted or successful attacks on Israelis.

Except for the names of those killed, we don't hear the names of the nearly one million parents, grandparents, children, shopkeepers, teachers, doctors, workers in every field, and retirees, who are deeply affected by this war that is being waged against Israel's southern communities. There have been many injuries which go unnoticed. Post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) is rampant. I remember visiting a woman at her home in Sderot, when that community was receiving the bulk of the bombardment. She was afraid to leave her home to shop for a dress to wear to her son's wedding. She was afraid to take a shower, because she might miss hearing the Red Alarm. She cried throughout her conversation with us. At another home we visited, the husband greeted us in the garden. His wife refused to come out of the house because a rocket had landed in that garden and she was too traumatized to leave the security of her home. My friend, Moshe Saperstein, a refugee from the Gush Katif expulsion, refuses to respond to the alert because he doesn't have a safe room. Living in a caravan - a mobile home- in Nitzan, with paper thin walls that don't accommodate a shelter, he must resort to a large sewer pipe, provided by the government to the community. Moshe insists he will not die like a rat in a sewer, so he prefers to take his chances when the alarm sounds. These are just three examples of life during wartime. There is undoubtedly a story for every single person locked into this situation.

What is the Israeli government doing about this? What is the official reaction to the report by IDF Intelligence head Aviv Kochavi, presented at the Herzliya Conference in February of this year? Kochavi reported that 200,000 rockets and missiles are pointed at the entire country and have sufficient range to reach every part of Israel, including Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem. Most are located in Lebanon and Syria, but there are thousands in Gaza, and even in Iran, which are targeted at Israel. Southern Israel is currently under attack. It may just be a matter of time before northern Israel will also be bombarded. What will it take for the Israeli government to acknowledge that its civilians are being attacked in a war, and it must respond accordingly? The government has placed four Iron Domes near the Gaza border. What else can and will it do?

Ask Prime Minister Netanyahu:;

(Information for this essay was taken from a series of news reports by Arutz Sheva)


Today, the Obama administration leaker, who has been distributing information about American and Israeli security for weeks, struck again. This time, the leaker went to the Washington Post, prompting the Post to run a piece crediting Israel and the United States with developing the computer virus that screwed up Iran's nuclear facilities. This is the latest in a long line of leaks, most of them credited to anonymous Defense Department officials; this one was credited, more discreetly, to "Western officials with knowledge of the effort."

The fact that the Defense Department has been the source of many of the leaks - leaks including information about Israel's timing regarding a possible attack on Iran, cooperation between Israel and Saudi Arabia for such a strike, and Azerbaijan allowing Israel access to their airbases for such purposes.

There has been widespread speculation about the source of the leaks. Some have suggested that Tom Donilon, President Obama's National Security Advisor, is the source; today, others suggest that it is Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

What nobody doubts, however, is that this is purposeful Obama administration policy. All of the leaks are geared toward one purpose and one purpose only: helping the Obama administration undercut Israel's ability to attack Iran.

But right now, it is only Israel's ability to attack Iran that keeps the region in stasis. Today, the Russians, Chinese, Syrians and Iranians participated in joint military exercises involving nearly 100,000 troops; meanwhile, the new Muslim Brotherhood-run Egyptian regime is facilitating terror attacks along Israel's southern border. The big question now is what further leaks could do to trigger a regional meltdown.

Imagine, for example, what would happen if the Obama administration leaked information about Israeli plans to take military action against Egypt in pre-emptive self-defense. Is there any doubt that terror would escalate, or that Syria and Iran would join with Egypt in a proxy action against Israel utilizing Hamas and Hezbollah?

This is now a more and more significant possibility. Israel faces threats on every border: from the Palestinians in the East to the Syrians and Lebanese in the North to the Egyptians in the South. Even far-flung enemies like Turkey and Iran are mobilizing. And every time Israel seeks to do something to protect herself, the United States leaks crucial information.

What's worse, the Obama administration leaks create a ticking time bomb scenario for Israel. If Obama is leaking information now, what will he do if he's re-elected? At least prior to November, Obama will have to answer to the American people. But once he's re-elected, as he informed Dmitri Medvedev, he's ready to do whatever American opponents like Russia (now a Syrian-Iranian ally) want. What is Israel to do but attack Iran while they still can? Or Egypt?

Obama's leaking is heightening the risk of a regional war dramatically. The fact that the leaks serve the purposes of the administration is beyond serious doubt. The question is whether they serve the interests of the United States or her allies.

White House comment line: 202-456-1111; 1414; email via:

To Go To Top


Posted by COPmagazine, June 21, 2012

 This article was written by Jim Kouri and is archived at Jim Kouri, CPP, the fifth Vice President and Public Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Contact him by email at

An instructor at the JFSC was fired for not adhering to the Obama administration's politically-correct policy on terrorism. (Credits: U.S. DOD)

A top United States counterterrorism expert who taught a course that familiarized military officers with the U.S. war with radical Islamists was fired from the college and the course was removed from the curriculum, according to a U.S. police counterterrorism expert.

The police source told the Law Enforcement Examiner that he was informed the course materials would be revamped to exclude references to Islam and use terms such as extremists or militants.

While the Pentagon and most news media outlets did not name the instructor, the Law Enforcement Examiner source claims the fired instructor was Lt. Col. Matthew A. Dooley and that he was removed from the faculty permanently for telling students practitioners of Islam are responsible for terrorism.

"One can only wonder how much protection of Catholicism and Christianity would receive from this Administration and its media sycophants — such as TV host Bill Maher — when they verbally attack Christians," said former police commander and military officer Mike Snopes.

According to a source, Joint Forces Staff College course included a slide-show that told students — mostly battle-hardened officers — that the U.S. is fighting a life and death battle with Islamists and that "we need to recognize that the U.S. and its allies are at war with Islam."

According to the American Forces Press Service's Jim Garamone, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had ordered a thorough review of the course on Islam and military education in general after a Muslim soldier complained about the content of the course entitled "Perspectives on Islam and Islamite Radicalism" at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia.

JFSC educates military officers and other national security leaders in joint, multinational, and interagency operational-level planning and warfare, counterterrorism and other subjects.

"The study also recommends that the Staff College modify its processes for reviewing and approving course curricula while improving oversight of course electives," Garamone wrote.

The elective course relied on outside instructors who emphasized negative aspects of Islam. The review found that a lack of leadership on the course contributed to the problem, leading to an unbalanced approach to teaching the subject matter. The course is suspended and will not be offered again until changes are in place, officials said, and the military instructor has been relieved of instructor duties.

According to the Law Enforcement Examiner source, it's believed the complaining soldier, whose identity is being protected, may be a pawn of some of the Muslim groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) or Muslim Advocates, who are currently suing the New York City Police Department.

A Pentagon spokesman stated earlier this year that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was deeply upset with a course that promulgates the notion the United States is at war with Islam.

"This politically correct nonsense would be laughed at if we had a reality check now and then. On the one hand, the majority of terrorist attacks worldwide are perpetrated by radical Muslims who actually apply the teachings of the Koran. Anyone who studies the history of Islam, especially within the last two hundred years will discover what America faces is not new," said the counterterrorism source.

"The CAIR group is considered by some to be a front-group for radical Islamists — several of whom are currently in prison or deported — and frequently supports certain Democratic politicians who do their bidding. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan is a perfect example," the counterterrorism source alleges.

Counterterrorism experts condemned by CAIR include Walid Phares, Robert Spencer, Bill Getz, Pam Geller and others who "refuse to sugarcoat the Islamic terrorism threat," said Mike Snopes.

To Go To Top


Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 21, 2012

I don't know exactly how I should refer to the behavior of the six nations that are "negotiating" with Iran. But "stupid" doesn't quite cut it for me.

The two-day talks in Moscow, just completed, were an abysmal failure that went no where. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius referred to "the large gap between the two sides."

According to a report in Haaretz, "A Western diplomat who asked to remain anonymous said that one major obstacle revealed by the Moscow talks relates to the underground facility for uranium enrichment in Fordo, near the city of Qum. According to the diplomat, the Iranians refused to discuss the Fordo plant at all."

What does the international community imagine is going on there? And do they not know that there is reason to suspect that Iran may be operating covert enrichment sites as well?

But what did the six nations do? Consent to a low level technical meeting in early July, thereby allowing Iran more time to pursue their nuclear development. And if you think a couple of weeks won't matter, consider the report by the French news agency AFP yesterday, that US officials believe Iran will be able to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon within four months,


The EU's Catherine Ashton, who heads the P + 1 delegation at the negotiations, says that there is currently an "indefinite pause" in talks, which will be resumed only if the technical meeting yields some common ground. If it does not, the "plan" is to proceed by levying tougher sanctions against Iran to force them to halt.

What no one acknowledges is that all the sanctions so far have had not an iota of effect on Iran's nuclear development. In fact, they have motivated the Iranians to move even faster. There is no reason to think more sanctions will have a different effect — they just "bite the bullet" and keep going. And since it takes time to put new sanctions in place, and time until they start to really kick in, Iran may well have achieved its goal of having that material for a bomb by then.


I must add here that the Iranian navy has just announced intention to build more war ships, including missile-launching frigates and destroyers.

And there is activity at the Parchin military complex in Iran that suggests clean-up work that will mask activity there if and when inspections are done.


The elephant in the room — elephant, what elephant? — is the need to stop Iran via military force or at least a credible threat thereof. (It really is a case not of negotiations between equal parties, with compromise, but of the international community saying, cease and desist or you're history.) Right now the American statement that "all options are on the table" impresses the Iranians as totally unserious.

This would be Obama's job, for the US is the nation best equipped militarily to accomplish it. But Obama has no intention of going there, it would seem — Panetta's latest statement in this regard not withstanding.


The "beyond stupid" is thinking that achieving an agreement with Iran that is a compromise would be a good thing. The trick is to find a way to avoid military confrontation, as if that confrontation and not Iran's ultimate achievement of nuclear capability would be the worst thing imaginable.


Vice Premier Shaul Mofaz was in the US yesterday, meeting with members of Congress, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others. The prime focus was on Iran, as I understand it. He pushed for crippling sanctions but also spoke of the need for a credible military option, which, he says, should be led by the US.


Before I move on to what else Mofaz said, I want to touch upon a topic highly relevant to the issue of what the US will do with regard to Iran:

What we are seeing is that in a variety of contexts the up-coming presidential election will be critical, both for the US — of course! — and more broadly for Israel and the free world.

To that end, it's extremely important that Israelis who are also American citizens vote in this election.

People imagine that it will make no difference, but this is not the case: Some elections have turned on very small numbers, and absentee ballots are counted.

In order to vote, you must be registered. If you were registered in 2008, that is not sufficient. You must register again.

A new — non-profit, non-partisan — organization called iVoteIsrael is currently working overtime to make registration easy for you.

See in order to complete the registration process.

And see for information regarding Israelis voting in the US election and the positions of the candidates.

If you are an American-Israeli, please, do register and vote. If you have relatives who are, please pass this information to them.


iVoteIsrael cannot and will not say this, as it is strictly non-partisan. But I can, and do regularly:

Obama has got to go!


Returning now to Mofaz: While in the US, he also touched upon the issue of negotiations with the PA. As he is considered to be to the left of Netanyahu, the Obama administration is hopeful that the prospects of this happening successfully — at least with regard to an interim agreement — are now more viable.

Can I say it again in this context? Beyond stupid. The chances of an agreement between Israel and the PA/PLO is nil.

This morning, by telephone from Washington, Mofaz gave an interview to Israel Radio. He said, in part, "I believe that there is an opportunity to restart negotiations. I have a firm basis for believing this will happen in the near future."

What he's talking about are negotiations "without preconditions."

But I say, "uh oh!" What sort of arrangements is he cooking up? Please note that the PLO's Saeb Erekat is also in Washington for talks with US officials.


Apparently, as part of the deal that brought Kadima into the coalition, Mofaz was given the "peace negotiations" portfolio, so to speak. That could only mollify the US, which is none too fond of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, and certainly pleased Mofaz, who stands for "negotiations" in a way that Lieberman does not.

There is an inherent conflict in having done this, however, as it impinges upon Lieberman's responsibilities, although it is not clear that he particularly cares about this. Lieberman made a statement recently with regard to negotiations that I would like to cite here. He said that as long as Abbas heads the PA there will be no successful negotiations.

This is absolutely correct, but he doesn't carry it far enough.

Precisely the same thing was said about Arafat: he's a terrorist, he will never make peace — we cannot proceed with genuine negotiations until he's gone. Well, Arafat is long gone, Abbas took his place, and here we are. There is no reason to think that Abbas's successor will be more amenable to peace negotiations than Abbas is.

The mistake in reasoning lies in fingering the man and not the party and the entire system. The PLO never intended to make peace with Israel and arrive at a genuine "two state solution." What is more, the region has radicalized in recent years, and taken the PLO/PA along with it. Remember the on-going (off again, on again) negotiations between the PA and Hamas.

If anything, Abbas's successor is likely to be more radical, less peace-oriented, than he is.

It's time we got real and said it like it is.


Matters have not cooled in our south, as rockets continue to be launched from Gaza. And there is no question at this point about Hamas involvement. At present some 13 Israelis have been hurt.

Egypt — this is the military regime — is making efforts to achieve a ceasefire, but it hasn't held. As in the past Hamas advances a "you stop first and then we will" scenario.

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website:

To Go To Top


Posted by Midenise, June 20, 2012

 This article was written by John Hawkins and is archived at

Things to consider in an election year.

1) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000 a plate campaign fund raising event.

2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when we have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black. 12% of the population is black.

3) Only in America could we have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

4) Only in America can we have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

5) Only in America would we make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just become American citizens.

6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."

7) Only in America could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a trillion dollars more than it has per year for total spending of $7 million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.

10) Only in America could the rich people who pay 86% of all income taxes be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.

Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav.

To Go To Top


Posted by Daily Alert, June 20, 2012

This article is archived at

IRAN could produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon within four months, experts have told US politicians.

The rate of Iran's uranium enrichment has accelerated despite cyber sabotage from the Stuxnet virus in 2009, the experts said today.

Based on the findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "it's clear that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon very quickly should it wish to do so", said Stephen Rademaker of the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.

Iran has produced 3345 kilograms of uranium enriched to 3.5 per cent, according to the agency. It this were enriched further it would provide enough uranium for at least two atomic bombs, Rademaker told an armed services committee.

If the Iran leadership decided to go forward, "it would take them 35 to 106 days to actually have the fissile material for a weapon," he said.

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), told the committee "it would take Iran at least four months in order to have sufficient weapon grade uranium ... for a nuclear explosive device."

Uranium 235 must be enriched close to 90 per cent for use in an atomic bomb.

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said Iran is about a year away from producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon, a threshold that Washington views as a "red line".

More than 9000 Iranian centrifuges are churning out 158 kilograms of 3.5 per cent enriched uranium a month, three times the production rate compared to mid-2009, when the Stuxnet virus struck the program, Mr Rademaker said.

The enrichment rate is "three times the rate of production prior to the Stuxnet virus, which many people have suggested somehow crippled their program".

"So Stuxnet may have set them back, but not by very much, at least not sufficiently."

The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to

To Go To Top


Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 20, 2012

People read news reports about the Arab-Israel conflict, errors, omissions, biases, and all. Let's see what real news was kept out of an otherwise simple news item.

The 6/20/12 New York Times describes Hamas as largely having kept the ceasefire until recently. Recently it began to bombard Israel with rockets. 65, as of this writing.

Hamas deserves no credit for "largely" having kept the ceasefire. What morality "largely" doesn't murder people? Hamas decides when it wishes to fight, ceasefire or not. Apparently it tries to fight just short of provoking a devastating Israeli counter-attack. During its rocket build-up and improvement phase, it gets undeserved praise for forbearance. Then it attacks. Those ceasefire violations demonstrate that Israeli restraint was folly. It is a mistake to let a fanatical enemy build forces up so that it can strike with greater force.

What do you think of Westerners praising Hamas during the intervals between its attacks, as if it had become peaceful? Peaceful in intervals? Jihad operates on its own timetable, not on the West's.

Another trick of Hamas is to let other terrorist organizations commit the attacks, while it claims non-involvement. But it runs Gaza, so its disclaimer of responsibility rings false. The New York Times article mentions that, this time. The article goes on to state that Hamas then usually restrains the other organizations so as to restore calm. Why didn't it restrain them before? Egypt gets credit for mediating the restoration, though that restoration really is an attempt to forestall punishment.

The paper fails to explain that the appearance of working to restore non-combat is a form of manipulating foreign reaction. For that, Egypt deserves no praise, its role is part of a choreographed ruse. If, when the so-called calm is restored, Israel were to retaliate, Israel would be accused worldwide of breaking the calm and making it more difficult to negotiate peace. Somehow, jihadist attacks are never held accountable for making negotiations more difficult. Double standard in favor of aggression.

This time, Hamas did join the combat. The newspaper explains that Hamas felt it had to keep up with public opinion, which favors more combat. The implication here is that Palestinian Arab public opinion is jihadist. That is the answer to those who ask me why I condemn the Palestinian Arab side, aren't most of those people in favor of a negotiated solution. They are not. They want their imperialist religious view to prevail, no matter by what means, even by war crimes against civilians. Such is their primitive and uncivilized belief. The few among them who might think otherwise don't count in their society.

Finally, Israel did retaliate, though modestly and mostly against enemy terrorist operations in progress. An Arab toddler was killed. The Arabs blamed Israel. Don't they always! The IDF investigated. It found that the death occurred not when Israel was retaliating but when the terrorists were. One terrorist rocket fell short and killed the child. But the immediate Arab tendency is to take advantage of deaths they cause and blame Israel. The jihadist advantage is that the Western media accept most accusations against Israel for publication without verification. Imagine if during WWII and the Cold War, Western media accepted most Nazi and Communist accusations against the U.S. without verification! The savage totalitarians of that era would have put the U.S. on the moral defensive.

The slaying of the child had witnesses, i.e., alleged witnesses. Most Palestinian Arabs give false testimony. That was the reason that the Goldstone UN report, based on Human Rights Watch uncritical acceptance of Arab "witnesses," contradicted reality.

The article states that Hamas admitted aiming some rockets at purely civilian areas. The article did not inform readers that such targeting is a war crime nor did the so-called humanitarian organizations complain. But the newspaper frequently quotes jihadist sources as accusing Israel of crimes and aggression, without correcting those false accusations. Result for readers: they hear false accusations that Israel commits crimes and aggression; it does not hear true accusations that jihadists commit crimes and aggression.

The fault is not only the media's. The fault also is Israel's, for not issuing its own accusations. Israel does not fight the P.R. battle. Neither does the U.S..

The New York Times describes a second Gaza attack as retaliation for Israel's retaliation. To an extent, I think that whenever the Arab jihadists attack, they claim it is retaliation against Israeli crimes and aggression. It may be partly propaganda and party because those Islamist supremacists consider it an affront that non-Muslims dare defend themselves against jihadist warriors. Our media seem not to comprehend this. Our media's ignorance gives our enemies an advantage over us.

Israel's Defense Min. Barak said he was reviewing options and threatened the enemy. Someone should keep score of the number of Israeli threats to retaliate severely and of the much smaller number of Israeli retaliations and the still lesser extent of their severity. Bluff doesn't work any more. At least it does not work with the enemy. It may work with the Israeli public.

What about Israeli and Western culture? Israelis want peace, but their government worries about inevitable foreign criticism if it acts strongly against Arab provocation. The Muslims can attack Israel, without receiving foreign criticism. But when Israel retaliates firmly, foreign tongues click in disapproval. The Muslim side gains more support from answered aggression. Israel usually fears foreign tongues more than Israeli hearts. Where are the foreign hearts? Many Europeans consider themselves liberal or humanitarian. How far from being humanitarian are those who say nothing when Muslim Arab aggressors initiate violence!

I think that Israel should fight to win, shame any critics who have a conscience, and justify itself. Explanations must be frequent, so they exert an effect. Otherwise they get ignored.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email.

To Go To Top


Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 20, 2012

When last I wrote, a member of an Israeli crew working on the fence being constructed on our border with Sinai — precisely to prevent infiltration into Israel — had just been killed by terrorists who had crossed over from Sinai. (According to one report, one terrorist shot by the IDF was wearing a suicide belt, and planning considerably greater damage.)

This followed by two days the launching of two Grad Katyusha rockets from the Sinai into the Negev.

Then, very shortly after the attack at the fence, rocket attacks from Gaza began.

The army statement at that time was that there was no connection between the Gaza rocket launchings and the terrorist attack out of the Sinai. Such coincidental timing left me a bit dubious.


While the situation is still muddled and confused in many ways, I would like to begin today with a report from Barry Rubin of the GLORIA Center. Rubin said (and this has now been confirmed) that the terrorists who attacked at the fence adjacent to the Sinai had come out of Gaza. When he wrote, there were unconfirmed reports that these men were Hamas.

"This event follows a report in Haaretz newspaper, attributed to Israeli security officials, that the Muslim Brotherhood had asked Hamas to attack Israel...This story was not picked up by other Israeli newspapers, suggesting either that it was wrong or that it had been a security leak which the army had then stopped."

The significance of this is considerable, according to Rubin: "...we are now at the beginning of Egypt's involvement, directly or indirectly, in a new wave of terrorist assault on Israel." He sees the possibility that Egyptian Islamists would not only provide support to Hamas, but allow Hamas infiltration into Egypt and Hamas bases on Egyptian soil, where Israel would not be able to pursue them.


I share this speculative piece by Rubin not because it is correct in all its details. In fact, according to a report today, the Israeli Air Force has now hit the cell in Gaza — near Rafah — that orchestrated the terrorist attack at the Sinai border on Monday. One terrorist from that cell who was killed, Raleb Armilat, was Islamic (or Global) Jihad affiliated, not Hamas; he was an aide to a senior member of IJ, who was badly wounded.

So much for Hamas having gone into Egypt at the Brotherhood's behest.

But, as I pointed out earlier, it was Hamas that celebrated the apparent (it is not a sure thing even now!) win by the Brotherhood candidate in the Egyptian presidential elections. And I've just picked up from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center the fact that the Egyptian press had reported that Hamas operatives played an active role in the uprising in Tahrir Square (something denied by Hamas). What is more, Hamas does seem to be involved in the launching of rockets out of Gaza now (much more on this below). So Hamas involvement cannot be ruled out.

We're going to need a spread sheet to keep track of all of this. For there are Bedouins active in terrorism in the Sinai as well, and there is an Al Qaeda presence. (An obscure Al Qaeda affiliated group, Mujahedeen Shura Council of Jerusalem, actually claimed responsibility for the Monday attack at the fence.)


What I'm most interested in is Rubin's larger point regarding possible cooperation of Islamic terrorists in Gaza with Islamists in Egypt. This should be not be taken lightly. The situation is in flux and increasingly radicalized, this does not promise a whole lot that's good at our border.

While I metaphorically allude to that spread sheet, I also want to point out that the various radical groups are not all autonomous and discrete. Sometimes they compete, but sometimes they overlap and cooperate in sharing of resources in order to bolster their mutual goals. What is more, disgruntled members of one radical group sometimes switch allegiance and join another group, thereby adding to its strength and expertise.


As to Gaza, since I last wrote, the situation has escalated. The last few times there have been rocket launchings from Gaza, Islamic Jihad has been responsible, not Hamas. Some while back I wrote about the eclipsing of Hamas by IJ, with Hamas having fallen out of favor with Iran.

And so at first, the current barrage of rockets was thought to be the work of IJ. But Hamas has taken some credit here, and we're going to have to watch what's going on.

Today alone more than 24 rockets and mortars have been fired at Israel. Some 50 have been launched since the attacks began on Monday. The Sdot Negev Regional Council, the Hof Ashkelon Regional Council, and the Eshkol Regional Council have all been involved. Sderot is once again in the line of fire.

Most of the rockets have been Kassams, but a Grad Katyusha struck the outskirts of Beersheva this morning, just as children had reached their schools.

Summer vacation is almost upon us, and parents in the region are reluctant to send their kids to school at all. Once again there is talk about having sufficient shelters for all. Sound familiar?

Some nine people have been injured — one border policeman seriously — and there has been damage to property.

An Iron Dome installation intercepted a rocket launched at Netivot.


Needless to say, the Israeli Air Force has launched several air strikes in the last few days. The most recent in the north of Gaza this evening, when two terror camps were hit.

Where is this going? Have no answers. Not yet.


Also an important part of the face of things to come: what has happened at the Ulpana neighborhood in Beit El.

The 30 families who are the residents of the five houses to be evacuated by the end of this month — according to High Court order — last evening struck a deal with the government, with the guidance, encouragement and support of the Rabbi of Beit El, Rav Zalman Baruch Melamed. Beit El mayor Moshe Rosenbaum was also involved, as was MK Ze'ev Elkin (Likud Faction and Coalition Chair). This represents the culmination of several days of negotiations.

Rav Melamed, who heads the Beit El Yeshiva, told his students on Monday:

"Sometimes, we must understand that there are battles that cannot be won. Therefore, it would be best to use this terrible low point for the betterment of all of Judea and Samaria."

Please G-d, if all proceeds per this agreement, there should be a gain for Judea and Samaria. But even beyond this, Rav Melamed had concern with regard to violence anticipated when the Ulpana residents were to be evicted, and he was eager to prevent this. As the Ulpana residents said in their statement:

"...we are peaceful people. Struggles between brothers tear the entire public, and our community in particular, apart."

For the dignity and the rightness of this stance, I applaud all of them.


But, as the residents also made clear, they have agreed with "a heavy heart," for there is an essential injustice that has been levied against these people that is not mitigated by the agreement.

The agreement in its essentials:

The residents will leave peacefully. They will temporarily reside in caravans (mobile homes). Their houses will not be destroyed, but will be moved to a new location. I was not able to learn what that intended location is (if indeed this has been determined yet). And there seems to be some question as to the logistical feasibility of actually moving those buildings. But this is the deal.


The government promises to construct 300 new houses in Beit El. This is major. It sets a precedent.

There has been no building in Beit El for some time — no room for building. Now what has been decided is that an army base at the Beit El location will be moved to Migron (I'll address this at some other point), so that land for housing will now be available (as the property where the base is located will become civilian State land).

MK Elkin made it clear that there were attempts by opponents of building in Judea and Samaria to put up legal stumbling blocks to the building. But they have now been wiped away and there are no obstacles. Those legal objections, as I understand it, had to do with transfer of the military base to civilian use. But all of Beit El began as a military base.

My contact in Beit El tells me that the government agreement to do the building, complete with a timetable for construction, has been put in writing.

What seems to be the case is that back some weeks ago when Netanyahu first made the promise to construct 300 houses in Beit El, the legal barriers had not been defeated. That is, his promise at that point consisted of words (which is why I had picked up rumors that he wasn't serious). But now, I'm told, the situation is different.


The last concession by the government is also major: a ministerial committee will oversee building in Judea and Samaria and in the future, no decisions to demolish neighborhoods or communities are to be made by the government, the Attorney General or the Ministry of Defense.

This goes to the heart of the miscarriage of justice that occurred in this instance.

In brief, the High Court ordered the evacuation of the buildings in Ulpana because they were allegedly on "Palestinian land" before the issue of whether this is truly the case has been adjudicated. It is currently being reviewed by the Jerusalem District Court; the High Court does not deal with issues of evidence. It may take years for the District Court to examine all evidence, and in the end it may decide that the residents of Beit El were the property's true owners.

What makes this all the more surreal is that even if the court decides in favor of the Arab who is claiming it, the land will sit unoccupied by order of the IDF, because it is considered a security breach to allow Arab building in the heart of this Jewish community. This very strongly mitigates for compensation to the alleged owner, if his ownership were to be proved, rather than evacuation of the site.

The claim that the land was Palestinian Arab owned was brought by Yesh Din, a far left organization that is funded by foreign elements. That claim was made seven years after the building had been done in Ulpana — it was not as if the alleged Arab owner saw the construction on his land begin and then rushed to do something about it. This alone gives pause.

The High Court relied upon the statement of the prosecutor, speaking in the name of the government, that the houses would be taken down. That prosecutor did not represent the sentiments of the Knesset or the coalition at that time.

Subsequently, when there was a furor about the projected evacuation of these houses, the prosecutor was sent back to the High Court in the name of the government to say that there had been a change in the government's position. The High Court refused to accept this, saying that the evacuation would stand. This is indicative of an imbalance in the system, and a Court that is predisposed politically in one direction.

For a description of this miscarriage, see commentator Moshe Dann's article, here:

For a more detailed description of what has transpired from the beginning and the way in which those in opposition to Jewish building in Judea and Samaria played the system, see this article by Baruch Gordon, Beit El resident, member of the Beit El Council, activist:

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website:

To Go To Top


Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, June 20, 2012

The money that is to be spent on taking five buildings in Beit El apart and relocating them, rather than simply destroying them, is a waste, MKs Michael Ben-Ari and Aryeh Eldad of Ichud Leumi said Wednesday. "This whole foolish idea of 'uprooting' the homes is intended solely to spare the Likud from the pictures of demolition that have become the norm for it," they said.

"The money that Netanyahu plans to waste on 'uprooting' is a waste, and it should be spent on those in financial need, the handicapped, and former soldiers instead," the two added.

Contact Barbara Ginsberg at

To Go To Top


Posted by Honest Reporting, June 20, 2012

 This article was written by Simon Plosker and is archived at

source fail

When will the media learn? How many times have ubiquitous "Palestinian medical sources" turned out to be less than wholly reliable? In the latest example, the aforementioned Palestinian medical sources claimed that a two-year old Palestinian girl had been killed in an Israeli air strike on Gaza.

And why wouldn't the media accept such a claim, having been conditioned to a) believe that Israel kills innocent children and b) to take Palestinian claims at face value?

In this case however, the IDF moved quickly to deny the accusations. Evidently this prompted the BBC's Jon Donnison to double-check the veracity of the Palestinian claims resulting in a surprising admission from Hamas. Here is Donnison's Twitter feed showing the progression of the story until the truth emerged.

(Tweets are shown in reverse chronological order i.e. most recent tweet is first.)


This Video is stored here.

So Hamas has admitted that its own failed rocket launch was responsible for the girl's death. This didn't, however, prevent some media from either running with the initial charge or failing to clarify the incident when the truth became clear. AFP, for example states:

In a separate development, an unexplained explosion in Gaza City killed a two-year-old girl on Tuesday evening, medics said.

An Israeli military spokesman denied there was any air strike in the area at the time.

How is this an "unexplained" explosion?

The unreliability of Palestinian medical officials is highlighted by Israel Hayom:

Emergency services spokesman Adham Abu Salmiya told the Palestinian Maan news agency in a statement that Hadil al-Haddad, 2, was killed and her brother injured on Tuesday in the Zeitoun neighborhood of Gaza City.

But despite the Hamas official's admission to the BBC, another Hamas medical official told Reuters on Tuesday that the cause of the child's death was not clear. Witnesses told Maan that al-Haddad was killed when terrorists launched a rocket close by.

Israel Hayom picks up on something that the international media doesn't want to tell you — that medical officials in Gaza are under the direct control of the Hamas governing authorities, particularly the Hamas-run Health Ministry.

It's high time the media cut out the unreliable sources.

To Go To Top


Posted by Alexander Dymshits, June 20, 2012

Media Release-June 19, 2012
Contact: Aaron Troodler (888)897-7450

Representative Robert Andrews (D-NJ) is the latest member of Congress to formally urge President Obama to commute Jonathan Pollard's sentence to time served (the full text of Congressman Andrews' letter to the President appears below).

In his letter to the President and Attorney General Eric Holder, Congressman Andrews, who is a member of the House Committee on Armed Services, notes that Pollard's release poses no threat to national security. He also notes the disproportionate nature of Pollard's sentence and remarks that he was sentenced to life in prison without benefit of trial, as the result of a plea agreement which Pollard honored and the government abrogated.

Pollard has spent more than 26 years of an unprecedented life sentence languishing in a federal prison for passing classified information to Israel, an ally of the United States. The median sentence for this offense is 2 to 4 years. No one else in the history of the United States has ever received a life sentence for this offense.

"I write to you out of concern for the ailing Jonathan Pollard and request that you commute his sentence to time-served, a position supported by former CIA director James Woolsey, former Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Dennis DeConcini, and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger," wrote Congressman Andrews in his letter to the President.

"If Mr. Pollard were released today he would pose no threat to national security and any intelligence that he once possessed is undoubtedly irrelevant 27 years later," continued Congressman Andrews. "Commutation will not grant him pardon for his actions rather it will recognize that he has served more than ample time for his crime. I urge you to seriously consider this case and decide to commute Jonathan Pollard's life sentence to time-served."

In addition to serving on the House Committee on Armed Services, Congressman Andrews, who has served in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1990, is a member of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, as well as the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, and he is the Ranking Member on the Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform. Congressman Andrews also serves on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, is the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions, and is a member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.

Congressman Andrews' letter to the President comes as a bi-partisan "Dear Colleague" letter is being circulated in the U.S. House of Representatives in support of clemency for Jonathan Pollard. Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY) and Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) are soliciting signatures on a letter to President Obama, which urges the President to commute Pollard's sentence to time served.

Numerous American leaders have called for a commutation of Pollard's sentence, including former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger; former Secretary of State George Shultz; former CIA Director James Woolsey; former Attorney General Michael Mukasey; former National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane; former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb; former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum; former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Senator Dennis DeConcini; former Senator David Durenberger, who served as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time of Pollard's conviction; former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who served as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee at the time of Jonathan Pollard's sentencing; and Senators John McCain and Charles Schumer.

Pollard has repeatedly expressed his remorse publicly and in private in letters to many Presidents and others. His health has deteriorated significantly during his more than two-and-a-half decades in prison.

Despite the fact that Pollard entered into a plea agreement and fully cooperated with the prosecution in his case, he nonetheless received a life sentence and a recommendation that he never be paroled, which was in complete violation of the plea agreement he had reached with the government.

The following is the text of Congressman Andrews' letter to President Obama:

June 13, 2012

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500-0001

Dear Mr. President:

I write to you out of concern for the ailing Jonathan Pollard and request that you commute his sentence to time-served, a position supported by former CIA director James Woolsey, former Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Dennis DeConcini, and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Mr. Pollard was arrested for spying for and giving classified documents to Israel, a close friend and ally of the United States. He has now been incarcerated for 27 on the charge of one count of espionage.

In exchange for bypassing a trial, Pollard pled guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence; however, the court reneged on its promise and gave him the maximum sentence of life in prison with the recommendation that he be denied parole. The length of this sentence is unprecedented as the median sentence for passing classified intelligence to an ally is between two and four years. In fact, Mr. Pollard has served even longer than many who have been convicted of spying for enemies of the United States.

If Mr. Pollard were released today he would pose no threat to national security and any intelligence that he once possessed is undoubtedly irrelevant 27 years later. Commutation will not grant him pardon for his actions rather it will recognize that he has served more than ample time for his crime. I urge you to seriously consider this case and decide to commute Jonathan Pollard's life sentence to time-served.


Robert E. Andrews

Member of Congress

Cc: Eric Holder, United States Attorney General

Contact Alexander Dymshits at
This article is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 19, 2012

This is from the Israel Alert Newsletter.

The ANI Initiative: It's up to ME to Act Now for Israel!

United with Israel is proud to introduce the 'ANI' Initiative. This ongoing campaign is designed to transform Israel supporters into global activists. ANI is the acronym for Act Now for Israel. It is also the Hebrew word for "I". In other words, it's all up to ME!

The Talmudic teachings of ethical and moral principles known as Pirkei Avot record "Hillel used to say: If I am not for myself who will be for me? Yet, if I am for myself only, what am I? And if not now, when?"

Act Now for Israel: Urgent Need for Kindergarten Bomb Shelters

(NITZAN, Israel) United with Israel has been notified by local Israeli official Yossi Dahari of the urgent need for kindergarten bomb shelters in Nitzan, a coastal town located near Ashkelon in southern Israel. Children are living in fear of attack and have literally no where to run when the "Code Red" sirens blast. Once again, United with Israel is turning to YOU - our global community of Israel supporters for help.

Act Now for Israel: Protest 'Made in Palestine Labels' in South Africa

South Africa is planning to require "Made in the Occupied Palestinian Territories" labels on many products from Israel.

South Africa's Director of Trade and Industry explained "... South Africa recognizes Israel inside the 1948 UN borders....Therefore for the goods or vegetables which are grown in the area where Israel invaded other Arab countries, South Africa says, you better say these products are grown in Palestine or Occupied Palestinian Territories."

Yigal Palmor, Spokesman of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs remarked "This is not a political objection to settlements, rather the act of singling out a state by a special marking system based on national-political criteria. Therefore, it is by essence a racist move.

Act Now for Israel: Recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel

It is imperative that all countries in the world including the USA recognize Jerusalem as the united, eternal capital of the State of Israel. Join hundreds of thousands of supporters all around the world who have signed the Jerusalem Declaration.

We support free and open access to Jerusalem for all peoples and religions, under the sovereignty of the State of Israel, and reject returning Jerusalem's status to a divided city, such as existed between 1948 and 1967. During that time, Arabs controlled the eastern section of Jerusalem and forbade non-Muslims from access to holy sites in eastern Jerusalem, including the Western Wall and the Temple Mount.
Israel: +972-2-533-7841

Contact Barbara Sommer at

To Go To Top


Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 19, 2012

This article was written by Maurice Ostroff and is archived at

Maurice Ostroff is a founder member of the international Coalition of Hasbara Volunteers, better known by its acronym CoHaV, (star in Hebrew), a world-wide umbrella organization of volunteers active in combating anti-Israel media and political bias and in promoting the positive side of Israel.

J Street's view of the role of Jerusalem in resolving the Arab-Israel conflict, as explained by J Street board member Richard M. Goldwasser in The Times of Israel, is interesting, but requires considerable amplification if it is not to be misunderstood.

For example, Mr. Goldwasser's statement that the UN Partition Plan of 1947 terminated the British mandate is patently incorrect. The mandate was not terminated until May 14, 1948, when Israel declared its independence. The 1947 Plan was not implemented, having been accepted by the Jewish leaders but unanimously rejected by the Arab leaders, who confirmed their intransigence in their famous "three noes" resolution at Khartoum in September 1967: "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it."

Goldwasser goes on to state that after the 1948 war the Jordanians occupied the eastern portion of Jerusalem. But he fails to mention the important information that Jordan's occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank was recognized only by Britain, Iraq and Pakistan, while others, including the Arab League, regarded it as illegal and void. In essence, in the 1967 Six Day War Israel did not occupy territory to which any other party had title. Rather, it recovered territory that legally belonged to it as part of the Jewish National Home that had been created at San Remo in an agreement that remains legally binding.

Completely ignoring the provocation leading to the Six Day War, Goldwasser's bald statement that on June 7, 1967, Israeli forces marched triumphantly into the Old City of Jerusalem conveys the false impression that Israel decided on a whim, unprovoked, to march into peaceful, undefended Jerusalem. How else can any reader who is unfamiliar with the history interpret this statement by a board member of J Street, a Jewish organization that declares its support for Israel and that is assumed to be knowledgeable about the subject?

But intellectual honesty and moral integrity require that Israel's presence in East Jerusalem and the West Bank be treated in its proper context. It didn't just happen. The facts may be summarized as follows.

Prelude to the Six Day War

During 1965 and 1966 the Syrian army constantly shelled Israeli farms and villages in the Galilee from the Golan Heights. Egypt''s Nasser announced:

"we aim for the destruction of the state of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel.

On May 15, 1966, Egyptian troops moved into the Sinai and ordered the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) to withdraw. Shamefully, UNEF complied without bringing the matter to the attention of the UN.

On May 18 the Voice of the Arabs radio station made the following proclamation:

As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.

Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad added:

Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united. I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation

On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping, cutting off Israel's only supply route with Asia. Nasser proclaimed: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

On the following day, he added:

We will not accept any' coexistence with Israel.Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel.The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.

On May 30, after King Hussein signed a defense pact with Egypt, Nasser announced:

The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.

On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance, and Israel was threatened by approximately 465,000 troops, more than 2,800 tanks, and 800 aircraft. The surprising results of the Six Day War, which began on June 5, 1967, are too well known to be described here; suffice to say it is intellectually dishonest to discuss the resultant Israeli presence in the Golan, the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza without taking the above factual context into account.

International law

The above verifiable facts show conclusively that Israel's presence in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, comprising Judea and Samaria, resulted form a defensive war. According to Professor Julius Stone, one of the twentieth century's leading authorities on international law:

International law forbids acquisition by unlawful force, but not where, as in the case of Israel's self-defence in 1967, the entry on the territory was lawful. It does not so forbid it, in particular, when the force is used to stop an aggressor, for the effect of such prohibition would be to guarantee to all potential aggressors that, even if their aggression failed, all territory lost in the attempt would be automatically returned to them. Such a rule would be absurd to the point of lunacy. There is no such rule.

Many international legal authorities support Stone's view. For example Judge Schwebel, a former President of the ICJ, pronounced:

As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem.

Jacques Gauthier, a non-Jewish Canadian lawyer who spent 20 years researching the legal status of Jerusalem, concluded on purely legal grounds, and ignoring religious factors, that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, by international law.

Sir Elihu Lauterpacht CBE QC., the British specialist in international law, declared, inter alia, that "sovereignty over Jerusalem already vested in Israel when the 1947 partition proposals were rejected and aborted by Arab armed aggression"

It is obvious from the above that allegations of Israel being an illegal occupier are based on misinformation.

Nothing in this article is intended to make a case either for or against dividing Jerusalem. It is intended merely to set the record straight about how Israel came to be present in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and the legal implications of its presence. Israel may very well decide to relinquish control of parts of Jerusalem in exchange for real peace and security guarantees, but if it does so, it would not be because its presence is illegal, but rather because it considers it the right thing to do in the circumstances, despite having no legal obligation to do so.

Contact Barbara Sommer at

To Go To Top


Posted by COPmagazine, June 19, 2012

  Jim Kouri, CPP, the fifth Vice President and Public Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Contact him by email at

While the Muslim Brotherhood is considered a radical group by many, the Salafists believe groups such as MB, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other groups are not radical enough. (Credits: MEMRI)

With the Egyptian government in a state of flux due to problems with establishing a civilian government and the military's internal problems, terrorists belonging to various Islamic groups are sneaking into Israel from the Sinai Peninsula and attacking Israeli civilians. The latest such violence occurred on Monday morning, an Israeli police source told the Law Enforcement Examiner.

The sudden and vicious attack launched by terrorists at the Israel-Egypt border is creating a serious security issue especially for inhabitants of the Sinai Peninsula.

Denouncing "in the strongest terms" what she called the " terrorist attacks" on civilians in Israel from Sinai, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said "We remain concerned about the security situation in the Sinai Peninsula and call for restraint on all sides."

But counterterrorism expert Mike Snopes, a former NYPD detective and military intelligence officer, believes Nuland has it all wrong.

"I always get a little hot under the collar when some minion from the Obama administration starts with 'all sides' jargon. It's the terrorists who need restraining, not innocent Israeli civilians. And as far as response, the Israeli police or military or both have every right to retaliate," said Snopes.

According to the Israeli police source, a number of heavily armed terrorists — suspected to be part of the Egyptian terrorist network the Salafists — crossed into Israel from Sinai early Monday morning and carried out a combined shooting, bombing and rocket- propelled grenade attack against two vehicles of filled with Israeli laborers, killing one person and wounding several others.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the attack showed Egypt's "disturbing deteriorating" in its control of Sinai, according to the Israeli news media.

Salafists are extremist Sunnis who believe they are the only true interpreters of the Koran. They are beginning to concern counterterrorism experts since Salafists are gaining more and more power in Egypt following the toppling of Mubarak's regime. What's more, the Salafists are linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates especially when it comes to hatred for the United States, according to the Israeli police source.

The recent elections showed the Salafists won 125 seats in the Egyptian parliament, although now the Egyptian court ruled the results of that election are null and void. In Gaza, Salafist jihadists consider Hamas too moderate in spite of Hamas' terrorist tactics.

To Go To Top


Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, June 19, 2012

This article was written by MK Dr. Michael ben-Ari and is archived at

Ben-Ari Petitions High Court of Justice in Flortilla case

Monday, September 3rd, National Union MK Michael Ben-Ari, activist Itamar Ben-Gvir and the Movement for Our Land of Israel filed an angry petition, for the High Court of Justice to demand that the state reveal its reasons for having closed its case against Balad MK Maneen Zoabi and Raed Salah, a leader in the Islamic Movement in Israel, for their involvement in the May 2010 flotilla.

The petition also demanded that the state reveal the evidence in its possession against Zoabi and Salah.

Tuesday, September 4th, the High Court of Justice ordered Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein to present the court with a more extensive explanation of the reasons the state did not prosecute Balad MK Haneen Zoabi and Islamic Movement leader Sheikh Raed Salah, for their participation in the May 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla.

MK Michael Ben-Ari, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Our Land of Israel Movement hope that once a more complete version of the state's reasons was put forward, they would be able to point out defects in the decision. Previously, the state had only released a brief press release regarding the decision to close the case.

Contact Barbara Ginsberg at

To Go To Top


Posted by Dr. Richard Swier, June 19, 2012

 This article is archived at


Bring Al Maghrib to South Florida has announced its 4th seminar titled, "Divine Design of Islamic Law: Objectives of the "S" Word — Shariah". The seminar is being held at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on June 23, 2012. According to the Al Maghrib Facebook page the topic is "on one of the most mis-understood topics in the West — Shariah".

"Shariah is the absolute word of Allah (swt); a moral and religious code that governs Muslims and humanity. It brings out the best in humans and society because quite simply it is the command of an All-gracious and merciful lord. Yet to mainstream media and the common person, the word shariah brings connotations of extreme punishments, harshness and oppression," notes the Al Maghrib seminar event page.

The term maghrib is in origin an Arabic word for "west occident", denoting the western most territories in Africa that fell to the Islamic conquests of the 7th century. The word shariah means the path or the "way to the watering hole". Islam means to submit. Shariah is therefore defined as the path to submission (Islam).

The seminar is being taught by Imam Shamudeen from Islamic Center of Charlotte, North Carolina. According to Al Maghrib, "This seminar will give an introduction to Islamic law with an emphasis on it's beauty and practicality to us as well as teaching us how to defend it when faced with criticism."

During the 2012 Florida legislative session Senator Alan Hays (R-Umatilla) introduced SB 1360, known as the Florida Laws for Florida Courts bill. SB 1360 went through the committee process of both Florida houses. The bill was written to prevent shariah and other foreign laws from being used in Florida courts. The bill passed by a veto proof majority in the Florida House but Senate President Mike Haridopolos did not bring it to the senate floor for a vote. Proponents are expected to bring SB 1360 up again during the 2013 legislative session.

Moderate Muslims have a problem with shariah law including Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout practicing Muslim, Arizona physician and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AFID). Dr. Jasser has testified before Congress and Rep. Peter King's House Committee on Homeland Security. Dr. Jasser defines the threat to America as "Islamism, a theo-political movement that uses shariah to try to control society and prevent liberty".

Dr. Jasser in his book "A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot's Fight to Save His Faith", writes, "I owe the United State a profound debt of gratitude and service for all the rights and blessings it has bestowed upon me and my family. It that sense I see myself as an American first, a Muslim second ... For Islamists, the thinking is reversed: Islam comes before all else, and everything should be done to make this religion the dominant one in the world and for laws to be based not on secular agreement but purely on shariah ("the way to the watering hole", or Islamic jurisprudence)."

Dr. Jasser defines Islamism or political Islam as a "malignancy in such a politicized, radicalized version of Islam that threatens not only all free-thinking Muslims but the world at large". Dr. Jasser warns we under-estimate this threat at our peril. He notes on page 20 of his book, "If the Islamists have their way, the United States will find itself with a nation within a nation one governed by the precepts of the U.S. Constitution, the other under the sway of shariah. More important, abroad, if the the Islamists have their way, U.S. power (soft and hard) will wither and the fifty-seven states of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) will flourish vis-á-vis Islamic states."

Dr. Jasser and other reform minded Muslim have called for a separation of the Mosque and the state (shariah). Dr. Jasser believes, "The real threat to Islam is not external but internal, and it is embodied by the extremists who preach hate and violence in the name of God (Allah)".

Contact Richard Swier by visiting his website at

To Go To Top


Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 19, 2012


Iran announces that Russian, Chinese, Syrian, and Iranian forces will hold the biggest war games ever conducted in the Mideast. Besides modern ships, 400 warplanes, 1,000 tanks, and 90,000 troops will test Syrian defenses (, 6/19/12).

Notice who cooperates with whom, while the U.S. President tells us he can gain Russian cooperation about Syria and Iran and that negotiations and sanctions will stop Iran from its final sprint into nuclear weapons status.

Either President Obama has a mental disconnect from reality, or he is conning America in behalf of its enemies. But it is not just he. Iran has been negotiating in bad faith for decades. Not that enough of our politicians and journalists notice that this is Islamic strategy.

Their fair haired boy, Abu Mazen/Abbas operates in the same deceitful way. Islamists want to win; Americans, though one does not know about Obama, want to resolve.

Yesterday's news featured a PLO statement that Abbas will not compromise and nor recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish people to statehood, even while he tries to shoot his way into illegitimate statehood for his non-nationality, a statehood premised on PLO/Hamas ideology that their religious duty is to destroy Israel.

The Iranian news agency often exaggerates or bluffs. Assuming it released the correct figures of the military strength accompanying the Russian aircraft carriers, one wonders whether Syria will be left with any rebels by the time the foreigners finish playing.

Suppose those figures are an under-statement. As it is, those military figures are almost big enough for a surprise attack on Israel, following a massive rocket bombardment.

Meanwhile, nearby is an Egyptian military force of considerable strength, thanks to U.S. government sequestering of taxpayers' income. Experience shows that foreign Arab forces find piling onto Israel tempting. The question here may be whether the Egyptian military hates Israel more than it hates the Shia axis and whether it would find it irresistible to invade and quiet protests from its own Islamists. Turkey may be more concerned about the Shia axis than is Egypt.

Russia Now Denies News About War Games

But Russia is vague about it.


Hardly had Egypt's polls closed, when the Moslem Brotherhood claimed to have won the popular vote for President. The Western media parroted it as if fact. But it is not factual. No official count was announced. Tallies probably would take a few days. Polls were showing the other candidate ahead. What ever happened to media fact-checking?

The Moslem Brotherhood, in accordance with Islamic doctrine, engages in deception as a means of warfare. First it would not field a Presidential candidate, but then it did. [First it would not field a slate for all legislative seats, but then it did. First it would not impose Islamic law upon the whole population, but then its leaders called for doing just that.] Now it is claiming victory before the votes could possibly have been counted.

The Brotherhood had vowed rebellion if the count were adverse. Perhaps it is setting the stage for an adverse official vote, after which it would claim electoral fraud. Then it would seem to be justified in grievance and rebellion.

The media should not play into the hands of Radical Islam (Raymond Ibrahim, Gatestone Institute, 6/19/12

Western media usually does play into the hands of Radical Islam. It calls votes for Islamists democratic, although the democratic opposition usually has no experience with which to match the well organized and financed Islamist parties. It calls Islamist regimes democratic.

The Islamist government of Turkey, for example, calls itself democratic methodically dominates other institutions, such as the media, education, judiciary, and military. Those steps toward dictatorship are the same that the Latin American budding dictatorships are going through. Turkey also has advanced Radical Islam in its foreign policy. Nevertheless, the media calls Turkey democratic and an example of Islamist democracy. For another example, the two sets of rulers of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) both claim to have been popularly elected, but they rule dictatorially and impose Islamic authority.

The U.S. media does not challenge that claim. Liberals complain about dictators, but not about the PLO and Hamas dictatorships. President Obama complained about Honduras' legal ouster of a budding dictator as an anti-democratic coup. If he believed in democracy, he would praise the Honduras Congress, Supreme Court, and replacement election as defenders of democracy. He does believe in working with CAIR, the unindicted co-conspirator NGO that acts in defense of Radical Islam and supports terrorism.

Consider the Islamic deception in negotiations. The P.A. falsely claims that there is no Jewish homeland and that there is a Palestinian homeland. The P.A. keeps demanding a price for negotiating. Its terms would destroy Israel. It is negotiating for military victory, not to resolve a problem. Its constant violation of prior agreements signifies its bad faith negotiations. Sneaking in forbidden arms.

Iran has been negotiating for many years, making and breaking agreements. Denying the obvious evidence. Sneaking in forbidden machinery. It uses negotiations to deflect moves to exert force against it, as if new negotiations offer any more hope than old ones. The West falls for this every time. Well, what can one expect from our President, whose speeches reflect more respect for Islam than for America? What can one expect from our President, who thinks he can gain cooperation from Russia and China, whose foreign policy still seeks to disrupt ours? Is he unable to learn or is he not on our side?

Although the Radical Muslims are working to take over the world and destroy our democratic way of life, and our media and President accept Radical Islamic claims and praise them. Our watchdogs favor the burglars.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at

To Go To Top


Posted by Robin Ticker, June 19, 2012

Shlomo Walfish of Manhigut Yehudit replied to my comments and said I was not realistic about starting a new party since "Other parties are NOT going to be mevatel themselves to join a new party not run by them and under their rabbis. And top Likud MKs are not leaving likud to join this fantasy party either." Shlomo, perhaps it is not practical or realistic but that is exactly that is necessary. "Ahava Sheino Teluya Badavar". What will differentiate the generation prior to the coming of Moshiach is the concept of loving our fellow Jew that is not dependent on getting something back in return. No wheeling and dealing since everyone is doing for the greater good. There should be no other reason MK's should join this party.

Everyone has leadership abilities especially each MK that has reached this level. Each MK member in this new party should be assigned a leadership role in that area that Hashem has blessed him/her. So if for example, MK Yaalon has a shining military career it should be utilized. If another MK is an expert on delegating responsibility in an objective responsible and unbiased way so that all MK's respect his judgement he should be called upon to do so, No wheeling and dealing. Each and every MK has their Rabbanim and population to rally, bringing them on board to be emissaries for the entire world. There is no point in competition with one another since there is plenty of work and leadership opportunities for everyone. There is enough to do in this world so that each and every individual is a true leader, a Kohen, and united we make a Kingdom of Priests and a holy Nation

You may be interested in this 2005 article of Prof. Paul Eidelberg which underlines how critical it is that we change the ruling party and with it expose and reform "institutionalized corruption". This past election, the primary between Netanyahu and Feglin, there was voter fraud and Feiglin chose not to make it into a real issue. I was very surprised. I thought it was a golden opportunity. What's the point of voting if the results are fixed. People would have been really incensed when they realized that the ballots were tampered with and the numbers fabricated. People vote because they believe their vote counts. He should have been yelling bloody murder. The following analysis seems to explain why Feiglin cannot speak openly and in vivid detail about Israel's inept and corrupt SYSTEM of government while wishing to stay in the LIkud. Is Feiglin interested in reforming the corrupt System? If not, then why not?

Also, please read the latest article sent by Prof. Eidelberg on Israel's non-existent Nationalist Camp.

Prof. Paul Eidelberg is an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at


Feiglin's Gambit: A Critical Analysis
(September 12, 2005)
Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Based on an interview with Avi Hyman's "The Activist Hour," Arutz-7, Israel National Radio, September 11, 2005.

1. To avoid misunderstanding, let me first point out that I wrote one of the first papers on Jewish Leadership for Manhigut Yehudit. I also supplied Manhigut Yehudit and Moshe Feiglin with several policy papers. In fact, Mr. Feiglin is reported as saying that he regards my book Jewish Statesmanship as his bible.

a. But when he said in a Jerusalem Post interview, "No other party in the country has the kind of intellectualism and breadth of thought that Manhigut Yehudit has," he seems to have forgotten that the author of Jewish Statesmanship is the president of the Yamin Israel party. Perhaps my curriculum vitae may prompt him to make a more modest assessment of Manhigut Yehudit.

b. In any event, if my book Jewish Statesmanship is Feiglin's bible, he has failed to emphasize the key principle of that book, namely this: The inherent defects of Israel's political and judicial institutions render Jewish leadership virtually impossible. Feiglin's emphasis is on "Jewish identity." But Jewish identity without a program for institutional reform is pious rhetoric. Surely the religious parties have Jewish identity, but they also lack a program for institutional reform that will produce Jewish leadership. If Feiglin has such a program, it is not in the forefront of his public pronouncements, and this places in question his party's understanding of what Jewish leadership requires in the dysfunctional State of Israel.

2. The truth is, Feiglin has joined a party whose leader, Ariel Sharon, is a ruthless enemy of Jewish leadership. By implanting Manhigut Yehudit as a faction of the Likud, and by urging people to register for the Likud, Feiglin aroused and magnified Likud consciousness among many voters in the 2003 election. He thereby contributed—how much no one knows—to the Likud's winning 38 Knesset seats. That total enabled Sharon to dominate the "nationalist" parties in his cabinet. Which means that the Jewish leadership movement contributed to anti-Jewish leadership!

3. If the Likud had won fewer seats, those seats would have gone to National Union and Mafdal and perhaps Herut—and this would have prevented Disengagement. Remember, the present Sharon-Peres government was confirmed by the Knesset by a vote of 58 to 56.

4. Recently, Feiglin admitted it would take 20 years for Manhigut Yehudit to gain the leadership of the Likud. Twenty years! Say ten. Long before that, Judea and Samaria and 250,000 Jews will suffer the same fate as Gush Katif—if the Likud remains in power. The Likud guidelines, endorsed by Netanyahu and Landau, affirm the Oslo Agreement. Indeed, the guidelines affirm the leftist projection of Israel as a state of all its citizens, which means the end of the Jewish state.

5. So, what good is having, say 3 Manhigut Yehudit people occupying the 38th, 39th, and 40th slots on the Likud list when that gives additional ministerial posts and power to the party bosses on the top of the Likud list: those lacking strong Jewish identity—those who adhere to the defeatist and suicidal policy of "land for peace"?

6. So long as Feiglin is in the Likud,

a, What can he say about the 23 Likud MKs who campaigned against Disengagement but voted for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gush Katif?—nothing!

b. What can he say about Sharon, his buying and selling political appointments to get the Knesset to pass that ethnic cleansing bill?—nothing.

c. What can he say about the need to change the parliamentary electoral system to prevent such corruption in the future?—nothing!

d. What can he say about the corruption from having MKs as cabinet ministers—nothing!

7. Do you know how cabinet ministers use their budgets to manipulate local governments? Suppose the Minister of Interior or the Finance minister is a secularist. Rest assured their allocations to these towns or cities for school construction or other concerns are going to depend on the political complexion of their mayors and their voters. This means corruption.

8. This follows from having MKs in the cabinet who are party leaders and have a partisan interest inn how funds, which they control, are divided among towns and cities.

9. Now, Feiglin must be aware of this. But Feiglin tells his followers he wants to gain control of the premiership. That's the aim of most party leaders. They know the prime minister is the primary source of power. In fact, Israel has what is called "prime ministerial government"—a euphemism for a democratically elected dictatorship, as I have often pointed out. We need to put an end to prime ministerial government.

a. Do you know Ben-Gurion launched the 1956 Sinai War without consulting his cabinet?

b. Do you know Begin did not consult his cabinet before going to the Camp David Summit?

c. Do you know that Rabin concluded the Oslo Agreement without consulting his cabinet?

d. Do you know Ehud Barak signed the 1999 Sharm e-Sheikh agreement with Arafat without consulting his cabinet?

e. And who does not know of Sharon's high-handed adoption of Labor's disengagement plan? He consulted President Bush and dismissed two ministers to impose that plan on the cabinet.

10. But why do we have this dictatorship of one man? Has Feiglin told you? Has he told you why the prime minister doesn't consult his cabinet, as is done by American presidents? Allow me: Israel's cabinet consists of rival parties. The cabinet ministers are not the PM's advisers but his competitors; and if it helps their own parties, they will leak cabinet information to the media. So what must we do?

a. We must exclude MKs from the cabinet. We need a system of checks and balances, which is what we have in the Torah.

b. We want responsible and accountable Jewish leadership—not just Jewish leadership— and when I read Feiglin's public statements, I see no program for obtaining a system of government conducive to Jewish leadership,

11. In fact, he hinders that goal by dividing the nationalist camp. By drawing good people into the Likud, a corrupt party, he prevents the formation of an Anti-Establishment Party that can unite all non-parliamentary nationalist groups. This alone can save Israel from its decadent political system.

a. This is not the dream of taking over the Likud in 10 or 20 years. Because of widespread disillusionment with the Likud, National Union, and Mafdal, there will be more than 750,000 floating votes or 30 Knesset seats that can be won next year by an Anti-Establishment Party, provided it campaigns—not just against corruption—but against Institutionalized Corruption.

b. My colleague Prof. Israel Hanukoglu, who was science adviser to the Netanyahu government—he and I are trying to organize such a party, a party that campaigns against the SYSTEM, a party distinguished from all other parties by its key objective: to transfer power from parties to the people.

c. How? First, by making MKs individually elected by the people in constituency elections; second, by excluding MKs from the cabinet, a major source of corruption; third, by democratizing the method of appointing Supreme Court judges, whose rulings so often violate the abiding beliefs and values of the Jewish people.

12. Feiglin refuses to discuss the option of developing such party. He has trapped himself and lured others into the Likud and therefore cannot speak openly and in vivid detail about Israel's inept and corrupt SYSTEM of government.

13. He says he doesn't want to be the leader of a small party, another Techiya which had 5 MKs back in the 80s. To repeat, there are 30 Knesset seats available to a dynamic reform party. Recall 1977, when the newly formed Democratic Movement for Change won 15 seats, and our situation today is far more critical. But give me an independent party with 5 Knesset mandates I will show you how it can change the SYSTEM that has produced a dictator like Sharon, has resulted in the murder of more than 1,000 Jews, has led to the expulsion 10,000 Jews from their homes, and has produced more corruption than any other government in the developed world, including Italy.

14. Had Feiglin and Manhigut Yehudit formed a joint list with Herut in the 2003 election, this nationalist and religious combination have won at least two Knesset seats, and there would have been NO Disengagement! As mentioned, the present Sharon-Peres government was confirmed by a 58 to 56 vote of the Knesset. One may even doubt that this government would ever have been formed in the face of the vehement protests of the joint list I just mentioned.

15. It's amazing how educated people—including professors and lawyers—are so ignorant about the subtle workings of Israel's political system, how they have been sucked into Feiglin's disastrous gambit.

16. Just imagine what two MKs could do in one year. They could go to every campus and expose the pernicious consequences of Proportional Representation and the system of voting for party slates instead individual candidates:

a. They could show how wealthy persons abroad can buy a party by buying its party leader—thanks to voting for party slates—something that can't be done when citizens vote for individual candidates in geographic regions. This is the story behind Sharon's rise to power.

b. Our two MKs could show how 29 MKs hopped over to rival parties in the 1999 elections to gain safe seats—thanks to party slates.

c. They would show how Labor bought two MKs from Tzomet, a right-wing party, for a Mitzubishi and a deputy ministerial post in order to pass Oslo II—thanks to party slates. d.

17. Why hasn't Moshe Feiglin publicized these disastrous consequences of Israel's parliamentary electoral system? Of course, plenty other eminent Israelis have failed to heed the warning of Ben-Gurion, which I have spoken of countess times: that Proportional Representation fragments the nation, that it produces cabinets consisting of rival parties competing for bigger slices of the public treasury. How can Feiglin engage in such criticism while he remains in the Likud?

18. But suppose two MKs, having openly campaigned against the SYSTEM, proceeded to expose Institutionalized Corruption. Suppose they did this on every public forum? Suppose they also placed ads on the subject in every newspaper? Suppose they organized a national conference on Institutionalized Corruption—a conference that would show how Israel's political and judicial elites, thanks to the SYSTEM, can ignore the people's will with impunity, as Sharon did after the 2003 elections, and as Chief Justice Aharon Barak did when he legalized Sharon's criminal policy.

19. Instead of exposing and fighting the SYSTEM, Feiglin joined it, dignified it, and increased its power to undermine the very thing he holds most dear, Jewish leadership. I urge him to get out of the Likud and help us form an Anti-Establishment Party that unites all non-parliamentary nationalist groups—a party that can capture the huge floating votes in the next election. This is far more doable and certainly more noble than his dream of taking over of the Likud, a decadent party, most of whose MKs voted Yes to expelling Jews from their homes in Gush Katif.

20. As for Yamin Israel, I'd rather not speak about my party, because this would sound like special pleading. But I will say this: we are Not a right-wing party. We have a most democratic and yet Jewish program. The Yamin stands for right or correct as opposed to wrong or incorrect; it is the right, the correct, party for Israel.

a. There is no right-wing party in the Knesset; hence the distinction between "right" and "left" is obsolete. Indeed, no party in the Knesset is worthy of the votes of Israel's citizens—not after the expulsion of Jews from Gush Katif and northern Samaria.

b. The division today is between those who do and those who not identify with the Jewish heritage. This real, existential issue in the 2003 election was whether Jews can be expelled from their homes.

c. Is there a "right" and a "left" on this issue? No, you are either right or wrong on this issue. And every member of the Likud—even the 13 that voted against disengagement—is culpable, because they should have denounced their party as well their prime minister on every public forum.

d. The expulsion of Jews from their homes was the greatest desecration of God's name; and since the Likud was primarily responsible, Manhigut Yehudit should leave that party, otherwise they are mere hypocrites.

Israel's Non-Existent Nationalist Camp and How to Create One: Part I
Prof. Paul Eidelberg, President
Israel-America Renaissance Institute

The illustrious Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Kook understood that Israel is divided between four major groups: (1) the religious who are Zionists; (2) the religious who are not Zionists; (3) the secular who are Zionists; and (4) the secular who are not Zionists.

From this one may reasonably conclude that Israel's "nationalist camp" is and always has been a fiction. In fact, Israel's founding fathers were steeped in a contradiction. On the one hand, people like David Ben-Gurion were Zionists (hence "nationalists") on the one hand, but Marxists (hence "internationalists") on the other. Modern Israel was thus born in an oxymoron, and it has remained oxymoronic to this day.

One manifestation of this may be seen in the Likud, which campaigns on the "right" and shifts to the "left" when in power. Another manifestation of this Shas and/or United Torah Judaism, which campaign on a Torah line but will then ally itself with a secular government committed to the Oslo policy of yielding Jewish land to Arabs in the of "peace," a fiction.

The oxymoronic nature of modern Israel was manifested by Likud leader PM Benjamin Netanyahu, who endorsed the creation of an Arab Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. But this was also the sub rosa policy of Labor leader Yitzhak Rabin in the infamous Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of September 1993, which has been the cornerstone of every succeeding Israeli government regardless of which party or party leader or coalition has been at the helm. So all talk today of a nationalist camp must be taken with a grain of salt.

Nevertheless, the non-existence of a nationalist camp does not mean that a nationalist camp cannot be created. Unlike the universe, however, it cannot be created from nothing—we are mere mortals. So we have to employ existing stuff to create a nationalist camp. What stuff? Is there anything that exists which the four major groups defined by Rav Kook have in common that is more important than their differences? The only thing I can think of is LIFE. Thus, if Israel (God forbid) were invaded by Arabs, I think it's safe to say all Jews, regardless of their religious and other differences, would unite to repel the invaders.

But our problem is how to form a consensus of Jews when the threat mentioned above is not uppermost in mind? In other words, is it possible to form a "nationalist camp" despite Rav Kook's four-fold division of the people living in Israel. I think so.

There are two values or concepts that compete for people's loyalties in Israel. One is democracy; the other is Torah—and here let us not succumb to the facile notion of commentators such as former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak that the two complement each other. Not because this is false, but because its truth comes from either ignorant or disingenuous minds.

I am therefore going regard Barak's notion as a "proposition, " hence as something that may be proven true or false, and I am going to take the positive position in order to promote the idea of a "nationalist camp." In fact, this idea has been elaborated in various books of mine, most recently in "The Theo-Political Foundations of American Exceptionalism: Today's Choice for the 'Almost Chosen' People." What makes America the "almost Chosen People" is this: America's basic ideas are rooted in the Bible of Israel, for as others have been more or less aware, America's foundational documents, the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and the Federal Constitution of 1787 manifest ideas traceable to the Hebraic Republic of antiquity—ideas praised by Samuel Langdon and Ezra Stiles, the presidents, respectively, of Harvard and Yale Universities in America's constitution-forming period.

Here I have only space to set forth a formula distilled from those two foundational documents. These two documents may rightly be understood as capable of teaching us how to make Israel more democratic by means of Torah principles, and how to make Israel more Torah oriented by means of democratic principles.

Strange as it may seem, this is the only way to create a nationalist camp in Israel.

Robin Ticker is an activist and a lover of Eretz Yisroel, Am Yisroel and the Torah. Contact her at

To Go To Top


Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 18, 2012

President Obama told a group of Orthodox Union rabbis that PM Netanyahu's government is to the "extreme right." He further asserted that PM Netanyahu accepts no restraints.

The public record shows otherwise. PM Netanyahu accepted the notion of negotiated statehood for the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Israel requested negotiations without preconditions [while the P.A. demands preconditions]. The Netanyahu regime offered to make "painful" concessions to the Arabs. To induce the Arab side into negotiations, the Netanyahu regime imposed a 10-month building freeze on only Jews in the Territories. Sec. of State Clinton found the freeze "unprecedented."

Then the coalition regime took in the leftist Kadima Party. The coalition already had as Defense Minister the former head of the Labor Party.

By contrast, the P.A. mostly refused to negotiate.

Some of those Israeli actions and statements may be unwise and some may be extreme, but they certainly are not "extreme right."

One wonders how the U.S. President comes to make such an obviously false and malicious statement (Zionist Organization of America, 6/13/12 press release, via

A freeze only on construction by Jews is discriminatory and favors proven enemies. The Netanyahu regime may be reputedly right-wing, but it acts left-wing.

Why does Pres. Obama make such false accusations? I think it is because he is a left-wing extremist who favors Radical Islam. Consider his friendliness with terrorists, his eliminating U.S. opposition to Islamist ideology, his support for regime changes that lead to Islamist take-over and his opposition to regime changes that would overthrow Islamists, his attempts to rule by decree contrary to the Constitution, his rejecting Congressional and judicial restraints, his nationalization of some industries, his turning the government increasingly into a dictatorship over business, his telling Americans what they must buy, his welfare state programs, his dislike of a powerful U.S.A., and his failure to stop the movement in the UN to put the UN in charge of the Internet for purposes of censorship and in charge of undersea mining and redistribution of wealth therefrom.

(His use of drones seems tough, but it is temporary and expedient for the election. The controlling factor is his planning to end the wars in such a way that the Islamists and gain power.)

No wonder Obama is nasty toward Israel and mild toward the P.A. and its terrorist indoctrination!

Why don't more Jews notice? Why don't more Americans notice? The American people seem to be catching on to the failures and the misguided nature of Obama's domestic policies. They are less focused on his foreign policy, which undermines national security. {He is reducing the armed forces.)

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at

To Go To Top


Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 18, 2012

And weep.

A new two-day round of "negotiations" with Iran regarding its nuclear capacity began today in Moscow. A Russian media source refers to this as a "round table discussion," which tells us more than a little. "Russia hopes that it will help restore trust between Iran and the West."

Iranian National Security Council Secretary Saeed Jalili heads the team representing Iran. Catherine Ashton, foreign affairs head for the EU, leads the delegation of six nations facing off against Iran: Russia, the UK, China, the US, France, and Germany (the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany).

As of late today, there was discontent expressed by a member of the Iranian negotiating team: "So far the atmosphere is not positive. Setting up the framework [for negotiations] is the main problem."


Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writing in the Washington Post, says (all emphasis added):

"...a subtle shift is emerging in the Islamic Republic's nuclear calculus. Officials in Tehran increasingly sense that it may be easier to get the bomb through an agreement than by pursuing it outside the parameters of a deal. But for this strategy to succeed, Iran has to get the right kind of an accord, one in which it trades size for transparency. Namely, the deal must allow Iran to construct an elaborate nuclear infrastructure in exchange for conceding to intrusive inspections...

"...they stress that it has to be predicated on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In Iran's telling, the treaty grants it the right to construct an extensive nuclear apparatus featuring a vast enrichment capacity. In exchange for such a presumption, Tehran is willing to concede to inspection of its facilities...

"...such an agreement may yet prove Iran's most suitable path to the bomb.

"As Iran's nuclear facilities grow in scope and sophistication, the possibility of diverting material from them increases regardless of the parameters of an inspection regime..."


William Broad, writing in The New York Times, says (again, all emphasis added):

"...the Iranians have managed to steadily increase their enrichment of uranium and are now raising their production of a concentrated form close to bomb grade.

"...The enrichment is a point of enormous pride to Iranians and a high card in an escalating game of brinkmanship that might one day turn deadly.

" any Iranian diplomat will tell you, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty sets no limits on enrichment purity. It simply bars nations from turning their civilian efforts to military ends — and Iran insists it is preparing uranium to fuel only reactors, not bombs.

"...its supplies of concentrated uranium are rising fast, a trend that could eventually slash the time needed to produce a small nuclear arsenal.

"'[The non-proliferation treaty] allows nations to get to the red line of weaponization,' said Yousaf M. Butt, a nuclear physicist with the Federation of American Scientists...

Ray Takeyh, an Iran specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, said a crisis never erupted because the Iranians made their moves so gradually. The international community, he noted, 'gets acclimated.'

"Today, the immediate goal of to get Iran to halt its 20 percent production — a far cry from the original demand for zero enrichment. Iranians boast that their intransigence has given their atomic manufacturing a sense of inexorability and legitimacy.

"...As if tensions weren't high enough, experts say that Tehran might raise the stakes further by re-enriching some of its growing supply of 20 percent uranium to even higher levels of purity."


What are the chances that the six parties facing off against Iran will come away declaring that they've struck an agreement, while Iran, moving covertly to weapon development, has the last laugh?

This farce, taking place in full view of the world, is possible because of what? Are those six nations obtuse to the point of stupidity, or uncaring about the consequences, or?


Just recently, in an interview with a German newspaper, Netanyahu said, "The P5+1 are so keen on getting any agreement that they have lowered the demands."

Now Israeli officials, convinced that the Iranians still don't take international threats seriously, are urging a tougher stance. Said one official, reflecting government thinking:

"[The international community must] make its demands crystal clear and tied to a timeline for implementation, ratchet up the economic and diplomatic pressure, and augment that pressure by making clear that there is a credible military option.

"We would like the international community to say that these are our demands these are our sanctions, comply...or else."


Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) expressing similar thinking, have organized a bipartisan letter to Obama, signed by 44 senators, advising him that if there is not concrete progress in negotiations with Iran he should quit the negotiations:

"It is past time for the Iranians to take the concrete steps that would reassure the world that their nuclear program is, as they claim, exclusively peaceful. Absent these steps, we must conclude that Tehran is using the talks as a cover to buy time as it continues to advance toward nuclear weapons capability."

"The absolute minimum Iran must do immediately to justify further talks is to shut down the Fordo uranium enrichment facility near Qom, freeze all uranium enrichment above 5 percent, and ship all uranium enriched above 5 percent out of the country."


One-hundred-twenty-three illegal immigrants from South Sudan, who had been rounded up by authorities, were sent home to Juba by plane today, and a second plane is due to depart next week.

illegal immigrants from South
Illegal Immigrants from South Sudan (Credit: YNET)


This has the feel of a symbolic or political action by Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas). For, out of roughly 80,000 illegal Africans in the country (I've also seen figures of 60,000 and 100,000), there are only some 700 or so South Sudanese in Israel. If every last one is sent home — which is likely to be the case — this will have scarcely made a dent in the problem.

Of course, one reason Yishai started with South Sudanese is because the Israeli courts have deemed it safe to send them home. There are 30,000 Eritreans here and 15,000 people from north Sudan, and moving them out will be considerably more problematic because we have no relations with a volatile Sudan, and conditions in Eritrea — where there have just been charges of torture coming from the UN — suggest that returnees might not be safe there either. Then it becomes a question of where they might be sent — what other countries, possibly in Europe, might take them. Yishai is saying in time they will all leave.

Even if they were all gone, according to the numbers I'm seeing, there still might be 25,000 to 35,000 or more illegal Africans remaining. I have no information on who they are or how they might be handled.


Activists who work with the South Sudanese — who went voluntarily, but were not all exactly happy to be going home — are distressed and claim that this action by Israel will destroy the important relationship we have with the new African state. But I'm not seeing this.

Netanyahu has pledged that repatriation would be done with dignity for all. Each returnee was provided with cash ($1,300 per adult/$500 per child), and given vaccinations. And they were joined on their flight by members of a South Sudanese delegation that has come here to help oversee the operation.

Clement T. Dominic, the South Sudanese official heading the delegation, said the migrants would receive "a good package that will allow these people to get reintegrated when they come back to South Sudan."

What is more, Dominic, reiterating an earlier commitment, said South Sudan would be setting up its embassy in Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv. Israel has been enormously helpful to the fledgling state of South Sudan in a number of respects, and there is continued anticipation of assistance with agriculture and a good deal more. South Sudan's relationship with Israel simply does not rest solely on the matter of repatriation of a few hundred.


The situation in our south — both at our border with the Sinai and with Gaza — has heated up once again. Briefly:

The Grad rockets I reported on yesterday, that had come in over Shabbat, were determined to have come from Egypt and not Jordan.

This morning, a member of an Israeli crew working on the fence being constructed on our border with Sinai was killed in the course of an attack coming from Sinai. Members of the Golani Brigade, who scrambled to the scene, then killed two terrorists responsible.

The IDF Armored Division has been moved closer to the border with the Sinai.

Speculation is that the enormous instability of Egypt at the moment is at the root of attacks emanating from the Sinai. Unofficial results from the presidential election run-off indicate that Muslim Brotherhood-backed candidate Mohamed Mursi has defeated Ahmed Shafiq, who had served as prime minister under Mubarak. Mursi has claimed victory while Shafiq has not yet conceded.

But, in spite of promises to turn over control of the country to the newly elected president, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has seized additional powers for itself. The thinking is that the Brotherhood is seeking to foment unrest and undo the peace treaty with Israel.


Subsequent to this, and according to the army unrelated to it, rockets were launched from Gaza — into the Eshkol Regional Council of the Negev; into the Hof Ashkelon Regional Council; and at about 9:00 this evening, into an open area in Sderot. There have been no injuries.

The Air Force has taken out four terrorists in Gaza in the course of two attacks — in one case hitting two of them as they were preparing to launch another rocket.

Islamic Jihad — not Hamas — is believed to be responsible for the rockets from Gaza.


Can these attacks truly be unrelated? Hamas supporters in Gaza are already cheering the Brotherhood win in Egypt. Undoubtedly a great deal more to follow.


Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website:

To Go To Top


Posted by Midenise, June 18, 2012

 This article is archived at professor-Roberto-Unger-says-defeated-2012.html

Roberto Unger, 65, is a respected author and Brazilian politician.
He taught Obama about 'reinventing democracy' at Harvard Law School.
He was an adviser during the 2008 election campaign.

By Daily Mail Reporter

A former professor of Barack Obama has turned against his one-time student and publicly urged voters not to re-elect him.

Roberto Unger posted a video on YouTube detailing the reasons why he believes the President does not deserve a second term in the White House.

Mr Unger, a prominent Brazilian politician and an adviser to Obama in 2008, said: 'President Obama must be defeated in the coming election. He has failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States.'

Scathing: Obama's former professor Roberto Unger said that he had 'failed' the United States and should not be re-elected.

The 65-year-old academic was in frequent contact with Mr Obama on his Blackberry throughout the last election campaign but has since decided that he no longer agreed with the President's decisions.

His list of complaints against the President is a long one in the video entitled 'Beyond Obama'.

The esteemed philosopher is scathing of Mr Obama's plans to salvage America's ailing economy, saying that his policy solely consists of 'financial confidence and food stamps'.

He adds: 'He has spent trillions of dollars to rescue the moneyed interests and left workers and homeowners to their own devices.'

The politician admits that if Republican candidate Mitt Romney wins the election 'there will be a cost... in judicial and administrative appointments'.

However his most barbed remarks he reserves for the Democrat leader saying that Mr Obama has 'evoked a politics of handholding, but no one changes the world without a struggle'.

Delete! The President regularly talked to Unger during his 2008 campaign... this is no longer likely to be the case Taking a shot: Roberto Unger criticised President Obama after being a long time supporter

His summary of the past four years is equally scathing: 'Give the bond markets what they want, bail out the reckless so long as they are also rich, use fiscal and monetary stimulus to make up for the absence of any consequential broadening of economic and educational opportunity, sweeten the pill of disempowerment with a touch of tax fairness, even though the effect of any such tax reform is sure to be modest.'

Most of Mr Unger's comments seem to be politically to the left of Mr Obama, but he insists that the Republicans would be no more destructive than the Democrats as 'the risk of military adventurism' would remain the same.

And some would doubtless strike a chord with the President's GOP opponents, including the academic's attacks on Mr Obama's efforts to reform healthcare.

Mr Unger argues: 'He has subordinated the broadening of economic and educational opportunity to the important but secondary issue of access to health care in the mistaken belief that he would be spared a fight.'

He also suggests that, despite their fierce rivalry, the Democrats' agenda is little different to that of the Republicans, saying the party aims 'to put a human face on the programme of its adversaries'.

The professor concludes his video by saying: 'Only a political reversal can allow the voice of democratic prophecy to speak once again in American life.'

Mr Unger is a renowned politician in his native Brazil. He has twice has run for president of Brazil and has served as Minister of Strategic Affairs.

Unger was one of the founding members of the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party and drafted its founding manifesto.

He has also advised on politics throughout Latin America.

The professor is a respected author having published dozens of books on economics, philosophy and politics.

In philosophy, his arguments are said to focus on some the greatest problems of the human existence.

The video, which was posted three weeks ago, has been viewed 22,000 times.

Mr Unger has taught at Harvard Law since 1976.

Obama studied jurisprudence and reinventing democracy with the professor.

The President attended Harvard Law School in 1988 and was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year.

Last week Obama announced that young immigrants who were brought into the U.S. illegally will no longer be deported.

The Obama administration said the policy change announced on Friday will affect as many as 800,000 qualified immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation.

The President also came in for sharp criticism last week after he combined fundraising events with an official event - and charged the bill to the taxpayer.

Obama raised a total of $4.5million at the fundraisers, one at Sex and the City actress Sarah Jessica Parker's house and the other at the five-star Plaza Hotel.

However, the President's re-election campaign will not have to pay the full cost of his jaunt to the Big Apple, because he scheduled a short visit to the World Trade Center site.

Read more: Obamas-Harvard-law-professor-Roberto-Unger-says-defeated-2012.html#ixzz1y7Vkh119

Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav.

To Go To Top


Posted by Alexander Maistrovoy, June 18, 2012

A quarter of a century ago the people of Central Asia and Caucasus also tasted freedom. It was the taste of blood.

"The first task of the historian is to make a careful sketch of the manner in which the events he recounts took place. The history of religious beginnings transports us into a world of women and children, of brains ardent or foolish. These facts, placed before minds of a positive order, are absurd and unintelligible, and this is why countries such as England, of ponderous intellects, find it impossible to comprehend anything about it." - this is how Ernest Renan* described how the psychology of the people in epoch of Jesus was frustratingly misunderstood by the English philosophers.

Replace England with West, ancient history with modern times and you'll understand the fatal error in the assessment of the events in Syria.

One glance at the commentaries on current events in Syria reveals that they were dictated by the same person. The similar expressions and identical evaluation: "democratic forces", on the one hand, and the "repressive regime" - on the other; the "revolution" against "the bloody dictatorship"; the "freedom" against "tyranny".

It is a very simplified, schematic picture. It does not explain much, and does not attempt to explain. Why, even after the massacre in Hula and Hama, don't we see mass defections from the Syrian army, although lower-ranked officers and soldiers are Sunnis and representatives of other minorities? Why don't they swing to The Free Syrian Army? Why hadn't the resistance and the mass protests spread to Damascus, even though its population consists of 90% Sunnis? How can one explain the neutrality of the Kurds (not second, but third class citizens!), and the Druze? What is The Free Syrian Army? It is evident from the news reports (including unofficial ones on YouTube), that the militants don't have shortage of weaponry (including RPGs and heavy machine guns) and ammunition. Who supplies the arms and ammo to them? Finally, there isn't any evidence that the massacre in Hula and Hama was accomplished by special units deployed by Assad. Can we rule out the possibility that the infamous gloomy "Račak massacre" repeats itself?

I'm not going to whitewash the Assad regime. But what is in fact happening in this country? Had the Western clichés become a reality?

We are called upon to reject "ill-founded fears." After all, "the situation could not be worse than it is in Syria now anyway" believes Lee Smith (The Weekly Standard). This is a typical example of Western optimism and naivety. I'm sure that it could be worse, much worse, because I know how violence and hatred in the East can be spiraled when the regime loses power.

... In the middle of the 80s Uzbekistan was the epitome of a "New Historical Community" — "Soviet People" (a type of "multiculturalism") with a diversity of nationalities peacefully existing side by side with each other. However in the late 80s the firm grip of the regime has weakened and in May 1989 the dormant fervors have sprung out. The first victims were Russians; the second were Meskhetian Turks that were transferred here from Meskheti region of Georgia by Stalin in the 40s. This massacre entered history as "Pogrom in Fergana Valley". We still do not know how many Turks were slaughtered. Armed with crowbars, pitchforks and axes the crowds burned alive, dismembered and raped people under the slogan "Uzbekistan for Uzbeks"; "Strangle the Turks, smother the Russians" and "Long live the Islamic flag".

"Snapshots: (in Fergana) testimony of debauchery, of madness and sadism: burnt corpse; murdered man and a teenager (probably father and son) and a bludgeon — the murder weapon; mutilated corpse of a woman, thrown into a ditch; burned-out houses. ...Approaching Kokand ...we saw pillars of black smoke and then bright torches of burning houses. We were able to distinguish angry faces, sticks in hands... They were thugs 25-30 years of age. They threatened us with fists and bludgeons; others tossed stones at the helicopter with impotent rage. We saw how they dragged Turkish girls from the buses and raped them. We saw how they threw a Russian man from the roof of a house ...and then, burnt him alive ... " ** (Resembles Syrian "sketches", or doesn't it?).

The pogroms recurred in June 1990 in Osh (this time the Kyrgyz were the victims), and again in 1991 - in Namangan. Mass atrocities ended only when Islam Karimov, the current Uzbekistan president, came to power and suppressed the mad crowds with an iron fist. From that time on Uzbekistan has been a stable country with many people coexisting peacefully. When the 1997 riots renewed in Namangan, Karimov rigorously suppressed them again. The West rushed to accuse him of violation of human rights without realizing that hadn't he done it with maximum determination and force, there wouldn't be any "human rights" or humans left in Namangan in particular, and in the country in general.

In Kazakhstan, in 1986 the nationalists attempted to settle old scores with the Russians. By a pogrom in the center of Alma-Ata, a large crowd armed with sticks and stones in demanded to elect Kazakh native to be the First Secretary of the Communist Party. Many were killed and hundreds injured as a result of the pogrom. The period of turmoil ended when the current President Nursultan Nazarbayev came to power. Since then Kazakhstan has been a prosperous and rapidly developing country. Like Uzbekistan, it is not a liberal democracy, but people who live here have the basic rights - the rights to life and a feeling of security.

Events in Tajikistan evolved in a similar matter. In February, 1990 crowds of rioters, screaming "Death to Armenians", destroyed homes of Armenians and other minorities. Arsons, mass murders, cruel rapes swept Dushanbe, life was paralyzed. Rioters burned people in their own homes, caught them, tortured to death, raped girls and women and then murdered them. The country was blazing several years until Emomalii Rahmon took power into his hands in 1994. Since then, Tajikistan is rarely mentioned in the international news reports. Life went back to normal in this country.

Pogroms of Armenians, provoked by the Karabakh conflict, swept Azerbaijan in 1989-90th. At first, there was the Sumgait in February 1988. "Thugs broke into the previously marked apartments. Armenians were killed in their own homes, but sometimes they were pulled out to the streets or to the yards for public mockery. Only few were "lucky" to die from an ax or a knife. Most died in a painful humiliation and suffering. Murderers pounded them, tormented, doused them with gasoline and burned them alive. Gang-rapes of women and girls occurred often in front of their relatives. Eventually, the torturers killed their victims. They didn't have mercy for neither old men or for children". ***

"I saw dismembered bodies with my own eyes; one body was chopped by an ax; legs, arms were chopped off from the body — almost nothing was left. They (murderers) collected leaves from the ground, tossed them over the corpses, then poured gasoline from cars and fired them up. These bodies looked horrible ", - wrote British journalist Thomas de Waal. ****

Pogroms resumed in Baku in 1990. According to de Waal, area densely populated by Armenians turned into a scene of mass murder: people were thrown from the balconies of the upper floors, lynched, and burned alive. Rape was accompanied by sadism and barbarity.

Period of instability ended when Heydar Aliyev, tough and dodgy politician, came to power, and subsequently handed over the authority to his son - Ilham Aliyev. Now Azerbaijan, as other Central Asia republics, is the authoritarian regime with quasi-democratic institutions, regardless is very popular among the people, because it provides the main thing that they need - security, stability and tranquility.

The Middle East is not that different from Central Asia and the Caucasus: there are same unwritten laws and rules. An example of this was the massacre of Christians by Palestinian militants in Damour (Lebanon) and retaliation in the Sabra and Shatila by Christian Phalangists. Similar things are occurring in Libya today. We are yet to see a repetition of the atrocities in Iraq, Egypt, Yemen and elsewhere, where the regime is unable to restrain the instinctual brutality of the crowd.

Alas, (as politically incorrect it may sound) the Middle and the Central East (excluding the fiasco of the Ataturk experiment in Turkey) have always known only two forms of existence (I emphasize - not the reign, but the existence): the domination of crazed mobs or despotism (in the form autocracy, military junta or theocracy). There is no other choice, and there never will be. Without any doubt the second form of existence (with all its flaws) is preferred, because it sets rigorous game rules and allows the mass of ordinary people to survive.

The Syrians are very well aware of this eternal order of things. I think they would prefer Hafez al-Assad's tyranny to empty and meaningless declarations about "revolution," "democracy," "liberal values"and "human rights".


* "The Life of Jesus"

** The colonel and journalist Peter Studenkin

*** Officer of USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs Victor Krivipuskov

****Thomas de Waal Black Garden

Alex Maistrovoy is a journalist. Contact him by email at

To Go To Top


Posted by by Raymond Ibrahim, June 17, 2012

Many are the lessons to be learned between the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the current revolutions of the Arab world.

Consider the issue of the hijab, the female "veil"—the proliferation of which, according to one former Islamist and associate of al-Qaeda's Ayman Zawahiri, is associated with a Muslim society's downward spiral into oppression and terror.

Front page of Iran's Ettela'at in 1979, assuring everyone that the hijab will not be mandatory.

Prior to Egypt's presidential elections, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Muhammad Morsi, assured the nation's liberals and secularists that, as president, he would certainly not enforce the hijab: "Many people are speaking nonsense, saying that I will impose the hijab against the will of the people; no one is going to force anyone to wear a specific uniform."

These are famous words, spoken almost verbatim some 33 years earlier, in Iran, at the time of the 1979 revolution. In fact, during the early days of the revolution, Ayatollah Mahmud Taleghani, a popular mullah, to reassure the secularists who participated in the overthrow of the Shah that an Islamic government would certainly not interfere with their freedoms, declared in the March 11, 1979 edition of Iran's newspaper, Ettela'at, that "The hijab will not be a matter of coercion."

The rest is history. Within months of the founding of the Islamic Republic, the 1967 Family Protection Law was repealed, female government workers were made to wear the hijab, women were barred from becoming judges, sex-segregation laws were promulgated, the marriage age for girls was dropped to 13, and married women were barred from attending regular schools. Today, Iranian women are regularly beaten if they are not dressed in appropriate hijab.

The parallels between Iran and Egypt do not end there. While today it is standard to think of the 1979 Iranian revolution as a purely Islamic affair, in fact, many of the revolutionaries were secular, liberal, Marxist, non-Muslim, etc. The one goal that glued them altogether was the desire to overthrow the autocratic Shah. Many of these Iranians did not want an Islamic government, certainly not a theocracy. And indeed, not just the Ayatollah Taleghani, but the Ayatollah Khomeini himself played down Sharia's draconian role to mobilize all these divergent segments of society—until he was fully entrenched in power, that is.

In short, the Iranian Revolution began as a heterodox affair, with different revolutionary factions and different ideological agendas, but it ended with the rise of a totalitarian Islamic republic.

Sound familiar? This is precisely what is happening today in Egypt, where the one unifying goal of the revolution was the overthrow of the Mubarak regime; where many Egyptians are secularist, liberal, Christian, etc., and certainly do not want an Islamic government; and where the Islamists, like the Muslim Brotherhood, are busy reassuring everyone that all their freedoms will be preserved.

Based on the Iranian model and the ongoing "Arab Spring," two lessons emerge as to how Islamists manage to consolidate power: 1) through outright lies and false promises, justified through Islamic doctrines like taqiyya and tawriya; and 2) through gradual implementation. This is how the mullahs achieved power in Iran, and this is how the Muslim Brotherhood—which is on record saying that its gradual, long-term goal is "mastership of the world"—is working to achieve power in Egypt, seen as the first domino on the road to caliphate.

Speaking of gradualism, here is a telling anecdote from Egypt: back in 1953, when the Muslim Brotherhood's leader asked President Gamel Abdel Nasser to enforce the hijab on women—in 1953 hardly any Egyptian women wore it—his suggestion was met with laughter and ridicule. Half a century later, the hijab is commonplace in Egypt.

Thus history prepares to repeat itself, even as the world prepares to act surprised—all in accord with that age-old adage, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." One may forgive those Iranians and others who fell for the lies of the Islamists during the 1979 revolution: there were no similar large scale precedents to learn from, certainly not from the modern era; the world was just beginning to confront political Islam.

Today, however, as Islamists exploit democracy to empower Sharia—and after more than three decades' worth of Islamist lies, betrayals, and broken promises, all justified by Islamic doctrines—for anyone to still take them at their word, well, that is a big "shame on you."

Raymond Ibrahim is an author and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Contact him at This article appeared June 18, 2012 in FrontPage Magazine and is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by COPmagazine, June 18, 2012

This article was written by Jim Kouri, CPP and is archived at Jim Kouri, CPP, the fifth Vice President and Public Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Contact him by email at

Egypt election

It may not have been the goal of the White House's "Arab Spring" strategy when it threw Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak under the "Obama Express Bus," but like it or not members of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood displayed their euphoric excitement when they announced to the world Sunday night (Monday morning Egyptian time) that their Islamist candidate Mohamed Morsi won the Egyptian presidential elections, according to Law Enforcement Examiner's Israeli police contact.

With 97 percent of all polling stations reporting, the results showed that Morsi won 52.5 percent of the votes, while Ahmed Shafiq, the ex-prime minister under ousted President Mubarak, got 47.5 percent, according to the Egyptian news service MENA.

Supporters of Morsi flooded the streets and cheered after the news was announced, although according to Egyptian electoral regulations the results will be officially announced on June 21 by the electoral commission, MENA reported.

Vote counting started after the presidential run-off ended at 10 p.m. (Egyptian time) on Sunday across the country, according to the Israeli source who was monitoring the election.

Egyptian citizens went in droves to the polling stations on Saturday to cast their votes in the presidential run-off between the Muslim Brotherhood's Morsi and the Mubarak regime's Shafiq.

Egypt's ruling military council issued a supplementary constitutional declaration on Sunday night to retake legislative powers after the parliament was dissolved several days ago, state media reported.

According to the document, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) will exercise legislative powers until a new parliament is elected, the official MENA news agency reported.

While President Barack Obama and his administration continue to portray Egypt's oldest radical Islamic group, the Muslim Brotherhood, as being more akin to the Rotary Club than to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda, many counterterrorism experts believe Obama and his administration are making a big mistake, according to experts such as Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

These experts believe that proponents of radical Islam are still capable of creating an Egyptian caliphate or worse and that giving them billions of U.S. dollars will only hasten the creation of another Iran in the Middle East.

The Muslim Brotherhood, a/k/a al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, was founded by Hassan al-Banna in 1928 and since then grew to become Egypt's largest Islamist group. The Brotherhood has influenced — and continues to influence — Islamist movements throughout the globe with its modus operandi of Islamic charity work concealing its more sinister advocacy of Islamic jihad, according to Emerson.

Although the Brotherhood, or Ikhwan, claim they support democratic principles, one of their stated aims is to create a state ruled by Islamic law, or Sharia. Their most famous slogan, used worldwide, is: "Islam is the solution."

The initial friction with Egyptian authorities caused a change in their ideology. One of their new leaders, Sayyid Qutb, advocated the use of jihad (struggle) against the jahili (ignorant). While he wished to start with Islamic nations, he also wished to cause radical transformation in Western countries.

Despite many members of the Muslim Brotherhood joined the anti-Mubarak protests, they kept their presence as secret as possible. The group avoided putting their traditional slogans on placards and signs during the demonstrations.

However, once Mubarak stepped down and the interim government took control, the Muslim Brotherhood openly sought a more active role in forming the new government. And now a member of the Muslim Brotherhood apparently is the President of Egypt.

To Go To Top


Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, June 17, 2012

Please see this partial list of libraries here in America (does not include foreign universities and other libraries abroad which also have it) which have my book: The Quest for Justice in the Middle East.

From my book:

"There is rarely such thing as perfect justice among the realm of imperfect man. The most we can usually strive for is the relative variety. And the latter does not demand almost two dozen states for Arabs and none for scores of millions of other subjugated, stateless, non-Arab peoples who also live in the region. Yet, that is precisely what Arabs expect.

"My work aims to provide a balance and broader perspective in an age when vilifying Israel–the Jew of the Nations–has become all too common."

Please consider touching base with your own local public library and/or high school and university libraries and request that they obtain a copy of it as well. If you have friends on university staffs or such, that makes it even easier. Major universities like Cornell, Georgetown, Penn State, the American University of Beirut, NYU, the University of Alberta, UC-Irvine, ERAU, the University of Wyoming, Bethlehem University, and others have already acquired it all on their own for library and classroom use.

There is an increasing number of one-sided, anti-Israel texts making it onto such library shelves. My book provides a timely, important balance to them and indeed provides a perspective missing in far too many other sources. It is validly documented to the moon with numerous primary and other sources and made its debut in academia at the presitigious ASMEA Conference of scholars in Washington, DC a while back.

From my book:

"Spanning centuries, the Arab-Jewish conflict has been rife with brutality and injustice. But in recent decades, the Western press in conjunction with the commentariat have steered both coverage and debate toward a decidedly Arab and Muslim-centric focus. Constant terror attacks on Jewish and Israeli citizens in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem are barely noticed by the worldwide news. But when Israel attempts to halt repeated Qassam rocket assaults on its urban populations launched by Arab and Muslim terrorists—from schoolyards and hospital rooftops, behind ever-present 'human shields'—the news and commentary elites erupt in indignation, with ready-made talking points on 'human shields'—the news and commentary elites erupt in indignation, with ready-made talking points on 'disproportionate responses' and the constant refrain that Israel has no right to protect herself."

It costs a fraction of the typical college text and is a tax write-off as well as a contribution...if you are so inclined.

The library can obtain the book from the publisher at

If at all possible, however, please see if they can purchase copies directly from me via so I don't literally get robbed of decades of work, education, expense, and research via such publisher sales.

Some of you either work on such campuses yourselves or have good connections to them. It would not be difficult to do —and many other folks have indeed already done this elsewhere.

Please partner with me in getting my timely, important work spread around as far and wide as possible.

How timely?

With all that's happening in Syria right now, the Foreword was written by one of the key leaders of the Syrian Democratic Coalition opposing the Assad regime.

Please check out my improved website as well

Much thanks. G_d bless.

All my best,



What passes for 'justice' in the Middle East. May 1, 2010
By M. D Roberts

The title of this extremely well written book, based upon decades of study, cites a "Quest for Justice in the Middle East".

In the context of this volatile region "justice" may mean different things to different readers. However this study attempts to place the Arab-Israeli conflict into a much wider context/perspective than what is usually provided by the international community and the world's media - seeking to include the plight of numerous other regional non-Arab peoples as well as the Kurds, Copts, Assyrians, Berbers and black Africans etc..

With this in mind I feel that the relevance of the following quote from page 133 is extremely important to any comprehensive understanding of what the author is trying to convey to the reader, namely;- "...Those truly in search of justice would do well to reconsider the very words they choose to discuss this conflict..."

The author draws upon a plethora of historical and modern day references which may make uncomfortable reading to those sympathetic to the Arab viewpoint pertaining to not only the Jews themselves but also the other peoples mentioned.

The writer at the outset takes pains to illustrate that he does not claim to provide a tour-de-force regarding Arab-Jewish politics/history but rather seeks to provide the basics of the conflict to those who are bombarded daily with news and what is described as misinformation pertaining to the region.

Composed largely upon the Arab-Israeli conflict attention is indeed drawn directly to the Arab mindset/attitude towards the Jews. Having said this the reader is shown in no uncertain terms how this same "mindset" also allegedly takes pride of place in the Arab dealings with all non-Arab peoples in the regions. Reference being made to the prominent role that Islam allegedly plays in these issues.

What essentially emanates from the text is that the Arab-Israeli conflict is one in which one side - the Arabs - have constantly refused to grant that there is any 'justice' due to their adversaries - the Jews - at all. The study also goes to considerable length to show how this perception also denies 'justice' to scores of millions of other non-Arab peoples in the region in their own distinct circumstances.

The reader is shown how, in relation to Israel, such an attitude has seemingly been now embraced by much of the international community, with a muted acceptance being paid to the justification of atrocities/attacks upon Jewish civilians in the name of alleged/perceived Arab grievances. The Middle East Peace Process itself appearing to proceed with only one policy/platform/plan - that being the pressurising of Israel for more concessions and the ceding of more & more territory for peace.

The book shows how, in the Arab "mindset", the existence of Israel allegedly constitutes what is seen as the dismemberment of Arab/Islamic land and it's usurpation by the Jews. Something else largely purportedly now embraced by the media and the world at large. However, the Arab/Islamic agenda of liquidating the Jewish state from their midst is shown to allegedly still exist although the tone of such an agenda has been successfully modified for Western consumption to emphasise "human rights" instead of annihilation. The latter now being seen as counter productive to the Arab/Islamic cause.

Concern is expressed in the text as to how few now study or are familiar with issues such as the age-old Jewish connection to the land of Israel, or the other side of the 'refugee coin' where hundreds of thousands of Jews were forcibly expelled from Arab lands where they had lived for millennia during the Diaspora.

Included among such matters is the history of the "Palestinians". The study clarifiying how most of so called 'native-Palestinians' were in fact Arabs who had poured into the Mandate territories from elsewhere in the region to take advantage of the economic development taking place at the hands of the Jews prior to and during the rebirth of their nation. (The UNHCR definition of a "Palestinian" Arab being an Arab who had resided for 2 years in what was Palestine prior to the latter & their descendants).

The text shows how the subject of anti-Semitism is being cloaked via political euphemisms as anti-Zionism & how serious/thoughtful/ordinary people are now allegedly advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not in their original intent. To avoid any anti-Israeli criticism, some are shown to emphasise that they consider there to be a vital difference between a 'Jew' and a 'Zionist'. This subtle deviation in the region camouflaging what was once the call for the 'Jews to be driven into the sea' - with a call now for a 'Zionist free Israel'. They essentially meaning the same and merely representing a form of 'anti-Semitism- by-proxy'. The Arab world learning that they can further their agenda far more successfully through the political goals of self-determination & 'human rights' than with declarations of intended genocide.

Another commentator has described this book as bringing out the greater human perspective in the Arab-Israeli conflict, "shouting from the heart to a world that has shut it's ears to the suffering of the Jewish people". Hope being expressed that this book will open minds and hearts to the quest for justice for all of the Middle East's peoples, not only the Arabs. I heartily concur with these remarks and would recommend this study to anyone interested in the region and it's peoples.

Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at or go to his website:

To Go To Top


Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 17, 2012

Just two paragraphs on Israel in the "World Briefing" section sufficed to libel Israel without readers knowing it.

The news is that 50 international aid groups and UN agencies accuse Israel's Gaza blockade of violating international law and indiscriminately harming Gaza's population.

The article states that Israel lets Gaza import most civilian goods, but bars Gaza exports and travelers from Gaza getting into Israel. Israel explains that its embargo is designed to prevent military imports for terrorists who might travel into Israel (NY Times, 6/15/12, A12).

What international law is violated? Not specified. Sure none was specified — none is violated. The allegation is just Israel-bashing. Such is the pattern.

First, embargoes are legal. What did those UN agencies and NGOs think of the international embargo on the former segregated Union of South Africa? That embargo did indiscriminately hurt the whole population. Gaza's embargo does not.

Gaza is not independent. Israel is responsible for overall security there. In any case, Gaza is at war with Israel. So of course Israel wants to keep weapons out from that terrorist base. And a good thing that is!

Israel has no obligation to boost exports for an entity at war with it, a war of Islamic aggression for genocide. The UN and NGOs should be ashamed of themselves, waxing indignant on the wrong side.

Rather absurd to claim an Israeli requirement to let Gazans into Israel. Although anti-Zionists like to call Gaza a giant prison, Gaza turns Israel into a giant bomb shelter because Gaza is a giant terrorist base.

Unfortunately, the newspaper left the UN accusation undisturbed by challenge in any of the ways I challenged it. Then what was it reporting? What good for readers is a report that gives them no clue about the legitimacy of the accusations?

What good is a UN that serves as a propaganda conduit for libel in behalf of jihad?

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email.

To Go To Top


Posted by Ted Roberts, June 17, 2012

I had an interesting challenge the other day. One of my favorite editors of a Midwest Jewish newspaper, knowing my reputation as a connoisseur of Midrashim, said: “OK, Ted, what about Beged Ka’as”. I clearly answered, “Oh yeah, Beged Ka’as”. Sure Beged Ka’as, which wasn’t a lie, was it, since I had no idea what Beged Ka’as meant, except it could be Hebrew. “Well,” said the anonymous editor, “why don’t you write a story about it?” Definitely a challenge to my aging imagination.

Why didn’t I write a story about Esau’s marriage to Ishmael’s daughter? Because I wasn’t there and knew nothing about it – and usually misspelled Ishmael. But aided by my super computer, I Googled it. Turns out that it means “Coat of Anger”, invented by a famous Chasid who thought anger was bad for your soul and blood pressure. The idea being that when your wife undercooked the chicken so badly that it cackled when you tried to cut it – you ran for your Beged Ka’as and by the time you found it, buttoned it up, and adjusted the belt, your anger had cooled. “Dear, this bloody raw chicken is delicious.” (“Cock-a-doodle-do,” said the slightly warm bird.)

It reminds me of the famous Chasid (all Chasids are famous) who dearly loved the fig tree by his door and his lovely wife. He regularly, every morning, stood at his front door and said the blessing: Blessed art thou oh G-d who bestowed upon us fig trees. He would pop a few honeyed figs in his mouth and look forward to a fig dessert for lunch. Suffice it to say he loved that fig tree. Those jealous of his learning said – yeah, almost as much as his wife. UNTIL one dark, gloomy day his wife had a Hadassah meeting. What to serve as cocktail snacks? Oh, she thought, how about those plum-sized, purple figs that adorned her husband’s second love, that magnificent fig tree by the door. And so she did. Picked it clean, she did. There weren’t three figs left, hidden among those big, green leaves.

Now it’s 5:30 – our Chasid comes home from his studies at the synagogue. As he approaches his front door he hears the musical chatter of female voices. He also notices that the plump, purple fruit no longer is sprinkled among the green leaves of his second love. Being a Chasid, a student of Torah and Talmud, he was no fool. He immediately understood the combination of NO FIGS and female voices.

His wife – she was the one – his blood boiled. But being a man of heart as well as intellect he rushed through the door to find his Beged Ka’as. He must muffle this terrible rage to squeeze his beloved wife’s neck till her eyes looked like two near ripe figs. But where was it? It was not in its usual spot. As he rushed around the house, from closet to closet, his rage grew. He must find his mystical coat. He tried on three other coats, buttoned to the chin. But the desire to throttle his greedy fig-eating wife, who also misfiled coats, did not decline. As he tried on the fourth coat, his Chasidic face flushed with irritation and temper. He thought, I should have married plain Miriam, the Rebbe’s daughter who probably hated figs and who was renowned as a housekeeper and . . . but then his wife entered the room bearing a bowl of figs so beautiful that Cezzane would have leapt from his grave to paint them in subtle shades of purple and crimson. Yeakor the Chasid stopped buttoning his fifth coat of the evening.

How lucky he was to have such a wife and a fig tree that would replenish itself in a few weeks. When he finally found his Beged Ka’as he would give it to a fellow Chasid with an ugly, stingy wife who lacked a fig tree. He would need it.

To Go To Top


Posted by Nurit Greenger, June 17, 2012

The invasion of people of African origin into Israel through the desert of the Sinai peninsula is a phenomenon Israel cannot live with and should not. The only solution is deporting all those who snuck into the country, making the life of the local people's rather unbearable. Israel must make their life so difficult so that they opt to leave and then also spread the word, to the world, that Israel is no more to be seen as a sucker country for illegal immigration; and the means for Israel to do this are in abundance.

I do not live in Israel and thus my perspective on the illegal infiltration of natives from the African continent is based on what I read and see on the screen. However, as my understanding of the situation goes, the way Israel found itself swarmed and swamped by approximately 100,000 people who entered the country without permission requires harsh criticism of the country's apparatus. It is called leadership incompetence.

I read that some of these infiltrators have been in Israel for over five years. I understand one person enters and is given some legal status, even two, and three. But that is not the case here. The first ones entered and then stayed in Israel with no permission and no background investigation and created a precedent. Probably, people in Israel thought it was kind of cute; the Israelis overlooked the situation and disregarded the fact that it is not at all right for people, who invaded their country without legal consent, to stay. Once the first infiltrators "settled" in, the word that Israel is a safe haven for invasion spread like wild fire. And then when the number of the invaders began to grow and the infiltration flood got stronger, Israel should have nipped the phenomenon in the bud, not let it spread out of control as it continues to spread as of this writing.

Now when there are some 100,000 people who entered the country, illegally, Israel is panicking; Israel you have a major problem on hand.

First, it is a matter of security. No well managed country allows people to enter its border illegally. If these people want to work in Israel they need to apply for work permit from the Israeli embassy or consulate in their country, not just break into the country, as a thief in the night, and not be apprehended.

If it was a matter of obtaining a political asylum they could have applied for such status in the legal way: enter the Israeli embassy in their country and ask for political protection and then allow Israel's authorities to decide if the state wishes to cooperate in the case. But no, they found a sucker country to impose their presences, to invade and stay, no question asked.

Then, there is a matter of health. Since these infiltrators did not go through immigration process, they also did not go through medical check-up and the result, they brought along with them diseases that have been contained and Israel no longer deals with. They have reduced the health standards of the country.

Additionally, with their lack of education, they are bound to reduced the quality of the education standards' poll.

None of these people were running away from their homeland; it was all planned. These people, claiming hardship, found thousands of dollars, needed to pay for the journey to reach Israel's border. From where does so much money come into the hands of such poor people? Is it not an enigma? Perhaps Israel's enemies are paying them these sums to infiltrate the country so they can establish an army from within and in time be able to assist Israel's enemy to strike the country, as they plan?

The government of Israel appears unfathomably incompetence in addressing this problem.

In 2012 the USA deported at least 400,000 illegals. In Europe the authorities deport such people as well. No one shouts that the USA or the Europeans are racists for deporting people of dark skin. I once stayed in hotel nearby Orly Airport, Paris, France. There, each night, the French authorities were bringing people, appeared to be from African countries, for deportation. These people were kept overnight at the hotel, in an assigned floor under guard, and in the morning they were put on planes bound for the countries from where they came. There was no news coverage, just daily routine of deportation. But when Israel has to do the same, the world is up in arms calling her racist just because these people are of dark skin and Jews are acting to apply the law of order of the their country.

Yes, one can have some empathy when seeing the Israeli authorities rounding people up, especially when we speak about people from the African continent. World's perception is that suffering in Africa is the order of the day and so these people are seen as victims. But, there is no need to shed a tear, because if we do, then, regardless to color of skin and creed, we need to feel sorry for any and all law breaking people; after all, they broke the law and racked Israel's sovereignty. If these people really wanted to come to Israel to work and better their life, then why not grab a work permit application, available at the Israeli embassy in their country, and wait for a reply? None of these people were under any immediate danger, as people under immediate danger do not have thousands of dollars to pay for their flee, rather they run as fast as their feet can take them with the shirt on their back.

And what about Israel's sovereignty? With them so easily infiltrating the country, taking over suburbs in various Israeli cities it only indicates to the world that Israel has no sustainable sovereignty or it has hard time maintaining it.

A U.N envoy found it necessary to comment about the newly applied deportation process of these invaders, asking Israel to give these invaders some formal labor status. The question is, does Israel need the service of these people so she is to issue such status decree? Also, why this U.N pundit does not suggest the same to the EU and USA authorities that have been deporting illegals for decades?

In the conflict the Arabs have with Israel, her deeply seeded quest is to maintain the state of her Jewish nature. When 100,000 non-Jewish infiltrators enter the state, illegally, and that flood continues, how can Israel expect to maintain her Jewish character? This infiltration is projecting to the world an image that Israel has no defensible borders, she has no law against illegal infiltration and is in fact open and free for all, and thus the message is, 'Shalom to all; welcome to Israel.' How can Israel expect to prevail as a Jewish state this way? More so, most of these infiltrators are Moslems and Islam sees Israel as their land, so in essence Israel has allowed the enemy invade and slowly to take over.

And then there is the crime factor. People who have no legal status, who work under the radar, at a minimum wage, cannot meet ends and the host country's survival standards, and thus will, automatically, revert to crime and that is exactly what happened; crime in the towns where they have put foot and stayed went out of control. In essence Israel invited crime into her midst.

Israel has a neck to invite trouble in. In 1993, with signing of the Oslo Accords, Israel invited into her midst terrorist Yasser Arafat and his 10,000 terrorist troops and their supportive families, and thus opened the door to Arab terrorists to embed and operate, at close range, against its citizens.

In 2006, when the first infiltrator entered the land of Israel, illegally, Israel left the phenomenon of people from African countries crossing her borders, unchecked, and today the state is drowning in a 100,000 illegals problem; a problem it never had before and thus has no idea how to handle and deal with, overcome and eradicate.

Israel has made herself a magnate for illegals.

The bible instructs Jews to treat, with kindness, the stranger — and the orphan and widow, sources: Exodus 22:20, Deuteronomy14:28, 16:9-14, 24:17-22; Ruth was a Moabite and the great grandmother of King David; she was a non-Jew, a stranger, who joined the Jewish nation and married the Jew Boaz.

According to the Bible the biblical stranger is the one who comes to live among the local residents for a long period of time. Every humane society is measured by its relations to the weak in her midst. In a society where there is no welcoming of the weak, when the strong "devours" the weak, we can say that the law of the jungle rules. But this is not the case here. These people snuck in and invaded the country without permission and were treated with kindness. In return, with time, they acclimated and became stronger and their thank you gesture to the host country, into which they snuck was to create an intolerable social circumstances; they simply cannot remain to live in Israel.

Comes the time for Israel to recognize and thus separate compassion from her needs for security and social stability. These invaders impede Israel's security and social stability and therefore, they all, without exception, must be deported. If they really want to come and live in Israel, the doors to the immigration department in the Israeli embassy or consulate in their country are wide open. If Israel has no diplomatic representation in their country, then they need to travel to a nearby country where Israel is diplomatically represented and apply to come to Israel there. Paying thousands of dollars to some Bedouin thugs to bring them to the threshold of the state of Israel and from there just cross the border, illegally, is not the way; such entry is considered illegal by international law and it is unfair to the citizens of the country who wish to preserve their sovereignty.

Illegals from afar need to stay afar.

To contact Nurit Greenger, visit her blog:

To Go To Top


Posted by David Isaac, June 17, 2012

Dear Friend:

Our latest post is up!

You can view it at

Israeli officials still cling to the Egypt-Israel treaty. Shmuel Katz wrote it off 35 years ago.

Comments are welcome.


A recent article in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Israelis Cling to Faith in Peace Treaty," reports that many Israeli officials "are finding solace in the view" that the peace pact with Egypt will hold despite the advent of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is startling given the September 2011 ransacking of the Israeli embassy by Egyptian rioters, the incessant calls by Brotherhood leaders to liberate the al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, and the vaporization of Israel's natural-gas supply from Egypt.

Shmuel gave up on the Egypt-Israel treaty 35 years ago, right from its inception, and he publicly warned about its dangers throughout the years. A mere three months after Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's dramatic visit to Jerusalem, Shmuel wrote:

If there had not in the past three months been other sufficient indications, then Sadat's angry refusal to make microscopic "concessions" in territory where Egypt has had no sovereignty, which is certainly not "sacred" and which is of no importance to Egyptian security — but which is important for an attack on Israel — are enough to demonstrate that this man does not envisage peace with Israel but (in the words of the Prime Minister) peace without Israel. ("From No-Man's Land to 'Sacred Soil,'" The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 28, 1978)

It seems Israeli officialdom is still playing catch-up. Why was Shmuel able to see the treaty for what it was while so many Israelis were not? Was he like a prophet of old, divinely gifted with second sight?

Shmuel would have been amused. The only difference between Shmuel and so many Israelis is that, unlike them, he didn't replace thinking with wishful thinking. And, he listened. As Shmuel said in an episode of "Firing Line" (April 1, 1979):

I don't think that the question is primarily one of an article in an agreement. I am looking at what is being said in the periphery of the agreement by Egyptian spokesmen. ... Now as far as the intentions of Sadat are concerned, I believe what he says. You can't ignore the fact that when you've had a peace process or negotiations going on for a whole year, that just as you're about to sign the treaty, one side says, "I'm not signing unless I am given the right to go to war," and then say you don't take it seriously.

Representing the other side in this "Firing Line" debate was Prof. Shlomo Avineri of Hebrew University, who dismissed Shmuel's example of what Egyptian spokesmen were saying as mere "rhetoric."

Paying no mind to what the Arabs say continues today. Indeed, it's necessary if the fiction of a peace treaty is to be maintained. The Wall Street Journal article mentioned above quotes Giora Eiland, a former Israeli national-security adviser, as saying, "I don't think we should see a dramatic change in the strategic policy of Egypt in the future no matter who is elected and no matter how blunt the statements by this future president might be." Not only is Mr. Eiland discounting past statements, he's conveniently brushing off future ones as well.

Apparently, not listening is ingrained in Israeli culture. Shmuel illustrates this with a joke in "Deaf Ears in Jerusalem," (The Jerusalem Post, August 17, 1979):

Ephraim Kishon some time ago placed his inimitable finger on one of the strange weaknesses of our society: people do not listen to what is being said to them. One example he offered ran roughly as follows: a man standing in a crowded bus stamps on his neighbour's foot. The victim turns round angrily, only to encounter the conciliating smile of the culprit, who says very sweetly: "I did that on purpose." The victim mutters, "Oh, that's alright. No harm done."

In "Time to Take Stock" (The Jerusalem Post, June 22, 1979), Shmuel wrote:

Sadat not only ensured for his nation the removal of Israel's effective security belt — down to the last grain of sand and the last Jew — which would protect it in a future war, but, despite Begin's protestations, he also in fact achieved (by the addendum to Clause Six of the Peace Treaty) adequate formal legitimization for joining a future all-Arab war against Israel, under whatever pretext may then be available to Egypt.

That war has yet to come. But Shmuel never pretended to know when. He just knew it would come. One could draw a parallel to Milton Friedman's prediction in 1999 that the euro would fall apart within a decade. Friedman was off on the timing but he understood that yoking together countries with different languages and cultures — with economies running by very different rules — in a single currency wasn't feasible. Now that the euro is on the ropes, Friedman looks prescient.

It's noteworthy that Europe's leaders seem to be doubling-down in the crisis, calling for stricter fiscal and monetary union. One can say Israel has already doubled-down, pursuing a land for peace paradigm despite failure after failure. But forging ahead regardless of past failures is easy if you don't listen.

David Isaac is editor of the Shmuel Katz website: Contact him at

To Go To Top


Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 17, 2012

Last week, Jacques Gauthier came to town for a conference on who has the rights to Jerusalem. Gauthier, who is a lawyer specializing in international law, says, hands down, the Jews do. What is significant here is that he is not Jewish, and arrived at his opinion not from the basis of religious conviction, but rather from an examination of the legal and historical facts.

His interest in Jerusalem began in 1982, when he traveled here; he subsequently devoted 25 years of study to the subject, culminating in a Ph.D. dissertation on the issue that runs for 1,300 pages and has 3,250 footnotes.



Claims to the contrary notwithstanding (see below), Gauthier says that Jewish rights to Jerusalem are firmly established in international law. His focus is on the San Remo Conference of April 24-25, 1920, which predated — and established the legal basis for — the Mandate for Palestine of 1922, which was founded on the Balfour Declaration of 1917. This Mandate established Palestine as a homeland for the Jewish People.

The San Remo Conference was a gathering of the Supreme Council of Allied Powers, the five major victors of World War I, who were to determine how borders would be set for new nation-states to be carved out of the old Ottoman Empire and how mandates would be established. (Mandates were temporary governorships assigned to European nations of areas in the Middle East that were slated to eventually be ruled independently but were not ready yet to do so.) The division of Europe had been determined at the earlier Paris Peace Conference of 1919 — the San Remo Conference was a follow-up to this.

Gauthier says this conference was the "final hearing" of a "world court," with this the "key defining moment in history" on the issue of the title to Jerusalem. He draws upon the legal principle of "la chose jugée" (judged issue) — indicating that all legal rights and claims recognized by the Supreme Council became irreversible, binding forever in a "sacred trust."


Gauthier, who sees these questions of Jerusalem as touching upon human rights issues, says that Jerusalem is holy to all three major religions, but is central only to Judaism.


You can see a two-part YouTube (each part about 10 minutes) of a TV interview of Gauthier, which provides a broad overview, here:

Part 1.

Part 2.


A more thorough hour-long analysis (a presentation for the International Christian Embassy of Jerusalem) can be seen here:


Let's switch gears for a moment and take a look at what EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said in an address to the European Parliament last week. I have just written about increasing anti-Semitism in Europe, and I think her blatantly anti-Israel bias, as reflected here, is of a piece with this.

Declared Ashton, settlements represent the "key and most serious concern" with regard to the peace process. Not Abbas's refusal to come to the table, or the continuing incitement of the PA, or the PA's readiness to form a coalition with Hamas, but "settlements." This is her constant refrain, and I mention it here in order to put the lie to her claims.

According to her, not only do "settlements" "put current peace efforts at risk," they are illegal under international law. But they are not. What is more, Israel builds in Judea and Samaria almost exclusively within the boundaries of existing communities, and is not, as is frequently charged, forever spreading out over a greater area of Judea and Samaria.


She says the EU is opposed to Israeli development in area C, but wants to see Israel facilitate Arab development in this area. But area C is the region of Judea and Samaria that, according to the Oslo Accords, is fully under Israeli military and civil control. Demanding Palestinian Arab development here is a new Abbas tactic, and she's fully on board with it.

Perhaps most significantly, she says that the EU will not recognize any change to the pre-1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem (which means the Kotel and the Temple Mount would not be in Jewish hands), unless both parties consent.

Now, you've heard it here a thousand times. And if you listen to the Gauthier videos you'll hear it as well from this international lawyer: The 1967 line, otherwise referred to as the Green Line, was nothing more than a temporary armistice line established between Israel and Jordan at the end of the War of Independence in 1949. It has no legal status as a border. What is more, Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the war in 1967, says Israel does not have to return to that line, as it would not provide a secure border. The final border, said this resolution, has to be determined via negotiations. This is what the Armistice Agreement of 1949 said, as well.

But none of this deters Catherine Ashton, who is eager to establish the outcome before negotiations to resolve the issue are held.


For me, what all of this proves is that there is no way to satisfy the international community. We must in all respects proceed in the manner that is in our best interest.


PA negotiator Saeb Erekat, who is about to leave for the US to confer with Secretary of State Clinton, has put out this statement:

"I was assigned by President Abbas to inform US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of our position on resuming negotiations once Israel commits to stopping settlement activity and release of prisoners, among other obligations...

"We hope the American administration compels the Israeli government to fulfill its obligations in order to get the peace process back on track."

At a conference in Ramallah, Abbas said:

"The peace process is clinically dead and the Israeli side is definitely the one responsible. The ball is in their court."


Well, the peace process damn well is dead, and Netanyahu had best attend to business here at home. In an attempt to appease nationalists with regard to Ulpana's partial demolition by July 1, he has made all sorts of pledges regarding building in Judea and Samaria, starting with 300 units in Beit El.

Already there are rumors that Netanyahu knew when he made this pledge for the 300 units that it would not be feasible: allegedly this is based on the opinion of Deputy Attorney General Mike Blass. Don't know if the rumors are true, but I do know that I'm uneasy, and concerned, lest he back down to show the international community our "sincere intent."

Minister of Security Affairs Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon, in an interview with Mikor Rishon on Friday, said that:

"I helped formulate the outline on Ulpana. It would be a disaster if the 300 houses are not built. It would be a breach of trust towards me, towards the Prime Minister and towards the public."


This implies that Netanyahu didn't know when he made the pledge that it might not be feasible. But I cannot comment on this.

What does seem apparent already, however — and this is a considerable disappointment — is that the committee the prime minister promised to appoint to oversee settlement issues will not in any way impinge on the authority of Defense Minister Barak, although this was broadly understood in many quarters. (Was Netanyahu content to allow this misunderstanding to persist?)

According to Barak Ravid, writing in Haaretz:

" examination of the details of that submission [to the Cabinet of the plan for the committee] reveals that the defense minister's authority on West Bank issues remains untouched."

"'The decision does not diminish the prime minister and defense minister's authority, as stated in government decisions, according to which the defense minister has the authority to approve construction and planning in the West Bank,' Barnea-Farago [legal advisor to the Prime Minister's Office] wrote."

In addition to Netanyahu and Barak, those sitting on the committee will be Vice Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Science and Technology Minister Daniel Hershkowitz, Interior Minister Eli Yishai, Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon, Minister Benny Begin, Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Yuli Edelstein, Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar, and Environmental Protection Minster Gilad Erdan.

For further details:


I want to call your attention here to an interview of Moshe Ya'alon with Ari Shavit in the Haaretz Magazine. It is in unofficial translation from the original Hebrew on the IMRA website.

The very significant core of it all is here (with all emphasis added):

Q:. Is the result that we already face the cruel dilemma of a bomb [in Iran's possession] or to bomb [Iran to prevent this]?

A: We're not there yet...The international community can still act firmly and decisively. There may be other developments too. But if the question is a bomb or to bomb [the] answer is clear: to bomb.

Q:. We survived the Cold War.... Is it not fair to say that just as Europe lived in the past with the Soviet bomb we could live in the future with the Shiite bomb?

A: No ...if Iran becomes nuclear, four - five other countries in the Middle East can become nuclear. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and other Arab states say that if Iran has the bomb also they need the bomb. The result will be a nuclear Middle East. A nuclear Middle East would not be stable... Nuclearization of Iran would lead to nuclear chaos.

The second answer to your question is a nuclear umbrella would allow Iran to achieve regional hegemony... Nuclear Iran could dominate the Persian Gulf energy sources and a very large share of world oil supplies. There would be far-reaching international implications...

The third answer to the third to your question is that one day the Iranian regime might use its nuclear capability it. That does not mean that the day after they have a bomb they send it on a plane or a missile and drop it on a western city. But there is a danger of using nuclear weapons by proxy. Terrorist organization with a dirty bomb could bring it into New York Harbor or the Port of London or the Port of Haifa. I also do not exclude the possibility of a direct nuclear weapons attack with missile. The risk is indeed low but it exists. This extreme scenario is not impossible.

A Western observer takes the fantastic aspirations of the Iranian leadership with a grin. "What do they think, they will convert us to Islam?" The surprising answer is yes. They think they will convert us. The current regime in Tehran wants it that in the long run the Western world will become Muslim. Therefore we need to understand their rationale is completely different from our rationality. Concepts are different and the considerations are different. They are in no way like the former Soviet Union...It is impossible to contain a nuclear Iran and achieve stability under such circumstances. The consequences of a nuclear Iran are intolerable.

Q: ...The feeling is that Israel cries wolf, is playing a sophisticated game of "hold me back".

A: There is one thing is very important that speakers of English understand it: We are not bluffing. If political and economic pressure fails and other alternatives exhaust themselves and Iran continues to race toward the bomb, it will require decisions.

Q: There is a danger the Iranian crisis will culminate in the coming year?

A: Once we talked about a decade. Then we talked about for years. Now we're talking about months. ...


Over Shabbat, two Grad Katyusha rockets were fired into Israel. Friday night one landed in the Arava near Uvda; Saturday, one landed near Mitzpe Ramon in the Negev. There were no injuries, and the question as to whether these came from Egypt or Jordan is currently being investigated.


And I end today with a story designed to bring a smile. I think we need every smile we can get!

After (groan) an 18-month pregnancy, Tendra, a 20 year old white rhino in the Ramat Gan Safari park near Tel Aviv, has given birth to a healthy calf (gender yet undetermined as I write). This is of significance because the while rhino in an endangered species and difficult to breed in captivity.

Tendra, who previously showed herself to be a good mother, had one other calf in the park.

A baby rhino was born to mother Tendra at the Ramat Gan Safari on Friday

rhino baby
Tibor jager/Ramat Gan Safari/Flash90

Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website:

To Go To Top


Posted by Amil Imani, June 17, 2012.

Islam is a brutal, tribal warrior cult that glorifies jihad and martyrdom. The Quran is replete with acts of murder, terrorism, and genocide.

Let us look at some explicit provisions of the Quran:

  • Islam is misogynist. Men are superior to women. Women are to obey men and are to be beaten when they disobey or misbehave.
  • Islam is racist. The Quran stipulates that the Arabs are superior to all others, and it clearly condones slavery. It explicitly stipulates discriminatory laws for slaves.
  • Islam denounces other belief systems and marginally recognizes the validity of only two religions: Judaism and Christianity.
  • Islam is violent. It not only condones jihad; it recommends it and promises great reward for the jihadist.
  • Islam is already splintered in a number of major sects and innumerable numbers of secondary sects that harbor huge disagreement with and animosity toward one another as well as toward all infidels.

Nearly a billion and a half of the human species — a species supposedly endowed with the greatest of intelligence — swallows Islam whole and even dispenses it to others by any and all means possible. It is one of those great mysteries of life that defies any and all logic.

Many animals come with already in-place programs that automatically run much of their lives. Birds' migration, mating courtship, and thousands of other complex behaviors are instances of this type of specific programming. A catchword for this type of behavior is "instinct." As a general rule, the higher the organism, the less is its rigid pre-programs and the greater its latitude to exercise choices.

As humans, our two legs move us along, but it is our minds that tell us which path to take in life and what to do. As the mind commands, so goes the person. Yet for humans, the mind does not arrive in this world with a set program of instructions. Contrary to many beliefs, we are born neither as demons nor as angels. Within each one of us is the potential for a demon or an angel. Many evolve into a mix of the two, a few fortunate mature into truly angelic people, and some become personifications of evil. It is the mind's programming that plays the critical role in making us what we are.

Every one of us arrives in this world as a helpless infant at the mercy of others — not only to be fed, cleaned and protected, but also to be informed about the bewildering life we face. Others can teach the new arrivals only what they know and believe. And much of what adults know and believe is a hodgepodge, handed down to them by the adults that raised them.

Islam, from its inception, discovered the crucial secret of getting to the young mind early by adhering to the dictum: instruction in early childhood is akin to carving in the rock. In the same vein goes the Jesuit saying, "Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man," derived from the philosophy and theology of Saint Augustine. The immense importance of getting early to the young mind is also emphasized by non-religious doctrines as diverse as the Freudian psychoanalytic theory and Watsonian Behaviorist psychology.

It is thus that millions of infants annually end up in the care of people who themselves are imbued with a pathological Islamist belief system rooted in the mores and practices of the primitives of the Arabian Peninsula from 1,300 years ago.

From very early on, the young child is indoctrinated in the belief that there is an omniscient, ever-vigilant Allah who observes everything a person does and even everything he contemplates. Nothing whatsoever escapes this omnipresent, all-knowing being. Allah keeps tabs, and he bestows incredibly desirous rewards if one behaves as told, while dispensing unimaginably tortuous punishment if one strays.

The very young human faces, beginning with the minute he can make some sense of the world, a bewildering array of mysteries, challenges, and enticements. There are questions at every step — fears and hopes entangled with the need to survive and possibly thrive.

Who am I? What is this world all about? What's the purpose? What am I supposed to do and how? Where am I headed? People die. Where do they go? And on and on and on. The information booths available to a man in the fairground of life provide him with answers that may help relieve his innate existentialistic anxiety. And it is here that religion plays its critical role and holds great appeal. Religion provides a surefire answer to those who are willing to take it on faith.

And Islam is a powerful magnet for the masses who are unable to deal with the uncertainties of life and death on their own. It is from this population, many already thoroughly indoctrinated from birth, that the majority of die-hard jihadists emerge.

It is the bargain the jihadist makes. He surrenders totally to the religion of surrender in exchange for blanket security. Islam gives him all the answers he really seeks for dealing with this world and promises him a most lush and eternal paradise of Allah once he leaves it. And leaving this world in perfect submission as the foot soldier of the paradise's creator gives the faithful unimaginably glorious sensual eternal reward in his next life. It's a bargain that some buy in whole, while some buy it in part, and some refuse and seek other means of dealing with their questions and the unrelenting existentialistic anxiety.

It is foolish to underestimate the dangers of Islamic mental manipulation. All Muslims share an Islamic cognitive repertoire, with considerable variations. As is the case with any population distribution, a great majority forms the middle while minorities populate the extremes. Islamic apologists and many Muslims point to the middle as true Islam, thereby disassociating themselves from the two extremes and may even denounce them as not being Muslims.

At one extreme are the Nominal Muslims. These Muslims adhere loosely to the Islamic precepts and practices, ordinarily pose little threat to non-Muslims, and may even reject some aspects of the religion.

At the other extreme are the die-hard fanatical jihadists, who present severe threats not only to non-Muslims, but also to the so-called Moderate Muslims as well as the Nominal Muslims.

To this extremist group, nothing is out of bounds in furthering the cause. Dissimulation, deception, and all manner of violence are their Quran-sanctioned tools. As part of their scheme, this malevolent group has adopted highly effective strategies for subjugating the West, its people, and its culture. In keeping with their supremacist racist cult, their god, Allah, is proclaimed as the greatest god — Allah-o-Akbar. Yet, in English, one hears only the deceptive translation — God is great, and not the actual Arabic: Allah is the greatest.

History documents the pivotal role of small groups, even individuals, in precipitating monumentally important events. It is the energized militant minority that often sparks movements and directs the course of human events. And it is the minority of Muslims, militant and highly motivated soldiers of Allah, who are on the march to defeat the non-believing by any and all means and establish "Caliphatism," the Islamic Kingdom.

This article was written by Amil Imani and is archived at Amil Imani is an Iranian-American writer, poet, satirist, novelist, essayist, public speaker and political analyst who has been writing and speaking out about the danger of radical Islam both in America and internationally. He is the author of 'Obama Meets Ahmadinejad.' Contact him at

To Go To Top


Posted by Bruce Tuchman, June 17, 2012

 This article was written by Shaul Rosenfeld and was published yesterday in Israel Opinion. It is archived at,7340,L-4243003,00.html

Islamists taking over while Western liberals, led by president, are still deep in ideological slumber

In February 2011, a few weeks after Egypt's uprising erupted, when the Arab Spring was supposedly just around the corner and meant to bring us a new Middle East in the undying spirit of Shimon Peres, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times stood at Tahrir Square and delivered his own, no less immortal vision.

Friedman, whose name is mentioned by Israel's finest colleagues without forgetting to note that he is "the world's most important journalist," examined the Cairo square with his sharp eyes, and found no hint of Islamic inspiration or influence, and certainly no Islamic forces behind the scenes patiently waiting for the reward that Tahrir's "Facebook kids" will hand over to them.

What he did see using his incredibly developed journalist prowess was genuine de-colonization of Egypt, the rise of progressive democratic forces that will forever change Egypt's dictatorial face, an Egyptian Pharaoh (Mubarak) removed from power with the vigorous encouragement of President Obama, and an Israeli Pharaoh (Netanyahu) who, being a lowly man, cannot grasp the significance of the regional change. So much for Thomas Friedman's interpretation.

As we know, much water, and mostly blood, has flowed through the Middle East ever since then. In Tunisia, which was meant to pave the way for positive change, we saw the establishment of an Islamic Brotherhood-led government after the victory of the Ennahda party, which has made the sources of its authority clear to all.

Meanwhile, Libya of the post-Gaddafi lynch mostly makes sure that Gaza's arms warehouses are well stocked. In Syria, they make sure to meet the daily massacre quota. In Egypt, the Islamic Brotherhood and the Salafis are taking over parliament. The Brotherhood's Mohammad Morsi is about to succeed the terrible Mubarak who slipped into a coma, while the Tahrir kids bemoan their "stolen revolution."

Yet in New York, the "world's most important journalist" still does nothing but write about the march of folly of those who, unlike him, have yet to recognize this great Mideastern era.

Overdose of wishful thinking

Yet Friedman is no more than an example of an allegory for the way many in the West, including its leaders and journalists (led by Obama) formulate their doctrine in line with the ideological color of their worldview, and as result of an overdose of wishful thinking. For them, reality is no more than a burdensome nuisance.

According to this mechanism, the Egyptian people's deep desire for democracy, equality, civil rights and respect for women and minority rights is attested to by the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of people in Tahrir Square, and not, heaven forbid, by the mood of the more than 80 million citizens of this country.

According to polls undertaken in Egypt in 2008 and in 2010 by Gallup, some 95% of Egyptians want Islam to have greater influence in politics, 64% want Islamic Law to be the basis for legislation, 54% support public segregation of men and women, 82% support stoning as punishment for adultery, and 84% endorse the death penalty for those who shun Islam.

In 1979, in the name of noble human rights ideals, Jimmy Carter abandoned the Persian Shah, paved Khomeini's way to Tehran, and with his own hands turned Iran from America's most important ally in the Persian Gulf to an Islamic Ayatollah republic.

In 1991, in the name of lofty democratic ideals, and with the encouragement of the West, Algeria too decided to play the democratic game. The government called elections, the Islamic FIS party won a majority, the election results were dismissed, and the country found itself in a bloodbath that lasted for more than a decade and claimed some 100,000 victims.

In 2006, in the service of these same ideas, the Bush Administration forced Ariel Sharon and the Palestinian Authority to hold democratic elections. The vote indeed took place, Hamas won the jackpot, and we all know Gaza's history ever since then.

Yet since the outset of 2011, equipped with the same divine ideals of spreading democracy to all, including the Levant, and utilizing an amazing inability to foresee the future, Obama, Friedman and the finest liberal forces in the West continue to joyfully market their goods, while refusing to wake up from the ideological slumber they've slipped into many years ago.

Bruce Tuchman is the president, AMC/Sundance Channel Global, AMC Networks’ international division. Contact him at

To Go To Top


Posted by PMW Bulletin, June 17, 2012

Palestinian Authority TV chose to rebroadcast a program featuring a little girl reciting a hate poem targeting Jews and Christians as "inferior and smaller, more cowardly and despised." It was broadcast in May and again this month.

In addition, Palestinian Media Watch reported last month that in April, PA TV broadcast a young girl reciting a poem that included the words: "Our enemy, Zion, is Satan with a tail." One month later, PA TV broadcast an even younger girl reciting the poem with the same hate speech, adding that the child had already recited it at the opening of a Palestinian exhibition of educational tools.

Palestinian Media Watch has documented that hate speech and demonization of Israel and Jews is common in the PA and the structures under its control.

The following are the transcripts of the poems recited on PA TV:

Jews and Christians as "inferior and smaller, more cowardly and despised"

PA TV host: "You are going to recite a poem, which also teaches us responsibility and belonging."

Girl: "... The occupier stole my land and my grandfathers' land...

Where is your sword, Khaled (Arab warrior)?

Where is your courage, Saladin (Muslim conqueror)?

But no one answered me.

Where is my weapon? I found it - a stone. I took it and threw it at the enemies of destiny. I taught the world that the Muslim in the name of Allah cannot be defeated...

They challenge us with the White House, and we challenge them with the [Islamic] awakening and the Kaaba [in Mecca]. They aren't stronger than Khosrau and Caesar (rulers of Persian and Byzantine Empires).

They [Christians and Jews] are inferior and smaller, more cowardly and despised. They are remnants of the [Christian] crusaders and Khaibar (i.e., Jewish village destroyed by Muslims in 629)...

Oh Muslims of the world: Awaken, you have slept too long.

Your fathers and your sons are being massacred, your Al-Aqsa [Mosque] is defiled and destroyed."

Host: "Bravo! Applause for our friend Lara."

[PA TV (Fatah), May 11 and June 2, 2012]

"Our enemy, Zion, is Satan with a tail." (1)

Host: "Lina, how did you participate in the exhibition [of educational tools]?"

Lina: "I recited a poem."

Host: "A poem."

Co-host: "Lina opened the exhibition."

Lina: "When I was young, I was taught that Arabness is my honor...

and that our lands extend from one end to the other,

and that our wars were for the Al-Aqsa Mosque,

and that our enemy, Zion, is Satan with a tail..."

[PA TV (Fatah), May 8, 2012]

"Our enemy, Zion, is Satan with a tail." (2)

Host: "Laila, what do you want to recite next?"

Laila: "When I was young I was taught that Arabness is my honor...

and that our lands extend from one end to the other,

and that our wars were for the Al-Aqsa Mosque,

and that our enemy, Zion, is Satan with a tail...

Our division is by your hands [Arab rulers]. May your hands be cut off.

We are fed up with our division, while all people are uniting."

Host: "Bravo, bravo, bravo."

[PA TV (Fatah), April 7, 2012]

This article was written by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik and is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, June 17, 2012

 This is the summary of an article written by Steven J. Rosen, which is archived at

  • Mahmoud Abbas participated in 18 years of direct negotiations with seven Israeli governments, all without the settlements freeze that he now insists is an absolute precondition to begin even low-level talks.
  • President Obama's failure to distinguish construction in east Jerusalem from settlement activity in the West Bank put him at odds with the Israeli consensus. No major party in Israel, and no significant part of the Jewish public, is willing to count the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem as "settlements" to be "frozen."
  • The Sharon government reached an understanding with the Bush administration to ban outward geographic expansion of established settlements, while reserving the right to continue expansion inside the "construction line" of existing houses. Almost all the construction that the Netanyahu administration has allowed is either in Jerusalem or in the settlement blocs, the two categories that Israel had thought were protected by understandings with the Americans.
  • Israelis were bitterly disappointed by the Obama administration's refusal to acknowledge agreements with a prior U.S. government that the Israelis considered vital and binding. Sharon aide Dov Weissglas said, "If decision-makers in, heaven forbid, that an American pledge is only valid as long as the president in question is in office, nobody will want such pledges."
  • Stalled peace negotiations in the Obama years cannot be blamed on Netanyahu's policies of accelerating settlement construction. He has in fact slowed it down. What has undermined peace negotiations, rather, is Obama's policy on the settlements - and the unrealistic expectations that policy has nourished.

Steven J. Rosen is Director of the Washington Project of the Middle East Forum and served for 23 years with AIPAC.

To Go To Top


Posted by Naomi Ragen, June 16, 2012

Our government's unfathomable incompetence in addressing the problem has turned public sentiment against asylum- and job-seekers.

I am almost ashamed to admit it, but I am looking at the roundup of African asylum-seekers with an equal mixture of heartbreak and relief.

Heartbreak because it goes against something deeply embedded inside every Jew to see a refugee who is seeking a better life jailed and deported; and relief because frankly, this complex situation has just become more than Israel and its citizens can handle.

It began about six years ago with African refugees from war-torn Sudan and poverty-stricken Eritrea desperately crossing the Sinai to find refuge from the horrors of their homelands. Exploited, raped and sometimes murdered by Bedouin who sold their organs, Africans who made it into Israel alive found a sympathetic ear among Israelis.

How could they not? We are the country with the single largest number of Holocaust survivors anywhere in the world; a country that has accepted and integrated millions of refugees fleeing life-threatening oppression. Perhaps that is why when Egyptian border guards were shooting to kill, we Israelis were putting up border camps to provide shelter and medical care to asylum-seekers, and finally, after a brief interrogation, busing them free of charge to Tel Aviv's Levinsky Park, where they were set free.

Now, six years later, that trickle has turned into a flood, the yearly number of asylum-seekers (dubbed "infiltrators") doubling, tripling and quadrupling to close to 1,000 a month, from less than 3,000 a year in 2006. The accumulated total will soon equal the number of those making aliya. However much compassion we have, there is, finally, a widespread realization that if it is allowed to continue, this influx will drastically change the face of the Jewish state forever.

Our sense of the motivation of these new arrivals has also contributed to this change of heart. As Omar from Sudan recently told reporter Lior Avni in Zman Hadarom: "There is no work and no chance for a better life [in Eritrea]. Israel is much more modern. There's much more money here. You can live better."

Those interviewed at the initial border absorption facilities echoed these sentiments.

One Sudanese woman said her husband had worked briefly in Egypt where he received 30 NIS a month— the hourly wage in Israel for those taking odd jobs. In Eritrea all they can hope to earn is the equivalent of 120 NIS a month.

Indeed, part of the reason for the growing numbers making it successfully across the border is the well-oiled machine now in place in which Bedouin smugglers receive $3,000 a person, money sent ahead to refugees from earlier arrivals who have earned it working in Israel.

The growing concentration of these refugees in certain areas of the country is making life increasingly difficult for Israelis. While statistics show that the Africans are not responsible for greater incidences of crimes than natives, for any woman walking out in the evening, milling groups of single men are a perceived threat, no matter their nationality or color. In Ashdod, women are reportedly afraid to go out at all in the evening anymore. And the recent rape of a fifteen year old schoolgirl in Ashkelon by a Sudanese man who broke into the courtyard of her high school, as well as the gang rape of a young woman near the old Tel Aviv bus station by a group of Eritreans and Sudanese, has further inflamed nerves on edge for a number of much more mundane reasons.

For one thing, immigrants are flooding the rental housing market in certain key areas, paying landlords enormous sums as 20 or 30 share floor space, making it impossible for local housing-seekers to compete. The litter from these dwellings is overloading the city's municipal cleaning and trash-collection squads, leaving squalor in its wake. Labor rooms in hospitals like Barzilai Medical Center in Ashkelon are overcrowded with African women, most of whom have no medical coverage, straining the city's resources.

But beyond the normal problems of the influx of new residents looking for housing, work and medical care, the Africans pose another problem. According to the US State Department's latest figures, Eritrea, which is the place of origin of three-fourths of all refugees in Israel, is now 50 percent Muslim. Given the delicate demographics in Israel, can we really afford to add thousands upon thousands of new immigrants, some of them Muslims, from countries like Sudan, which views Israel as its enemy?

Houston (Mr. Netanyahu's government), we have a problem. A serious one, which government non-decisions and incompetence have finally brought to a head. Our belated attempts to solve it have come up with no wonderful solutions.

Interior Minister Eli Yishai, an Orthodox Jew, has further exacerbated the problem by making inflammatory, racist comments about how the asylum seekers "are all involved in crime and deserve to be jailed," adding that he is determined to protect the "Jewish nature" of the state. I'd think the Torah concept of compassion for the stranger would have figured somewhere in his rhetoric, but no.

Nevertheless, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't admit to viewing with relief his initiative not to extend the temporary residence status for asylum-seekers and to return them to their native countries.

Israel is just too small to take in every African seeking a better life. But that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt.

The Jerusalem District Court's ruling against human rights groups protesting the plan to expel 1,500 citizens of South Sudan has now set the wheels in motion.

It was a reasonable decision. Things have changed drastically in the last year with the creation of a new country for these refugees, a country that even the UN refugee agencies admit is relatively at peace.

According to the plan, a call has gone out inviting such citizens to report voluntarily to receive a plane ticket home and a 1,000-euro stipend before being forcibly apprehended and expelled without any compensation. A bit draconian, I admit, but even worse, it leaves the major problem unsolved. It's the Eritreans, not the Sudanese, who comprise three fourths of the African refugees seeking a home in Israel.

It's not that I have no compassion for the Eritreans. I do. Eritrea is a devastatingly poor country ruled by a dictator with no sense of human rights. Forcible conscription has put most of its workforce into the army. Almost 1,000 Eritreans flee the country each month, despite its mined borders with Ethiopia and its shoot-to-kill policy toward emigrants.

Rounding up the Eritreans and sending them back to the mercies of President Isaias Afwerki is a terrible idea. Making them citizens of Israel and allowing hundreds of thousands to follow is even worse.

What then, must be done? An excellent suggestion was put forth in this newspaper on May 24 by Labor MK Isaac Herzog, who pointed out that Israel has full diplomatic relations with Eritrea and thus is in a position to handle the refugee problem through diplomatic channels. I agree with Herzog: let's negotiate a treaty that would allow us to legally employ Eritreans for a limited time, and then have them welcomed back home with their earnings. A humane and fair suggestion if ever I heard one.

But if that doesn't work out, unfortunately the problem will tolerate no further delay.

Our government's unfathomable incompetence in addressing the problem for so long has clearly turned public sentiment against the asylum- and job-seekers.

The Knesset committee approved a law putting fines and jail terms for those hiring the asylum-seekers on par with those hiring illegal residents. Already, most of them have been fired, leaving them without any resources. A Jerusalem home rented to Eritreans was set on fire by arsonists, injuring four. Similar attacks have occurred against such apartments in Tel Aviv.

In the meantime, Israel is busily building a 200-kilometer barrier along the border with Egypt, which might be the most sensible long-term solution to this insoluble problem that pits our hearts against our heads, our near history against our present circumstances.

This article was published in the Jerusalem Post on 15 June 2012. Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at, where you can subscribe to her newsletter.

To Go To Top


Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 16, 2012

This was written by Olive Schreiner, a South African novelist and social activist.

"Indeed it is difficult for all other nations of the world to live in the presence of the Jews. It is irritating and most uncomfortable. The Jews embarrass the world as they have done things which are beyond the imaginable. They have become moral strangers since the day their forefather, Abraham, introduced the world to high ethical standards and to the fear of Heaven. They brought the world the Ten Commandments, which many nations prefer to defy. They violated the rules of history by staying alive, totally at odds with common sense and historical evidence. They outlived all their former enemies, including vast empires such as the Romans and the Greeks. They angered the world with their return to their homeland after 2000 years of exile and after the murder of six million of their brothers and sisters.

They aggravated mankind by building, in the wink of an eye, a democratic State which others were not able to create in even hundreds of years. They built living monuments such as the duty to be holy and the privilege to serve one's fellow men.

They had their hands in every human progressive endeavor, whether in science, medicine, psychology or any other discipline, while totally out of proportion to their actual numbers. They gave the world the Bible and even their "savior."

Jews taught the world not to accept the world as it is, but to transform it, yet only a few nations wanted to listen. Moreover, the Jews introduced the world to one God, yet only a minority wanted to draw the moral consequences. So the nations of the world realize that they would have been lost without the Jews... And while their subconscious tries to remind them of how much of Western civilization is framed in terms of concepts first articulated by the Jews, they do anything to suppress it.

They deny that Jews remind them of a higher purpose of life and the need to be honorable, and do anything to escape its consequences... It is simply too much to handle for them, too embarrassing to admit, and above all, too difficult to live by.

So the nations of the world decided once again to go out of 'their' way in order to find a stick to hit the Jews. The goal: to prove that Jews are as immoral and guilty of massacre and genocide as some of they themselves are.

All this in order to hide and justify their own failure to even protest when six million Jews were brought to the slaughterhouses of Auschwitz and Dachau; so as to wipe out the moral conscience of which the Jews remind them, and they found a stick.

Nothing could be more gratifying for them than to find the Jews in a struggle with another people (who are completely terrorized by their own leaders) against whom the Jews, against their best wishes, have to defend themselves in order to survive. With great satisfaction, the world allows and initiates the rewriting of history so as to fuel the rage of yet another people against the Jews. This in spite of the fact that the nations understand very well that peace between the parties could have come a long time ago, if only the Jews would have had a fair chance. Instead, they happily jumped on the wagon of hate so as to justify their jealousy of the Jews and their incompetence to deal with their own moral issues.

When Jews look at the bizarre play taking place in The Hague, they can only smile as this artificial game once more proves how the world paradoxically admits the Jews' uniqueness. It is in their need to undermine the Jews that they actually raise them.

The study of history of Europe during the past centuries teaches us one uniform lesson: That the nations which received and in any way dealt fairly and mercifully with the Jew have prospered; and that the nations that have tortured and oppressed them have written out their own curse."

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at

To Go To Top


Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 16, 2012

This article was written by Joan Swirsky, RenewAmerica analyst. It was published May 26, 2011 and is archived at

This is good. A comprehensive definition of antisemitism is not possible because it has so many aspects and changes from time to time. It did not become the world's oldest bigotry without being adaptable. But Swirsky does an admirable job with some of the major forms. The list of specifics of Obama's malignant obsession with Jews and Israel is likewise incomplete because an exhaustive litany would be so long and detailed. Once mention was made of Samantha Power, however, it really should have noted that she advocated, in a television interview, right out in the open, that the US invest billions in creation of a Palestinian state and send the military to protect it from Israeli aggression and depredations. To say she had Obama's ear would be rank understatement. She is to Obama what Henry Kissinger was to Nixon.

From 2011...."The betrayal unmasked" is the title of an article by Paul Schnee, in which he says that Obama's May 19 speech on Middle East policy "confirmed in the starkest terms why his long held prejudices, cloaked as a foreign policy, have made his Oval Office not only the graveyard for any peace and justice in the Middle East but also the incubator for the next great conflict there." Obama's unprecedented interference in Israel's affairs have put the last nail on the Israelis peace dream, the Arabs never had or wanted.

President Barack Obama

Jew hatred comes in many forms — all of them irrational and unsupported by empirical fact, but all of them powerful and largely effective in deflecting personal and political failure onto a tiny people, who by their mere existence highlight the glaring deficiencies that exist in their adversaries. Like a deadly systemic infection, be it viral or bacterial, Jew hatred comes in many strains.

Strain #1 — the Dumb Factor

The Dumb Factor is based mostly on ignorance. In short, a dim-witted parent, family member, friend, teacher, or coach — one who was "schooled" by another dimwit — tells an innocent child that much of what is wrong with his or her life is because of "the Jew" who lives down the street, or employs his or her parent, or publishes the local newspaper...whatever.

"They may look like you and me," the critic says, "but underneath that head of hair are horns, and by the way, they bake their Passover holiday bread-substitute with the blood of kids like you and your sister, and you should know that they control all the money in the world, and never forget that they killed Jesus." Then the kid gets older and his actual life experience contradicts what he's heard as he or she studies or socializes or works with Jews and sometimes falls in love and marries one.

But the Dumb Strain, it seems, never quite dissipates, as even "reformed" Jew haters brag with genuine pride that their doctors and lawyers and accountants are Jewish! They want other people to think them intelligent enough to pick "the best" professionals, while they're also boasting that the last bargain they got was a result of "Jewing down" the store manager. As I said, dumb.

But dumb anti-Semitism is still anti-Semitism, just like dumb stereotypes about tap-dancing blacks or whiskey-guzzling Irish people or can't-screw-in-a-light-bulb Poles or Mambo-obsessed Hispanics or kemo-sabe-spouting American Indians are still destructive to a decent and respectful social order.

The only difference is that malevolently stereotyping Jews — and, today, Christians — has once again become acceptable, whereas defaming other groups is strictly taboo among the fetishists of political correctness and multiculturalism, selective as they are in what offends their very delicate sensibilities.

Say something even mildly negative about women, gays, Muslim terrorists, or the above-mentioned ethnic groups, and the leftists among us go into an orgy of frenzied outrage. But slander a Jew — or even murder a Jew — no problem.

Glaring examples emanate daily from the Middle East, where "Palestinian" jihadists not only slit the throats of Israeli babies, but vow to destroy the Jewish state, while the craven Western media scramble to rationalize their bestial acts or, predictably, blame the victims.

But how to explain the Jew hatred that has come to our own shores, in, for instance, the egregious non-action of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York City, which this month stopped a plot by two terrorists to bomb the largest synagogue in the Big Apple, but decided not to press charges — to let the jihadists go — because the incident was probably "mischief"?

And that's only an infinitesimal part of the ongoing and deliberate attempt to marginalize not only Jews in general but the sovereign State of Israel, our most trusted and only democratic ally in the entire Middle East.


Strain #2 — the Emotional Factor

There are legions of highly intelligent people — in terms of IQs, advanced college degrees, professional accomplishments, published books, and fancy titles — who are nonetheless driven almost exclusively by their feelings. Ironic that they've spent lifetimes honing their razor-sharp intellects, refining their debating skills, priding themselves on scrupulous research — but still, emotion prevails. This is no surprise because, simply, emotions are stronger than the intellect. On PET scans of the brain, anger and fear "light up" significantly more than the higher cognitive processes of reasoning and logic.

The emotional anti-Semite is one into whose brain the thorn of Jew hatred gets stuck, and no amount of rationalizing or higher-center thought can excise it. Even the one who harbors the feelings may wonder about the dissonant "reasoning" that inspires this hatred. But like the Mark of Cain, it's there for life.

In a very real way, Jew hatred is consoling to this species, analogous for some to the Xanax that people take to alleviate anxiety. Have a problem that is unbearably agitating? It's the Jews! Aahhh, I feel better. Feeling depressed? I don't need an anti-depressant like Celexa or Lexapro, it's the Jews! Aahhh, I feel better.

This type of anti-Semitism is the default position of people who are "smart" enough to reinvent objective history and who purposefully invent events such as the Al Dura hoax or deny that the Holocaust ever existed in order to create an anti-Semitic "reality" out of whole cloth, one that invariably gibes with their intractable, all-encompassing hatred of Jews.

Think of a person with childhood-onset diabetes or a seizure disorder. No amount of hoping the condition away has any effect. It's simply there, deep within, with symptoms that must be treated constantly in order to stem the horrible symptoms that ensue if the condition is not attended to. Emotion-driven anti-Semitism is in this category — incurable but, unlike diabetes, unfortunately untreatable.


Strain #3 — the Self-hate Factor

Okay, you may say, people of other religions may hate Jews, but how is it possible for Jews themselves to hate Jews? Surprisingly, the answer is rather simple: It's hard to be a Jew, and most people simply aren't up to it. Yes, they can be proud of their brains and talents, but when it comes to their backbones — that's another story.

The most universal desire in the world is to be liked and accepted, starting with pre-verbal babies who know by the smiles of strangers that the world is a friendly and welcoming place, and extending to full-grown adults who continue to seek acceptance in intimate relationships as well as in groups, including in the workplace, in recreational activities, and in politics.

For many Jews, being a member of the world's most historically vilified minority is just "too much" to cope with. In fact, to withstand the relentless onslaught would require them to have an accurate knowledge of Jewish history, a history that the spineless set has abandoned teaching their children. It would require a willingness to correct the constant blitz of misinformation that an anti-Semitic world never tires of perpetuating. It would require a willingness to stand on principle when the entire world is substituting propaganda and violence for righteousness. And it would require a belief that the land of Israel was indeed bequeathed to the Jews by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that their return to Zion after Hitler incinerated six million of their brethren during the Holocaust was the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and that, perversely and for the first time in world history, they should return the lands won in the belligerent wars waged against them by anti-Semitic Arabs who remain intractably so to this day.

Liberal Jews are not psychologically up to any of these challenges, hence their pathetic over-eagerness to "understand" the people who hate them, to accommodate themselves to the enemies of Israel (meaning all Jews), to capitulate to the ever-escalating and invariably-one-sided demands for "compromise," to slavishly follow Jews like linguist Noam Chomsky and financier George Soros and playwright Tony Kushner who are so suffused with Jew hatred that their entire lives have been devoted to amputating any vestige of Jewish identity from their beings, to vote year after year after year for Israel-loathing leftists like Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, and to stand up and applaud Obama at an AIPAC conference not even 48 hours after he announced his intention to plunge Israel back to what then-Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban referred to as "the Auschwitz borders" of 1967!

As Boris Shusteff, a Russian immigrant to the United States and a research associate at the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies, writes: "The simple truth is that under the facade of their 'progressiveness' there is always a subconsciously hidden attempt to escape from their Jewishness. They use beautiful words and convincing arguments to prove the necessity of fighting for somebody else's abstract rights instead of proudly defending their own. They say that they ennoble the world community by defending the interests of other nations, while disregarding the fate of their brethren. They rush to a cosmopolitan universe, where all the uniqueness of the nations disappears and where they can call themselves citizens of the universe."

Aha, the famous "one world order" the progressives among us have embraced, while they demonize Jews like me — and there are millions of us — who prefer not to have their identities blended and bastardized into some amorphous, tasteless, valueless, Godless gruel!

Golda Mier

Strain #4 — the Mother's Milk Factor

This variant is infused into tabula rasa embryos by a loathing so systemic it suggests a DNA aberration. After delivery, infants literally imbibe a particularly toxic brew of anti-Semitism flowing either from their mothers' breast milk or worldview. And when they have been sufficiently intoxicated, they enter into a family and "culture" that makes the hatred of Jews their entire raison d'être.

This strain has been on vivid display in the Arab world for decades — actually centuries — where toddlers are taught to echo the Jew hatred drummed daily into their developing brains, instead of being taught how to play the piano or play ball or play with dolls, and where young children are taught by the time they're three years old how to strap suicide bombs onto their young bodies.

It is in this "culture," which has not changed significantly since the seventh century, that "leaders" keep the abhorrence going by inflaming the masses they have purposefully kept poor and ignorant, the better to energize them not by jobs and creativity but by the adrenaline fueled by hatred. These palace-dwelling leaders generously pay the media to perpetuate the hate, and also endlessly "play" the United States of America like a Stradivarius by extorting billions every year to keep a so-called reasonable lid on their Jew hatred.

No wonder Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel from 1969 to 1974, said: "We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us."

But it's not just Arabs and Muslims who make the hatred of Jews the virtual centerpiece of their lives. There is the full-blown return of anti-Semitism in Europe, as Guy Millière writes, where citizens have now been effectively Islamized and the entire region is on the way again to being Judenrein, or "cleansed of Jews." In fact, anti-Semitism has now reached pandemic proportions, right in time for an American "president" to help orchestrate the so-called spontaneous "pro-democracy" uprisings throughout the Arab world, from Tunisia to Yemen to Egypt to Lebanon to Jordan to Syria to Bahrain, on and on.

Yes, orchestrate! And while he's at it, make a practice out of de facto condoning the butchery and hatred by America's and Israel's enemies Iran and Syria, while at the same time punishing America's longtime allies and Israel's longtime "cold peace" partners Egypt and Libya.

To what end? Certainly not to encourage democracy, of which the entire world has seen not a hint in this region since this smoke-and-mirrors travesty began, but rather to ferret in a real new world order, in which the virulently anti-Semitic, Nazi-inspired Muslim Brotherhood will reign, with its oft-stated intentions of obliterating Israel and every last Jew who breathes on its land. (During World War II, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt allied himself with Hitler and was active in recruiting Arabs for the Waffen SS.) That's the same Muslim Brotherhood whose terrorist branch Hamas has launched over 12,000 missiles at Israeli civilians. The same Muslim Brotherhood — in Egypt — that condemned Bin Laden's death and wants to end the peace accord with Israel. The same Muslim Brotherhood that, according to Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit, citing an AP report, is about to receive $1 billion from Obama! As Hoft says, "Obama wants to reward them."

Dennis Prager

Strain #5 — the Green-eyed Monster Factor

According to author and columnist Dennis Prager, the reason that "for thousands of years there has been so much attention paid to Jews and why, today, to Israel, the one Jewish state" is that Jews are God's Chosen People.

Atheists are exempted from this theory, Prager says, because "they don't believe in a Chooser, so they cannot believe in a Chosen. But for most believing Jews and Christians (most particularly the Founders who saw America as a Second Israel, a second Chosen People), Jewish Chosen-ness has been a given."

Prager says the proof of this "chosen-ness" is that "evil has consistently targeted the Jews" — for instance:

  • Nazi Germany was more concerned with exterminating the Jews than with winning World War II.
  • Throughout its 70-year history, the Soviet Union persecuted its Jews and tried to extinguish Judaism.
  • The United Nations has spent more time discussing and condemning the Jewish state than any other country in the world.
  • Much of the contemporary Muslim world — and nearly all the Arab world — is obsessed with annihilating the one Jewish state.

This obsession, he says, "can be best explained only in transcendent terms, namely that God, for whatever reason, chose the Jews."

But I think of an equally visceral kind of jealousy when I contemplate the Greatest Hatred Ever Known. I think of what it must be like for a huge population of well over 300 million Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East to watch as the straggling remnants of European Jewry — cadaverous, hungry, heartbroken, stupefied by the cruelty they had endured and witnessed — rose up to repel the savage Arab armies of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria (backed by Saudi Arabia and Yemen) that tried to annihilate the nascent Jewish State in 1948 and then to defeat them again and again in the many wars the Arabs continued to initiate.

And what must it be like for the immensely wealthy Arab potentates, as well as their serfs, to not only lose war after war to the Jews, but to see the people they call "pigs" literally make long-barren deserts bloom, to have the world's only thriving economy, to lead the world in technology and science, to create magnificent symphonies and athletic teams and life-saving medical remedies, et al, while the most the Arab world has ever accomplished in the last six decades is to "create" terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and of course those itty bitty suicide bombers.


And further imagine what it must be like to live in these feudal swamps and to know that big, bad America — which has sent trillions of dollars to the Arab countries over the years — continues to support the sole democracy in the Middle East, Israel.

It must be eerily like what some in the black community and their leftist leaders think when they contemplate the wealth of our country and realize that every program — in education and job-equality and equitable healthcare that the liberals-cum-progressives have magnanimously funded and enacted for over half a century — has failed thunderously.

What do these two things have in common? Again, the answer is so simple — rage and envy. The same things that the Arabs don't "get" about the roots of genuine success and empowerment are the same things that community organizers — and for that matter the Resident in the White House — don't "get," namely, that self-actualization, certainly for Americans, is not based on a mind-set of victimhood and lifelong entitlement, but rather on the reality of plain old nose-to-the-grindstone hard work, resilience in the face of adversity, the strength of family ties, a devotion to the U.S. Constitution, and a belief in the overriding Judeo-Christian ethos that has blessed our country with benevolence and guidance for nearly 235 years.

Who is behind Obama's obsession?

That is, his malignant obsession with Jews and with Israel!

Untold numbers of words have been written about the woman and man Obama claims were his mother and father, the far-left Stanley Ann Dunham and the Kenyan-born Marxist, Barack Obama, Sr. Then there is the couple he claims were his grandparents, the far-left Madelyn Dunham and Stanley Armour Dunham. I say "claims" because there is still no certifiable birth certificate that attests either to Obama's parentage or citizenship. But we do know that these people "raised" Obama and along with Frank Marshall Davis, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Louis Farrakhan, et al, profoundly influenced his hate-whitey, anti-American, and anti-Israel world view.

Last year, to the month, I wrote Obama's Jewish Problem, in which I remarked that "to prepare for his meeting on May 18 with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Obama prepared a menu of poison pills — the kind given to people with the same Hobson's Choice that Mafia attorney Tom Hagen gave to the imprisoned and about-to-testify-before-Congress Frankie Pentangeli in 'Godfather Two' — either commit suicide or we're going to kill you." Sound familiar?!

In that article, I listed the people — more accurately, collaborators — who aid and abet what Mona Charen calls Obama's "genocidal hostility toward Israel." The following is the short list:

Hillary Clinton

  • Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who according to Dick Morris has had "relationships with terrorists [that] began in the mid-1980s when she served on the Board of the New World Foundation, which gave funds to the Palestine Liberation Organization [when] the PLO was officially recognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization."
  • Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, who has advocated ending all U.S. military aid to Israel and has inspired dozens of articles with titles like these in "Susan Rice Is Doing Something at the UN: Targeting Israel" and "What Was Susan Rice's Embarrassing Anti-Israel Tirade Supposed to Accomplish?"
  • Lee Hamilton, whom Ed Lasky calls the eminence grise of Obama's Mideast policy and who has suggested that the U.S. should pressure Israel to surrender the Golan Heights and leave the West Bank — but not a word about dismantling Hamas or Hezbollah!
  • Zbigniew Brzezinski, longtime Israel loather, who suggested that the Obama administration should tell Israel that the U.S. will attack Israeli jets if they try to attack Iran.
  • John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security, who suggests, among other egregious things, that Obama and Co. "reach out" to Hezbollah.
  • Samantha Power, now on Obama's National Security Council, who has advocated ending all U.S. military aid to Israel and written of her willingness to "alienate a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import [American Jews]..." She has also advocated, Ed Lasky writes, "that America send armed military forces," "a mammoth protection force" and an "external intervention" to" impose a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians."
  • Valerie Jarrett, Obama's Senior Advisor. According to Ulsterman, the by-now infamous Washington Insider: "Weeks after widespread Middle East chaos first erupted, and with a growing number of nations now poised to join the likes of Egypt and Libya into all out rebellion, some are finally questioning the role played by the Obama White House in helping to hasten these events. Of primary concern is the reasoning behind Barack Obama's quick repudiation of Egypt's Mubarak, and near silence regarding Libya's Gaddafi. Why such a disparity in tone between one uprising vs. another?...Perhaps the answer to this disparity can be found with President Obama's closest and most powerful adviser — [Iranian-born Muslim] Valerie Jarrett.
George Soros

In addition, according to Ryan Mauro, founder of "The "most influential Muslim" in the White House is Dalia Mogahed.... She is a close colleague of John Esposito, a staunch defender of the Muslim Brotherhood and a witness for the defense during the Holy Land Foundation trial. Officials from the Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration, have made a concerted effort to court these Brotherhood affiliates, including senior advisor Valerie Jarrett; chief counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan; Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano; Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough and many other lower-level government officials...."

And that is not to omit the aforementioned George Soros, the man who is running not only Barack Obama, but just about the entire American media. According to Dan Gainor, Soros "spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004 [and today] has ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets — including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NBC and ABC."

I can't think of one of Obama's advisors, czars, even Court Jews who is not floridly anti-Israel, in both word and deed. The belief, indeed conviction, that all of these people have in common is that most everything wrong with their lives and with the world would magically disappear if only those damned Jews and their damned country Israel were destroyed. Hence the salami tactics to whittle away territory until Israelis simply cannot defend themselves and so perish at the hands of neighbors who have been promising nothing less than annihilation for decades.

This is Obama's malignant intention, as well. Hence the 1967 lines!

Paul Schnee

"The betrayal unmasked"

This is the title of an article by Paul Schnee, in which he says that Obama's May 19 speech on Middle East policy "confirmed in the starkest terms why his long held prejudices, cloaked as a foreign policy, have made his Oval Office not only the graveyard for any peace and justice in the Middle East but also the incubator for the next great conflict there.

"Obama's intentions towards Israel have never been good," Schnee adds, "but yesterday he proved just how hostile he is to the Jewish state of Israel. One of the most perverse forms of anti-Semitism is to expect Jews to die meekly.... His speech was a shameful act in a career of shameful acts...."

Victor Sharpe, author of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish State, agrees. "Obama parrots the Arab policy of 'stages' whereby Israel is forced to commit national suicide through the diabolical euphemism called 'land for peace'....Obama embraces the darkness of the Arab world and chooses — not from ignorance but from hatred — to enact under his watch the eventual annihilation of the Jewish state."

Is there any light in this bleak picture? According to Professor Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, "Israel is not going to allow a president with no credibility, who clearly doesn't understand what's at stake, fails to support his Arab allies, is soft on his Iranian and Syrian enemies, doesn't learn from his past errors, is sacrificing U.S. interests in the region, and pays no attention to what's happening in Egypt, to determine its future."

But the last word (at least of this article) has to go to writer and Army veteran J.D. Longstreet, who cites Amos and Jeremiah and Ezekiel in "America's Betrayal of Israel," in which he states:

"Let me be very clear here: ISRAEL WILL NOT LOSE. Its enemies WILL lose a result of Obama's announced policy demanding that Israel return to the pre-1967 war borders."

What Obama, and Israel's other enemies, fail to understand (or understand but choose to ignore) is this: That of all the dry land on this planet earth, there is only one tiny little piece of geography that God, Himself, has designated as belonging to a single people — ISRAEL.

What the evangelical Christian Americans rightly understand is this: When God brought the people of Israel, His people, home and gave them a "state," a nation, in May of 1948, God had already made it as plain as possible that Israel would never be moved from that land again — forever.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at

To Go To Top


Posted by Kati Cohen, June 16, 2012

 This video is archived at and posted by ISRAEL vs IGNORANTS


Pat Condell speaking in English, basic English, simple and understandable English. Subtitles are in Hebrew.

Sweden is suffering from two problems: (1) Swedish women who aren't modestly wrapped in tents are in danger of rape by Muslims. Obviously, the women are 'asking for it.' (2) Anti-Semitism, endemic in any Islamic culture, has been transmitted to the Swedish natives -- at least they aren't doing anything to stop Jew-harassment.

To Go To Top


Posted by Midenise, June 16, 2012

 This article was written by The Washington Times Staff and is archived at

Politics trumps national security in Barack's White House

President Obama takes umbrage at the idea that a spate of leaks of highly classified national-security information is somehow purposefully intended to bolster his leadership credentials. His resistance to an independent investigation will only make things worse for him. The Obama White House is leaking like a sieve. Trying to cover it up will only make the scandal bigger.

On Friday, Mr. Obama took the charges of selective leaks head-on: "The notion that my White House would purposely release classified national-security information is offensive," he said. "It's wrong, and people I think need to have a better sense of how I approach this office and how the people around me here approach this office." His protestations carry little credibility. On the previous day, the White House rejected a bipartisan call by leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees to appoint a special counsel to investigate the leaks.

Even very liberal legislators are worried about the brewing crisis of administration staff leaks. Senate Intelligence Committee ChairmanDianne Feinstein, California Democrat, told CNN on Thursday, "I've been on the Intelligence Committee for 11 years and I have never seen it worse." Mr. Obama's high dudgeon about the temerity of accusations ofWhite House impropriety will not be enough to save his team from scrutiny.

There have been leaks about drone strikes, U.S. special operations and foreign classified information such as Israel's alleged deal with Azerbaijan to support a military strike against Iran. There have been leaks to newspapers, TV and Hollywood screenwriters. Some leaks have been more damaging than others. One story that broke last month detailed aCIA informant penetrating high levels of al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula, making off with their most sophisticated new bomb and providing information leading to a successful drone strike on a leading militant. The information fed to the public portrayed the operation as a major success, but intelligence specialists were alarmed at the amount of detail that was leaked. Embarrassingly, it soon turned out that this was not an American-led effort at all but a long-term British-Saudi operation that was compromised by the very leaks that trumpeted its success and erroneously attributed credit to the United States. "This does seem to be a tawdry political thing," former CIA bin Laden hunter Michael Scheur said at the time.

The White House may feel that these leaks will somehow help with the 2012 campaign. Some polling suggests that for the first time in a long time, Democrats have an edge on the question of which party can better handle national security. No matter, that issue will not be decisive in this year's election. Two weeks ago, a CNN/ORC poll showed that on a list of top national priorities, only 5 percent of respondents mentioned terrorism, and it has been in single digits for months if not years. Other polls by major news organizations over the past few months have had mostly the same results: Terrorism was in the single digits, if it was mentioned at all.

The decisive issues for 2012 are jobs and the economy, which usually are mentioned as the nation's top priorities by a majority of survey respondents. The only reason there are no leaks coming from the White House about the economy is that there is nothing positive to leak.

Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav.

To Go To Top


Posted by Midenise, June 16, 2012

 The article was written by Michael and is archived at killing-off-our-sick-grandparents-is-cool-and-trendy


What should be done with elderly Americans when they become very seriously ill? Should we try to save their lives or should we just let them die? Unfortunately, there is a growing consensus among the "intellectual elite" that most elderly people are not going to have a high enough "quality of life" to justify the expense of costly life saving procedures. This philosophy is now being promoted very heavily through mainstream news outlets, in our television shows and in big Hollywood movies. The elite are attempting to convince us that killing off our sick grandparents is cool and trendy. We are being told that "pulling the plug" on grandma and grandpa is compassionate (because it will end their suffering), that it is good for the environment and that it is even good for the economy. We are being told that denying life saving treatments to old people will dramatically reduce health care costs and make the system better for all of us. We are being told that it is not "efficient" for health insurance companies to shell out $100,000 for an operation that may extend the life of an elderly person by 6 months. But the truth is that all of this is part of a larger agenda that the elite are attempting to advance. As I have written about previously, the elite love death, and they truly believe that reducing the population is good for society and good for the planet. Sadly, population control propaganda has reached a fever pitch in recent months.

Time Magazine has just come out with a very shocking cover story entitled "How To Die". The article goes on and on about how wonderful and compassionate it is to remove life saving treatment from sick relatives.

A recent article by Mike Adams summarized the message of this disgusting article....

Inside, the magazine promotes a cost-saving death agenda that encourages readers to literally "pull the feeding tubes" from their dying elderly parents, causing them to dehydrate and die. This is explained as a new cost-saving measure that drastically reduces return hospital visits by the elderly... yeah, because dead people don't return to the hospital, of course.

Many of you also probably remember the Newsweek cover story from a couple years ago that was entitled "The Case for Killing Granny".

Underneath that shocking title was the following phrase: "Curbing excessive end-of-life care is good for America."

According to the author of that article, spending less money on the elderly is the key to successful health care reform....

The idea that we might ration health care to seniors (or anyone else) is political anathema. Politicians do not dare breathe the R word, lest they be accused—however wrongly—of trying to pull the plug on Grandma. But the need to spend less money on the elderly at the end of life is the elephant in the room in the health-reform debate. Everyone sees it but no one wants to talk about it. At a more basic level, Americans are afraid not just of dying, but of talking and thinking about death. Until Americans learn to contemplate death as more than a scientific challenge to be overcome, our health-care system will remain unfixable.

Sadly, articles like that one are becoming quite frequent in mainstream media sources.

Just a few days ago, a Bloomberg article entitled "How 'Death Panels' Can Prolong Life" declared that we must "deny treatment to people who want it" in order to hold down costs....

In short, all the Republican talk during the health-care- reform debate about "death panels" was melodramatic and unfair, but not ridiculous. One way or another, holding down health-care costs will require policies that deny treatment to people who want it. And want it because it will extend their lives.

This goes on already, all the time. Health insurance companies have been known to deny payment for treatments deemed unnecessary. Age limits for organ transplants are another example. All policies that involve denying care because of "quality of life" considerations are, in effect, "death panels." But no society can afford to give every citizen every possible therapy. Medicare is going broke trying.

So who are we supposed to deny treatment to?

The elderly of course.

According to that Bloomberg article, we are supposed to kill off our sick grandparents because the "quality of life" they would be expected to have if they recover would not be enough to warrant spending so much to save them....

A $200,000 operation can add a year or two to the life of an octogenarian, or it can save decades of life for younger people. In a country like the U.S., with an average life expectancy of 78.5, it takes 10 septuagenarians who get an extra five years from the health-care system to balance a single 30- year-old who gets 50 extra years. Or save the life of a newborn, who then enjoys a normal life span and dies at 78.5, and you have the same impact on national life expectancy as 16 operations on septuagenarians. The average national life expectancy can increase even as the cost goes down.

This is the kind of thinking that starts happening in a society that dramatically devalues life.

If human life has little value, then it is easy to start justifying things that would have once been unthinkable.

For example, one surgeon is now suggesting that we should start harvesting organs from patients before they die....

Dr. Paul Morrissey, an associate professor of surgery at Brown University's Alpert Medical School, wrote in The American Journal of Bioethics that the protocol known as donation after cardiac death — meaning death as a result of irreversible damage to the cardiovascular system — has increased the number of organs available for transplant, but has a number of limitations, including the need to wait until the heart stops.

Because of the waiting time, Morrissey said that about one-third of potential donors end up not being able to donate, and many organs turn out to not be viable as a result.

Instead, he argues in favor of procuring kidneys from patients with severe irreversible brain injury whose families consent to kidney removal before their cardiac and respiratory systems stop functioning.

Do you want your organs harvested before you are dead?

Sadly, those that often do need organ transplants the most these days are often denied for "quality of life" issues as well.

For example, at one U.S. hospital a 3-year-old girl named Amelia was denied a kidney transplant that she desperately needed simply because she is considered to be "mentally retarded".

These are the kinds of decisions that are being made by doctors and by health insurance companies all over America every day.

And did you know that life-ending drugs are going to be 100% free under Obamacare?

I did not know this until I read a Christian Post article the other day....

A Christian-based legal defense alliance is warning Americans who already believe that President Barack Obama's health care plan is a bad idea that the "ObamaCare mandate is worse than you think."

"Everyone likes a good surprise, but no one likes a bad surprise. So, you're really not going to like the surprises buried in the 2,700 pages of this document," says the narrator of a short video produced by the Alliance Defense Fund.

"Did you know that with ObamaCare you will have to pay for life-saving drugs, but life-ending drugs are free. One hundred percent free. If this plan were really about health care wouldn't it be the other way around?"

Apparently they want to make it as easy to off yourself and your relatives as possible.

So where is all of this headed?

Are we eventually going to become like the Netherlands?

In the Netherlands, mobile euthanasia teams are now going door to door to help elderly patients end their lives in the comfort of their own homes.

Is that what we want?

Do we want government agents going door to door to help people die?

As I have written about previously, the elite believe that the world is massively overpopulated and they believe that all of us are ruining their planet.

So they love euthanasia, abortion and pretty much anything else that will result in more people ending up dead.

Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav.

To Go To Top


Posted by Israel Commentary, June 15, 2012

In a highly disturbing piece of news over at KR8, the online magazine reports that the Obama administration is providing funds to Israel (via the UN) for every illegal African immigrant that enters the Jewish State.

The funds, quite bizarrely, are only between $1000-2000 per illegal, per month, not enough to cover food let alone rent and food. However, in what is being seen as the likely incentive for carrying out this migratory sabotage of the Jewish State, is the fact that these funds are being split, with a portion of it going to unnamed sources at various stages of the transfer, from its way from the US to Israel.

In other words, considering that hundreds of illegals penetrate Israel's borders daily, someone is profiting from this venture handsomely.

What is fairly well known is that the police bring the 'refugees' from the Egypt/Israel border, right up, all the way to south Tel Aviv, the central bus station? But that's not all. What else is now coming to light, is that with these funds, these illegals are somehow opening businesses and will soon start their own newspaper!

There is further testimony in the audio interview in which it is alleged government inspectors frequently close down illegal Jewish-owned businesses, but not the illegal businesses belonging to the illegal immigrants. This financial improbability of all this likely hints towards further sources of funding, which as yet are undetected.

There is more at the link if you read Hebrew. The rest of the article posits theories about South Sudan's president, Abdel Wahid al-Nu, establishing an office in Tel Aviv and Israel's involvement with the liberation of South Sudan. Whether there is any connection to a bigger picture, and if there is a big part of the puzzle we don't yet know, what is clear is that this volume of immigration is unsustainable for Israel, not only economically, but culturally too, as the poor neighborhood of Hatikva, south Tel Aviv, is decimated by crime and ghettoization.

Once again we have ample proof of the government not acting in the best interests of the people, and are exploiting them for their own gain. These funds run into many millions of dollars per year.

In fact, Israelis are no pushovers when it comes to foreign invasions, and most citizens are ex-military. Last week during large protests violence erupted as a mini-civil war seems to be nearing (incidentally, the article almost seems to have been written according to the Alinskite rules we described in our last article on the illegals). Bibi, of course, being sensitive to the plight of the Jewish majority denounced the violent outbreaks of some of the protesters while continuing to talk about his second most favorite subject: the fence along the Israel-Egypt border — which the government has been talking about for over a year (his most favourite topic is, of course, Iran).

Why isn't Obama giving funds to help many of Israel's Jewish Ethiopian community to settle in? These were refugees airlifted to Israel in several high profile operations and who still face difficulty getting used to a new way of life.

This article is archived at KR8 Israeli Patriot 28 May 2012. Israel Commentary is hosted by Jerome S. Kaufman.

To Go To Top


Posted by COPmagazine, June 15, 2012

This article was written by Jim Kouri and is archived at Jim Kouri, CPP, the fifth Vice President and Public Information Officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Contact him by email at

Mohamed Ibrahim Ahmed pled guilty on Wednesday evening to conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist group and for receiving terrorist training such as bomb-making from Somalia's al-Qaeda ally known as Al-Shabaab.

Al-Shabaab is listed as a foreign terrorist organization by both the U.S. Department of State and Treasury Department officials who have placed sanctions on the group as well as certain individuals in Al-Shabaab.

The 38-year-old Ahmed pled guilty before U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel, who is scheduled to pronounce sentence on Nov. 2, 2012. The convicted terrorist will continue being incarcerated in New York City's Riker's detention center until sentencing.

According to the U.S. Attorney, Preet Bharara, Mohamed Ibrahim Ahmed traveled a long way from his home in Sweden to Somalia, where he took up the radical Islamic cause of Al-Shabaab, a deadly terrorist organization and sworn enemy of the United States and its people.

On Wednesday, New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly stated, "This plea is important to the ongoing efforts by the NYPD and federal partners to deter terrorist organizations and their followers, who continue in their attempts to put New York City and the United States at risk."

According to the indictment, in early 2009, Ahmed left his home in Sweden and traveled to Somalia in order to support and receive military-type training from Al-Shabaab.

Al-Shabaab has used violent means to destabilize the government of Somalia and to force the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country. The group has recruited foreign fighters to join in its "holy war" in Somalia, resulting in men from other countries, including the United States, traveling there to engage in violent jihad. Al-Shabaab has also made numerous public statements demonstrating its intent to harm the United States.

While in Somalia, Ahmed contributed about 3,000 Euros to Al-Shabaab, received training and instruction with respect to bomb-making and bomb-detonation, and purchased an AK-47 rifle, additional magazines, and two grenades. Ahmed subsequently provided the rifle and magazines to an Al-Shabaab commander.

Ahmed is not the first man arrested in the U.S. as a member of Al-Shabaab. A U.S. Army intelligence unit member, Craig Benedict Baxam, 24, was arrested on Friday, Jan. 6, 2012, upon his return to Maryland after a trip to Africa.

In a case involving yet another radicalized American Muslim who served in an Army intelligence unit, a criminal complaint was filed in Maryland federal court charging Baxam of Laurel, Maryland, with attempting to provide material support to Al-Shabaab

To Go To Top


Posted by Robin Ticker, June 15, 2012


The following email will address these points:

Why I as an individual, not an elected official, living outside of Israel, dare to even suggest a solution that is way beyond my scope of influence and why you as a reader should even bother reading further.

Why Jews and non Jews all over the world (not only in Israel) desperately need an alternative to Netanyahu and Likud?


1. Let me be honest. I am not a Knesset Member. I am not an elected official. I presently live in the Diaspora. I don't have a bank account to speak about. I cannot influence with money. I am not in a position of authority so I cannot threaten or actually fire anyone. However, since I am not on a payroll, I cannot be fired. I trust that Hashem will provide for my needs and that I won't starve. This gives me the freedom to therefore think out of a box.

The advantage of not being a VIP (Very important person) is the freedom to ask the reader or listener to pay attention to what is being said rather than to who is saying it. If after reading about an alternative to Netanyahu and Likud, this triggers a very negative response please read again. Perhaps you hear rhetoric that angers you but actually isn't what is being said. Allow me to clarify things in case you misunderstood. Feel free to email me. I am open to dialogue and welcome your perspective.

2. Re: Netanyahu and Likud: Netanyahu's stand regarding Iran is significantly weakened by his support for a 2 State Solution. How can it be that Iran is evil and the Palestinians a peace partner? They share the same anti Israel rhetoric. Both have not been shy about their desire for Israel's destruction. Netanyahu's blatant disregard for the Bible has very strong repercussions that bring weakness to Israel. By choosing this path he has seriously compromised our struggle against Iran's nuclear capabilities.This affects Jews and non Jews in Israel and in the Diaspora. It affects us all!

The Settlement Issue has been made a No. 1 concern according to EU's foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton. She is the same woman who US President Barack Obama has empowered to lead the West's negotiations with Iran regarding its illicit nuclear weapons program. The EU falsely considers Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria illegal.

Believers in the Bible are totally confused. They believe Judea and Samaria is by right part of the Biblical Jewish Homeland and Israel's birthright. Bible believers have strong representation in Congress and are Israel's greatest advocates. Yet Netanyahu, by supporting a Palestinian State in the Biblical heartland, has weakened our collective voices SIGNIFICANTLY! Supporters of Israel dare not speak out against the "elected" head of the State of Israel.

There is another serious matter that must be addressed. If Netanyahu is disregarding the Torah, how come the Jewish ultra religious MK's of religious parties in Israel, keepers of the Bible, aren't speaking firmly against the destruction of the settlements and in fact voted against the settlements?

Religious Jews have become confused, cynical or ignorant. Majority of religious Jews in America are totally clueless about the vote of the Regulation Bill of the Settlements since it barely made the religious mainstream news. The pending destruction of the homes of 30 families in HaUlpana is not on their radar. It is not on the front page news though it should be. From our phone calls it seems to us that even influential RABBINIC LEADERS in America are ignorant about what is happening in Judea and Samaria. They are unaware as per the serious ramifications of the failure of this important bill to pass and the news they are getting (or not getting) is heavily filtered by their Gabbaim. Are our emails considered spam and a waste of their time? We have been told as such.

Perhaps the forces out there do NOT want the public to know that one of their most respected Rabbinic Leaders of Moetzet Gedolei Hatorah actually instructed the UTJ's MK's to vote against the Setttlement Regulation Bill thereby setting very dangerous precedents for other communities. Surely this would not resonate well with the majority of religious Jews who were disgusted with the destruction of Jewish Communities in Gush Katif. Better for people not to know. This in turn translates to the silence of hundreds of thousands of religious Jews in Israel and in the Diaspora who follow the lead of Moetzet Gedolei Hatorah.

We want this Torah observant group of hundreds of thousands of Jews to be part of Zocher Habrit and we must not be afraid to challenge the position of religious leaders who discourage the masses from settling the Land of Israel as did the Spies in the desert. With G-d's help we can avert certain tragedy when we learn to correct terrible mistakes of our past.

Zocher Habrit

We are proposing a new party that will represent Jews and Non-Jews. A Party with a broader vision than Likud. The name itself is a reminder to us of the Covenant G-d made with Noah and his descendants and the Covenant G-d made with Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov our forefathers.

How is this an improvement over the current Likud party? Likud is a political party that never intended to represent a broader community of both Jews and Non Jews attracting faith based people using the Torah as its guide.

Let us not be afraid to try an alternative to Likud. Feiglin is correct that a new party can not be just another faction representing a minority of religious Zionist Jews.

Will this new party coerce religion on the people?

The common denominator of this party is the Torah. Just like there are 70 faces to Torah there is room for differences and diversity. However, the people of Israel perhaps are not ready for a gov't based on Torah. It is a revolutionary idea. Many unknowns. Therefore, this party would encourage a small prototype gov't in Judea and Samaria to be run according to Torah while the rest of Israel would not have major changes to the way it is run today. However, it would accept a fundamental principle that Israel is a Holy Land, a Promised Land to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob on condition that we must adhere to the principles and precepts of the Bible in the Holy Land. The Noahides are instructed to adhere to the Seven Noahide laws. Hebraic Law would be greatly valued,studied and incorporated into the legal system whenever possible.

Re: the Written and Oral Law:

Our Torah consists of the Written Law and the Oral Law. The Written Law is also referred to as the Five Books of Moses or the Bible. The Bible is a big seller, familiar to both Jew and non Jew alike. One can find the Bible in every hotel room.

The Oral Law has been passed down from Moses at Sinai via an oral Tradition and was finally written down. Both the Written and Oral law are necessary and neither can operate independently of the other. There needs to be a true union of the Written and Oral Law for the Torah to be implemented properly. Call it a marriage.

The Oral Law interprets the Written Law and determines how the Written Law is implemented. This is called Halacha. Often there are differences of opinion in the Oral Law. This is perfectly fine. The Written Law itself instructs us to go to a Rabbinic court of law of each generation to help solve disputes. It is important that each community follow their Rabbi and a Rabbinic court, and their Rabbinic decisions are consistent with the Written Law. (The Five Books of Moses). Noahides as well are commanded to set up courts and abide by the 7 Noahide laws.

Robin Ticker is an activist and a lover of Eretz Yisroel, Am Yisroel and the Torah. Yehi Zichrono Baruch. Her website is called:

To Go To Top


Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, June 15, 2012

Directed by Adam Shankman
Reviewed by Marion DS Dreyfus

"Rock of Ages," the long-run Broadway jukebox musical set to beloved 1980s power bubble gum ballads and demographic-cohort anthems, takes place in the '80s, when bands were still found in the smoke-wreathed clubs downtown, in CBGB's or along Los Angeles' Sunset Strip. No CDs or instant call-up of music that played subliminally in your iPod zonked-out consciousness 24/7. In times when record emporia were places to scumble through racks of LPs. Remember Tower Records?

Set in LA, 1987, rocker Drew (Diego Boneta) and ingénue songstice Sherrie (Julianne Hough) are two new starry hopefuls chasing their (never before heard-of Hollywood-make-it-big-in-music) dreams in the City of Cynicism. When they meet, these two pluperfect examples of give-me-a-break, it's amour at first meet, though their romance will face a series of hurdles and setbacks. Yawn.

The film is a not-humorous graft of affectionate smirking homage and snarkily subsumed copycat for such icons as Journey, Foreigner, Guns N' Roses and Pat Benatar. It features such bastions of humility as Tom Cruise, Alec Baldwin, Russell Brand, Catherine Zeta-Jones and music-sirenista Hough, attractive young talent Boneta and the ever-commercial skeevy agent played by Paul Giamatti. Almost unrecognizable as a philandering, masochistic husband, also a secret cuckold, is the intense actor Bryan Cranston, who has won Emmy plaudits for his TV persona as a drug-manufacturing chemistry prof, in Breaking Bad. Mary J. Blige's strip-club owner, who hires the perky Hough to "waitress" as she struggles to make it in Hollywood, does not exist at all in the stage play, like Zeta-Jones' character. Even in the film, one can't really see a reason for Blige's inflated role. One sign the script will be unreal: The minute Hough arrives in Hollywood, her suitcase is snatched by a sharky passer-by. Bloomy Hough frowns for a nanosecond, then proceeds to wear dozens of wardrobe changes from no money and no luggage.

I write "not humorous" because, aside from a very few visual pokes, such as Tom Cruise's bejeweled dragon codpiece, self-adulatory tats and tuchis-cutout chaps, and scruffy Alec Baldwin's mockup of a discovery I-have-feelings-for-him duet with over-the-top Brit Russell Brand, there is little to make anyone with a gamma-plus IQ laugh. Still, Baldwin and Brand are at least smile-worthy for going along so gamely.

The songs are of course winners, but the production is 'way over-tweaked, over-teased, over-something'ed. There does not appear to be a genuine emotion in the entire 2 hours. In the play, BTW, Catherine Zeta-Jones as a Tipper Gore-like scold does not exist. And Tom Cruise's role as the hyper-sexualized, tattoo'ed louche druggie Stacee Jaxx has a role no bigger than child-killer Casey Anthony's post-legal popularity in the stage play, like the energetic and talented Cath Zeta-J, who does her best with a singer/dancer yet still hackneyed role.

Whoever the high-priced talent, the film is like a two-polished speech: There is nothing fresh, nothing surprising. It is a stylized caricature. We've seen it all before, and we liked it not that much the first two dozen times.

The Cruise turn is at least amazingly seductive, more pronounced in his erotic squalor and vocal excess than his "Magnolia" (1999) huckster. His bevy of half-dressed bimbos and his half-cocked sensibility are more of the same: What Hollywood erzatz think a hot time consists of. And there might be truth to the blitzed-out druggie stupor and the lack of ethical dimension. He has a particularly libido-drenched interlude with a 'prim' Malin Ackerman, a reporter for Rolling Stone, to Foreigner fave, "I Want to Know What love Is." She never comes across as anything other than a comely starlet barely managing to keep her knees together, not a reporter from anything. But who cares?

Tulsa Sherrie befriends a sweet barristo name of Drew (Boneta), as a troupe of disapproving housewives protest 'filth' outside the Bourbon club where it all happens. Zeta-Jones's "Thriller" swivels — in a bravura production number of Benatar's "Hit Me With Your Best Shot," in a church, no less — exemplify fleeting amusements that provide an otherwise-becalmed exercise in overproduction momentary lift. (Others arrive courtesy of Baldwin and Brand, as well as Cruise and Malin Ackerman, whose libidinous duet of Foreigner's "I Want to Know What Love Is" is staged for goofy indulgence more than explicit humpty-rumpty.) Throughout, sartorial excess, audial excess, booty excess.

Director Adam Shankman makes the camp and kitsch pile on for the demographic aimed at, but it is hardly worth the popcorn. "Rock of Ages" is chockablock treacly in add-on dead-ends, predictable snafus and theatrical numbers that are all too obviously pickups from the stage show. It goes on and on, per the trigger Journey song. And more than anything else, the word vulgar comes up as the aptest adjective for the entire endeavor.

As much fun as it is to watch Cruise, Giamatti, Cranston and Brand/Baldwin self-deflate at their own typical personae, "RoA" jumps the shark rather early, and never achieves the deft humor, release or gaiety it strives so sweatily to attain.

And if you're of the exeunt from Egypt faith, utilizing the name of a timeless Hebraic paean to immortality and perseverance seems a bit uncalled-for, too, you ask me.

Lots of sexual innuendo, pole dancing, drinking, drugging and profanity.

Marion Dreyfus is a writer and travelor; she has taught English in China on the university level. She can be contacted at

To Go To Top


Posted by Laura, June 15, 2012

This article was written by Caroline Glick and is archived at Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Her book "The Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad," is available at Visit her website at

With her unbridled hostility towards Israel, the EU's foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton provides us with an abject lesson in what happens when a government places its emotional aspirations above its national interests.

Since the establishment of the State of Israel, many of Israel's elite have aspired to be embraced by Europe. In recent years, nearly every government has voiced the hope of one day seeing Israel join the EU.

To a significant degree, Israel's decision to recognize the PLO in 1993 and negotiate with Yasser Arafat and his deputies was an attempt by Israel's political class to win acceptance from the likes of Ashton and her continental comrades. For years the EU had criticized Israel for refusing to recognize the PLO.

Until 1993, Israel's leaders defied Europe because they could tell the difference between a national interest and an emotional aspiration and preferred the former over the latter. And now, Israel's reward for preferring European love to our national interest and embracing our sworn enemy is Catherine Ashton.

To put it mildly, Ashton is not a friend of Israel. Indeed, she is so ill-disposed against Israel that she seems unable to focus for long on anything other than bashing it. Her obsession was prominently displayed in March when she was unable to give an unqualified condemnation of the massacre of French Jewish children by a French Muslim. Ashton simply had to use her condemnation as yet another opportunity to bash Israel.

Her preoccupation with Israel was again on display on Tuesday. During a boilerplate, vacuous speech about President Bashar Assad's slaughter of his fellow Syrians, apropos of nothing the baroness launched into an unhinged, impassioned, and deeply dishonest frontal assault against Israel.

The woman US President Barack Obama has empowered to lead the West's negotiations with Iran regarding its illicit nuclear weapons program stood at the podium in the European Parliament and threw an anti-Israel temper tantrum.

The same woman who couldn't be bothered to finish her speech about Assad's massacre of children, the same woman who is so excited about her Iranian negotiating partners' body language that she doesn't think it is necessary to give them an ultimatum about ending their quest for a nuclear bomb, seemed to lack a sufficiently harsh vocabulary to express her revulsion with Jewish "settlers."

As she put it, "We are also seriously concerned by recent and increasing incidents of settler violence which we all condemn."

It's not clear what "recent and increasing incidents of settler violence" she was referring to. But in all likelihood, she didn't have a specific incident in mind. She probably just figured that those sneaky Jews are always up to no good.


ASIDE FROM condemning imaginary Israeli crimes more emphatically than real Syrian crimes, Ashton's speech involved a presentation of the EU's policy on Israel and the Palestinians.

That policy is based on three premises: The EU falsely claims that all Israeli communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines are illegal.

It rejects Israel's legal right to assert its authority over Area C — the area of Judea and Samaria that is empty of Palestinian population centers.

And it will only soften its anti-Israel positions if the Palestinians do so first.

Aside from its jaw-dropping animosity towards Israel, what is notable about the EU's position is that it is actually far more hostile to Israel than the Palestinians' position towards Israel as that position was revealed in the agreements that the Palestinians signed with Israel in the past. In those agreements, the Palestinians accepted continued sole Israeli control over Area C. They did not require Israel to end the construction of Jewish communities outside the 1949 armistice lines. The peace process ended when the Palestinians moved closer to the EU's position.

The EU's antipathy towards Israel as personified in Ashton's behavior teaches us two important lessons. First, it is often hard to tell our friends from our foes. Israelis — particularly those born to families that emigrated from Europe — have traditionally viewed Europe as the last word in enlightened democracy and sophistication and style. We wanted to be like them. We wanted to be accepted by them.

Indeed we were so swept away by the thought that they might one day love us back that we adopted policies that were inimical to our national interest and so weakened us tremendously.

It never occurred to us that the fact that Europe insisted that we adopt policies that undercut our national survival meant that the Europeans wished us ill.

They seemed so nice.

The second thing we learn from Ashton's anti-Israel mania is that when we engage in foreign policy, we need to base our judgments about our ability to influence the behavior of our foreign counterparts on a sober-minded assessment of two separate things: our interlocutor's ideology and his interests. In Ashton's case, both parameters make clear that there is no way to win her over to Israel's side. She is ideologically opposed to Israel. And the citizens of Europe are becoming more and more hostile to Israel and to Jews.

These twin parameters for judging foreign leaders and representatives came to mind on Wednesday with the publication of State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss's critical report on the government's handling of the Turkish-government supported, pro-Hamas flotilla in May 2010. Perhaps the most remarkable revelation in the report is that up until a week before the flotilla set sail, led by the infamous Mavi Marmara, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was under the impression that he had reached a deal with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Netanyahu believed that through third parties, including the US government and then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, he had convinced Erdogan to cancel the flotilla. He had a deal.

The fact that Netanyahu thought he had a deal with Erdogan is startling and unnerving. It means that Netanyahu was willing to ignore the basic facts of Erdogan's nature and the way that Erdogan perceives his interests, in favor of a fiction.

By May 2010 it was abundantly clear that Erdogan was not a friend of Israel. He had been in power for eight years. He had already ended Turkey's strategic alliance with Israel. In 2006, Erdogan was the first major international leader and NATO member to host Hamas terror chief Ismail Haniyeh. His embrace of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood made clear that he was Israel's enemy. It is a simple fact that you cannot be allied with Israel and with the Muslim Brotherhood at the same time. The same year he allowed Iran to use Turkish territory to transfer weaponry to Hezbollah during the Second Lebanon War.

In 2008, Erdogan openly sided with Hamas against Israel in Operation Cast Lead. In 2009, he called President Shimon Peres a murderer to his face.

By the time the flotilla was organized, Erdogan had used Turkey's position as a NATO member to effectively end the US-led alliance's cooperative relationship with Israel, by refusing to participate in military exercises with Israel.


THE NATURE OF the flotilla organizers was also known in the months ahead of its departure for Gaza. The IHH's ties to al-Qaida had been documented. Netanyahu's staff knew that the IHH was so extreme that the previous Turkish government had barred its operatives from participating in humanitarian relief efforts after the devastating 1999 earthquake. They feared the group would use its relief efforts to radicalize the local population.

In and of itself, the fact that Erdogan was openly supporting IHH's leading role in the flotilla told Israel everything it needed to know about the Turkish leader's intentions. And yet, up until a week before the flotilla set sail, Netanyahu was operating under the impression that he had struck a deal with Erdogan.

It is likely that Netanyahu was led to believe that a deal had been crafted by the Americans.

Obama is not the only American leader that has been seduced into believing that Erdogan and his Islamist AKP Party are trustworthy strategic partners for the US. Many key members of Congress share this delusional view.

According to a senior congressional source, Turkey's success in winning over the US Congress is the result of a massive Turkish lobbying effort. Through two or three front groups, the Turkish government has become one of the most active lobbying bodies in Washington. It brings US lawmakers and their aides on luxury trips to Turkey and hosts glittering, glamorous receptions and parties in Washington on a regular basis. And these efforts have paid off.

Turkey's bellicosity towards Israel as well as Greece and Cyprus has caused it no harm in Washington. Its request to purchase a hundred F-35 Joint Strike Fighters faced little serious opposition. The US continues to bow to its demands to disinvite Israel from international forum after international forum — most recently the upcoming US-hosted counter-terrorism summit in Istanbul.

Certainly Turkey's strategic transformation under Erdogan's leadership from a pro-Western democracy into an anti-Western Islamist police state has dire implications for American national interests. And the Americans would be well-served to look beyond the silken invitations to Turkish formal events at five-star hotels and see what is actually happening in the sole Muslim NATO member-state. But whether the US comes to its senses or not is its business.

Israel had no business buying into the fiction in 2010 that Erdogan could be reasoned with.

True, today no one in Israel operates under that delusion anymore. But the basic phenomenon of our leaders failing to distinguish between what they want to happen and what can happen continues to exist.

Ours is a dangerous world and an even more dangerous neighborhood. Everywhere we look we see cauldrons of radicalism and sophisticated weaponry waiting to explode. The threat environment Israel faces today is unprecedented.

At this time we cannot afford to be seduced by our dreams that things were different than they are. They are what they are.

We do have options in this contest. To maximize those options we need to ground our actions and assessments in clear-headed analyses and judgments of the people we are faced with. Their actions will be determined by their beliefs and their perception of their interests — not by our pretty face.

Contact Laura at

To Go To Top


Posted by Steven Plaut, June 15, 2012

This was written by Alexander H. Joffe and it appeared in Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2012, pp. 15-22,
( Alex Joffe is a New York-based writer on history and international affairs. His web site is

For nearly two decades the Palestinian Authority (PA) has been denying Israel's right to exist, and a recent "Nakba Day" was no exception. In a Gaza speech on behalf of Mahmoud Abbas, his personal representative made the following statement:

National reconciliation [between Hamas and Fatah] is required in order to face Israel and Netanyahu. We say to him [Netanyahu], when he claims that they [Jews] have a historical right dating back to 3000 years B.C.E.—we say that the nation of Palestine upon the land of Canaan had a 7,000-year history B.C.E. This is the truth, which must be understood, and we have to note it, in order to say: "Netanyahu, you are incidental in history. We are the people of history. We are the owners of history."[1]

This remarkable assertion has been almost completely ignored by the Western media. Yet it bears a thorough examination: not only as an indication of unwavering Palestinian rejection of Israel's right to exist but as an insightful glimpse into the psyche of their willfully duped Western champions.

Unpacking Abbas's Speech

Archaeologists have only the dimmest notion of prevailing ethnic concepts in 7000 B.C.E. There may have been tribes and clans of some sort, and villages may have had names and a sense of collective or local identity, but their nature is completely unknown. Even with the elaborate symbolism of the period, as seen in figurines, and other data such as the styles of stone tools and house plans, nothing whatsoever is known regarding the content of the makers' identities. Writing would not be invented for almost another 4,000 years and would only reach the Levant a thousand years after that, bringing with it the ability to record a society's own identity concepts.

There were no Jews or Arabs, Canaanites, Israelites, or Egyptians. There were only Neolithic farmers and herders. In fact, none of the concepts that Abbas used developed until vastly later. The Plst—a Mediterranean group known to the Egyptians as one of the "Sea Peoples" and who gave their name to the biblical Philistines—arrived around 1200 B.C.E. Arabs are known in Mesopotamian texts as residents of the Arabian Peninsula from around 900 B.C.E. The concept of a "nation" emerged with the kingdoms of Israel and Judah and their neighbors sometime after 900 B.C.E. The Romans renamed the Kingdom of Judea "Palestina" after the biblically attested Philistines, the hated enemy of the Israelites, following the defeat of the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 C.E. The ethnic identity called "Palestinian," denoting the local Muslim and Christian inhabitants of the region south of Lebanon and West of the Jordan River, tenuously developed as an elite concept at the end of the Ottoman era and did not propagate to the grassroots until the 1920s and 1930s.[2]

Is there perhaps genetic continuity between modern Palestinians and Neolithic farmers and herders? Perhaps, but that is not what Abbas claimed. Is there cultural continuity, a nation with a name? Hardly.

Types of Palestinian Rhetoric

Why then should Abbas make such an incredible fabrication? And why lie in such a ludicrous and extravagant fashion? Part of the answer is that for Abbas, as it was for PLO leader Yasser Arafat before him, there is a reflex that simply and absolutely cannot accept the antiquity of Jews. Arafat famously told then-U.S. president Bill Clinton that there was no Jewish temple in Jerusalem, causing the usually unflappable Clinton to nearly explode.[3] Denials regarding the Jewish historical connection to the Land of Israel generally and categorical denials that Jews constitute a nation are all frequently heard from Palestinian leaders, intellectuals, and others.

A useful avenue of investigation is to consider Abbas's words as a type of rhetoric with a form and underlying philosophy. When viewed in this way, Abbas's spokesman was not lying as such but doing something else.

As philosopher Harry Frankfurt put it

The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides ... is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it ... A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it ... For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: He is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.[4]

As Frankfurt describes it, such nonsensical rhetoric is constructed impulsively and without thought—entirely out of whole cloth. It is unconcerned with truth and so, unlike a lie, has license to be panoramic, unconcerned with context. The user is endeavoring to bluff, and the desire for effect is paramount. Whereas lying is austere and rigorous because it must triangulate against truth, nonsense loses, and loosens, the grasp on reality. In that sense, its effect is corrosive, a matter not discussed by Frankfurt.

Stating nonsense to suit one's purpose is only one of three obvious Palestinian rhetorical strategies. Lying, knowingly distorting the truth, is another. A paradigmatic example of this is "Pallywood," the staging of scenes for news cameras. These have ranged from orchestrated street scenes and rioting, which sometimes include fake casualties who leap off of stretchers when out of sight, to destroyed structures and grieving families, to manipulated photographs. Above all there was the so-called Jenin massacre of 2002 and the Muhammad al-Dura case in 2000. In the former, Palestinians accused Israelis of having killed hundreds or thousands of civilians and bulldozing their bodies into mass graves, deliberate lies that were then repeated by human rights organizations. In fact, some fifty-two Palestinian gunmen and twenty-three Israeli soldiers were killed in brutal house to house fighting.[5]

hoax involving IDF
Stating nonsense to suit one's purpose is only one Palestinian rhetorical strategy. Knowingly distorting the truth is another. An example of this is "Pallywood," the staging of scenes for news cameras. This photograph was widely distributed with the observers cropped out and promoted as a picture of an Israel Defense Forces soldier stomping on a Palestinian child. The uniform is not an IDF uniform; the boots are not IDF boots, and the weapon is not one used by the IDF.

In the Dura case, a Palestinian stringer for French television purported to have observed a Palestinian father and son caught in a firefight in Gaza, during the course of which the boy appeared to have been killed. The iconic martyrdom and funeral of the boy became an international symbol of Israeli brutality. But examination of withheld footage showed other Palestinian "wounded" getting up and walking around and contained no death throes of the Dura boy. In fact, grave doubts exist whether a boy died at all in the exchange and whether his father was injured. A series of lawsuits have not resolved the situation, but the impact of what is at least in large part a fabrication is clear.[6] As French journalist Catherine Nay wrote with satisfaction, Dura's supposed death "cancels, erases that of the Jewish child, his hands in the air before the SS in the Warsaw Ghetto."[7] This statement holds the key to understanding the reception of Palestinian rhetoric in Europe. It is a means to erode historical and moral realities regarding the European treatment of the Jews, and it is eagerly embraced in some quarters.

The third Palestinian approach is to propagandize through the lens of pure ideology, specifically Islam. Thus, for example, the former Jerusalem mufti and chairman of the Supreme Islamic Council in Jerusalem, Ekrima Sabri, was recently quoted as saying "after twenty-five years of digging, archaeologists are unanimous that not a single stone has been found related to Jerusalem's alleged Jewish history." This statement is patently false, but the orientation of the religious lens is obvious, indeed, he goes on to state clearly: "We do not recognize any change to the status of Jerusalem, and we reserve our religious, historic, geographic, and cultural heritage in the city, no matter how long or how many generations succeed."[8] Islamic doctrine as it has evolved today simply cannot accept the reality of the Jewish connection to Jerusalem precisely on religious grounds. Sabri is, therefore, neither lying nor fabricating reality to suit his purposes but rather expressing what he regards as a true religious belief. This works in concert with lies and nonsense.

Swallowing Palestinian Rhetoric

Palestinian efforts to minimize or expunge Jews from history go back several decades but have intensified in recent years. Palestinian intellectuals make their own important contributions: Hayel Sanduqa recently claimed that the expression in Psalm 137:5, "If I forget thee, oh Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill" was authored by a Crusader king and stolen by "Zionists."[9]

Palestinian denial of any Jewish connections to Israel and allegations that Israel is "Judaizing" Jerusalem are so routine as to be unheard by Israelis, accustomed as they are to Palestinian leaders blustering, lying, and simply making things up, from trivial allegations regarding Israeli "libido-increasing chewing gum" distributed in Gaza[10] to heinous allegations of all manner of war crimes. This is unfortunate since such claims of "Judaization," largely by means of archaeological excavations and infrastructure modernization, featured for decades in international forums such as UNESCO,[11] are central to the global efforts to delegitimize Israel by elevating the Islamic status of Jerusalem.[12]

By and large, the lack of Arab media attention suggests that they also take Palestinian claims with a heaping teaspoon of salt. In the absence of open warfare between Israel and the Palestinians, Arab media today appear preoccupied with more important events in Syria, Egypt, Iran, and elsewhere. Even so, why has there been so little attention to Abbas's statement?

The Palestinian reception of rhetoric such as Abbas's is a critical question. Palestinian nationalist rhetoric since the early 1920s was characterized by what even Palestinian-American historian Rashid Khalidi has called "overheated prose."[13] From the beginning, it was also suffused with local, pan-Arab and Islamic themes that were sometimes complementary but often in tension with one another. In general, Palestinian rhetoric today takes place in an environment that has been progressively Islamized over the past two decades by Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), in part through competition with Hamas and other Islamist and jihadist movements.[14] Islamic themes and imagery have helped frame and elaborate political discourse and in turn have intensified the Islamic dimension of Palestinian collective identity.[15]

While a full study of language and cognition in Palestinian culture is beyond the scope of this article, it is useful to bear in mind the analysis of Arab societies as "high context" cultures. In such cultures, the domination of in-groups with similar experiences and expectations requires fewer but more carefully selected words that convey complex messages using inferences supplied by the listener. By contrast, communications in "low context" cultures are not aimed at in-groups and, therefore, tend to be more explicit.[16]

Seen in this light, Palestinian political statements regarding their Neolithic origins and continuity, which can be regarded in historical, rhetorical, and philosophical terms as completely fictional, might be understood as simply innovative shorthand communications to an in-group. On the one hand, it nominally cites Western scientific frameworks, which demonstrates a sort of modernist orientation. But on the other, the emotive power and real intention is largely supplied by the listener, who hears in effect that Palestinians have existed forever, along with the implication that this fact is supported by history or even science.

Together with lies and ideological speech, fictional nonsense helps shape Palestinian culture, beliefs, and political behavior. To say that this is at odds with objective reality as recovered by science is to miss the point. To some unknowable but large degree, this is Palestinian reality. What from the outside appears to be disjointed and nonsensical bits in reality are seamless parts of a larger Palestinian whole, beliefs about the history, the world, culture, and the self. The question then becomes the relationship of that reality to others. And here the matter of media as a conduit and interpreter becomes paramount.

The problem is that in-group statements and the reality they create are never restricted to the in-group. Western reception of rhetorical nonsense varies widely. Western media have been silent about the Neolithic Palestinian nation, and this is most instructive. The simplest explanation why Abbas's comments were not mentioned in Western press accounts is that literal nonsense from Palestinians simply does not register. Although it is not acknowledged, to some extent Palestinian nonsense is likely recognized as such by Western media and filtered out, at least semiconsciously, as "overheated prose." Ironically, of course, objections to such cultural stereotyping are characteristic of the Orientalist critique although they are rarely made when such analyses come from Arab sources.

Willing Infidels

What Israelis regard as incitement—rhetoric designed to inflame populations and move them to hatred and violence—thus seems to register as mere epiphenomena to other Western audiences, who appear to seek a simple, moralistic tale with materialist underpinnings. By and large, Western media in particular, abetted by intellectuals, have created a singular distortion zone around "Israel/Palestine"—turning it into a clear-cut morality tale of colonial white people with F-16s oppressing indigenous brown people with stones and the odd suicide bomber.

A recent study of how the Arab-Israeli conflict is treated by the Reuters news agency noted the pervasive use of appeals to pity and to poverty, innuendo, euphemisms and loaded words, multiple standards and asymmetrical definitions, card-stacking, symbolic fictions, and atrocity propaganda, along with non-sequiturs and red herrings. The study concludes that "Reuters engages in systematically biased storytelling in favor of the Arabs/Palestinians and is able to influence audience affective behavior and motivate direct action along the same trajectory."[17]

For most journalists engaged with the moralistic narrative, fantastic stories about Palestinians having existed 9,000 years ago do not even rise to the level of cognitive dissonance; it is, for now, nonsense discourse and anti-realism. But another factor for the lack of Western attention to such statements is found in Frankfurt's discourse on nonsensical rhetoric; the sincerity of the user cannot be challenged since to do so would require making fundamental judgments. To preserve the fiction of rational interlocutors, sincerity must be accepted as a token of trustworthiness even as the simple words of the statement contradict such claims.

Three other factors also play a role: the postmodern downgrading of objectivity and the idea of a single shared reality; the elevation of multiple narratives as being equally valid, and the valuation of feelings over facts. Challenging rhetorical nonsense, in addition to potentially compromising journalistic access, could hurt interlocutors' feelings.

There is more than a little condescension at work in the Western reception of these strategies if not actual contempt. For one thing, Palestinians lies and nonsense are rarely challenged by the media or other interpreters besides those termed Israel advocates, something that has itself been transformed into a negative semantic and social category. It is almost as if Palestinians are expected simply to make things up as they go along, which then may or may not be accepted by the West according to how well they fit the Palestinian narrative.

Ideological religious statements are similarly ignored but in all likelihood for different reasons. Non-religious Western observers simply have no intellectual framework to interpret such strong statements outside materialist constructs that regard religion generally as epiphenomenal or false consciousness. For these reasons, the Islamic rather than nationalistic basis for the Arab-Israeli conflict has been systematically downplayed from the 1930s. Even the Hamas charter—which is nothing but forthright regarding its religious basis, theological anti-Semitism, and calls for genocide—is largely excluded from journalistic and even academic analyses because it makes no sense within the context of frameworks that are exclusively nationalistic and materialist in nature.

But the eagerness with which certain lies are accepted, such as talk of Israeli war crimes, and the flimsy nature of Western journalistic investigations strongly shows that at least two additional levels of bias are at work. At one level, the narrative of the oppressed underdog is so strong that there is little inclination to press for truths that would undermine that narrative, embarrass the Palestinians, and in doing so, incur their wrath and limit the media access they give to their territories, sources, and stories. At the deeper level, as perfectly illustrated by the quote from Catherine Nay above, there is a deep need to find Israelis guilty in order to relieve Holocaust guilt (and, one might argue cynically, to get back to old-fashioned anti-Semitism) particularly among European descendents of its perpetrators. The satisfaction of making this so is palpable.

These factors also illustrate how the Palestinian narrative, even with ludicrous bits thrown in and others excluded, is arguably not by or even about the Palestinians. It is propelled largely by Western needs to see the world through the post-colonial lens of noble indigenes and evil Western colonists. The Palestinians may in fact have lost exclusive control of the narrative decades ago, perhaps as far back as the 1920s or 1930s, when their cause was taken over by the Arab states and the Muslim world. A more comprehensive view of the Palestinian narrative would see them as secondary contributors to a process propelled by Arab and Muslim states and refracted through Western media and universities, ultimately minor subjects in a far larger discussion between Islam and the West.

The problem is that, thanks to mindless parroting by journalists and human rights organizations of Palestinian lies and nonsense, hatred, anti-Semitism, and ceaseless incitement are gradually overwhelming the filters against anti-realism, particularly in Europe where there are powerful cultural incentives to think ill of Jews and wish ill for Israelis. The effects of this process are seen even more clearly throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds where, though free of Jews, anti-Semitism is all-pervasive.


An example of the erosion of Western critical filters was the unchallenged appearance of an opinion piece in The Washington Post in December 2011 that effectively repeated some of Abbas's absurd statements regarding the antiquity of the Palestinians. Maen Rashid Areikat, the PLO representative to the United Nations, stated that Palestinians had "lived under the rule of a plethora of empires: the Canaanites, Egyptians, Philistines, Israelites, Persians, Greeks, Crusaders, Mongols, Ottomans, and finally, the British." Throwing history out the window, he added

we are Arabs with black, brown, and white skin, dark- and light-colored eyes, and the whole gamut of hair types. Like Americans, we are a hybrid of peoples defined by one overarching identity. Many in the United States forget that Palestinians are Muslims and Christians. They ignore the fact that Palestinian Christians are the descendants of Jesus and guardians of the cradle of Christianity.[18]

Palestinians can simultaneously be Arabs, who arrived in the Levant in the seventh century C.E., and be more ancient than the Canaanites. At the same time, the empires they endured and that infused them include everyone except Arab ones, notably the Umayyad and Abbasid, which brought Arabs and Islam to the region in the first place. The fact-checkers of The Washington Post editorial page fall mute and shared reality is eroded further. Unfortunately this sort of rhetorical nonsense resonates deeply, especially with some Christian supersessionists committed to anti-Zionism.[19] History no longer matters.

It is often stated that peace can only come when Israelis and Palestinians recognize one another's narratives. Claims regarding the Neolithic Palestinian nation indicate this unlikely to occur either in the future or in the past. In the meantime, anti-reality continues to spread.


[1] Palestinian TV (Fatah), May 14, 2011.

[2] Louis H. Feldman, "Some Observations on the Name of Palestine," Hebrew Union College Annual, 61 (1990): 1-23.

[3] "Camp David and After: An Exchange, An Interview with Ehud Barak," The New York Review of Books, June 13, 2001.

[4] Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), p. 56.

[5] See the essays in Hersh Goodman and Jonathan Cummings, eds., The Battle of Jenin: A Case Study in Israel's Communications Strategy (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, 2003).

[6] Philippe Karsenty, "We Need to Expose the Muhammad al-Dura Hoax," Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2008, pp. 57-65; Nidra Poller, "The Muhammad al-Dura Hoax and Other Myths Revived," Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2011, pp. 71-8.

[7] Ivan Rioufol, "Les médias, pouvoir intouchable?" Le Figaro (Paris), June 13, 2008.

[8] Ahlul Bayt News Agency (Qom, Iran), June 23, 2011.

[9] Palestinian TV (Fatah), June 2, 2011, at Palestinian Media Watch, accessed Mar. 1, 2012.

[10] YNet News (Tel Aviv), July 13, 2009.

[11] See, for example, the summary in Craig Larkin and Michael Dumper, "UNESCO and Jerusalem: Constraints, Challenges and Opportunities," Jerusalem Quarterly, Autumn 2009, pp. 16-28.

[12] Yitzhak Reiter, Jerusalem and Its Role in Islamic Solidarity (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), pp. 70-149.

[13] Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), p. 258, no. 76.

[14] Hillel Frisch, "Nationalizing a Universal Text: The Quran in Arafat's Rhetoric," Middle Eastern Studies, May 2005, pp. 321-36.

[15] Mahmoud Mi'ari, "Transformation of Collective Identity in Palestine," Journal of Asian and African Studies, Dec. 2009, pp. 579-98.

[16] Rhonda S. Zaharna, "Understanding Cultural Preferences of Arab Communications Patterns," Public Relations Review, 21 (1995): 241-55.

[17] Henry I. Silverman, "Reuters: Principles of Trust or Propaganda?" Journal of Applied Business Research, Nov./Dec. 2011, pp. 93-116.

[18] Maen Rashid Areikat, "Palestine, a history rich and deep," The Washington Post, Dec. 27, 2011.

[19] David Wenkel, "Palestinians, Jebusites, and Evangelicals," Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2007, pp. 49-56.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community.His website address is

To Go To Top


Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 15, 2012

After time away from my posts required for an important project, I am pleased to resume. At this point, touching several bases...


In spite of my focus elsewhere, last week I had been prepared to do a posting, were the bill on preventing the dismantling of Ulpana and other communities to have passed in the Knesset on June 6. Regrettably, however, it failed to pass, and I had not the stomach to interrupt my project for what would have been a dismally negative posting. Yet now, as I resume my writing, it is necessary to mention this.

MK Yaakov Katz (National Union) and MK Zevulun Orlev (Habayit Hayehudi), who had related versions of the bill, failed to best a determined Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu — who refused to release ministers to vote their consciences and brought considerable pressure to bear on MKs.

And so, the IDF is preparing for the evacuation of five buildings, housing some 30 families, by the end of this month — as ordered by the High Court because these building allegedly stand on Arab land. I say "allegedly" because the position of the residents of Ulpana was never adequately examined by the Court nor their documents fully examined.

My understanding is that a complex operation is being devised, with police doing the actual evacuation. It will be a difficult — an ugly — situation.

At present, caravans (mobile homes) are being readied on a military base in Beit El for the residents of Ulpana who will be evicted.


Prior to the vote, Netanyahu had asked the attorney general, Yehuda Weinstein, to determine whether it would affect other communities in the manner that it will directly affect Ulpana — saying that if it did he would support the bill. The attorney general said it did not — because in the case of Ulpana, the Court was basing its ruling on a position of the government, which had offered to take down the buildings.

I do not believe this for a second. This gives a victory to those elements — such as Peace Now — that want to see Jews removed from Judea and Samaria, and will prompt more petitions to the Court from them regarding "illegal" housing on Palestinian Arab land. It is the position of the government — which is too quick to acceded to undocumented claims by Arabs that they own a piece of land on which Jews have built — that requires adjusting.


As Alex Trainman, writing in Israel Hayom, has also pointed out:

"Knocking down these five buildings in Ulpana is unlikely to alleviate pressure from the international community. Instead, destroying Jewish homes in our homeland will only encourage the international community to continue its push to undo what is perceives as the historical wrong created when the Jewish people exercised its rights to its ancestral land."

Trainman further notes that:

"Many believe the court's ruling was complete and sacrosanct. Yet the decision hinges on land record laws created during the illegal Jordanian occupation of the West Bank, on rulings by a Palestinian court interested in creating a Judenrein state, and by the legal efforts of a politically motivated nongovernmental organization that receives foreign funding to petition our courts over settlements and outposts.

"In the case of Ulpana, many have been led to believe that destroying the buildings will return once lost property to a Palestinian land owner. It will not. The buildings in question do not affect the long-standing borders of Beit El. As such, the property will be returned to no one.

"In two months' time, Jews will be able to come and picnic on piles of rubble where Jewish mothers once changed their babies' diapers while their older kids rode bicycles. No Arab will have access to these plots in Beit El, similar to the piles of rubble that sit just several miles away in Amona where nine buildings were destroyed in 2006."


Netanyahu, in the sort of tightrope statement that is typical of him, declared after the vote, "...I am committed to enforcing the law and am I committed to safeguarding the settlement enterprise."

He also made a pledge of sorts in the course of this struggle to build 10 houses in Beit El, which has not seen much construction for some time, for every one that is coming down in Ulpana.

It should only be — there are those predicting a building boom in Judea and Samaria. But I am not ready to hold my breath on this yet.


If there is any potential bright spot in this matter, it is Netanyahu's commitment to form a ministerial committee, which he would head, to deal with "settler affairs." Theoretically, this would remove some of the authority from Defense Minister Barak with regard to building in Judea and Samaria. But how constructive this will be depends on the composition of the committee and the mandate it is given.


I have alluded before to the diverse opinions — diverse enough to make one a bit crazy — with regard to what powers will ultimately hold sway in a very volatile Egypt.

Here I share the latest from the GLORIA Center and Barry Rubin:

"The Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court has just invalidated the parliamentary election there. The parliament, 75 percent of whose members were Islamists, is being dissolved. The military junta has taken over total authority. The presidential election is still scheduled for a few dozen hours from now.

"In short, everything is confused and everything is a mess. All calculations are thrown to the wind. What this appears to be is a new military coup. What is the underlying theme? The armed forces concluded that an Islamist takeover was so dangerous for Egypt and for its own interests that it is better to risk civil war, a bloodbath, and tremendous unpopularity than to remain passive and turn over power. I believe this decision was made very reluctantly and not out of some lust for power by the generals. They have decided that they had no choice." (Emphasis added)


A military junta is the best that Israel can hope for. Beats the Brotherhood any day, and actually promises greater stability and relative moderation (although not democracy or great freedoms) for an Egypt tottering on the edge politically and economically. An Egypt that descends into radicalized chaos is a threat to an already turmoiled Middle East.

All political pundits have their wins and their losses over time, but I find this particularly interesting in one regard: all along, Daniel Pipes, in the face of looming dominance by the Brotherhood, insisted that the military in Egypt would not lose control — insisting this even as many others, including Rubin, insisted otherwise.

The end, upon which a great deal rests, is still to come. But right now it's hats off to Pipes.


Please see a very significant piece by Guiulio Meotti, a journalist with Il Foglio — "The Last Days of Jews in the Islamicized Europe" (Emphasis added):

"...Rome's largest synagogue, one of the oldest in the world, today looks like a military outpost, with private guards and policemen at every corner. The Jewish school is also a 'sterilized area,' protected by bodyguards and cameras, the windows plumbed with iron grates.

"... more than 90 anti-Semitic incidents took place in France only in the 10 days that followed the shooting [in Toulouse], which left four people dead. In total, 148 anti-Semitic incidents were recorded in March and April. It's an anti-Semitic pandemonium totally silenced by the European media.

"...All the recent polls say that a third of Europeans show very high levels of anti-Semitism, while over half of Europeans view the State of Israel as 'the greatest threat to world peace.'

"...The President of Austria's Israelite Community, Ariel Muzicant, warns that the Jewish Community is also dying out:...In Sweden, a country described by The Guardian as 'the greatest success the world has known,' Jews are leaving big cities such as Malmö order to escape anti-Semitic attacks.

"Sixty percent of Dutch Jews are ready to pack up and leave the country. The cause is a boom of Islamic anti-Semitism in the famous multicultural Netherlands.

Jews are fleeing Antwerp, the city in Belgium once proudly called 'the Northern Jerusalem.' Last autumn, the ancient synagogue of Weesp became the first synagogue in Europe since the Second World War to cancel Shabbat services due to threats to the safety of the faithful.

"Today anti-Semitic inscriptions are being drawn on building walls in Marseille, Nottingham, Paris, Madrid, Amsterdam, Berlin, Kiev, Barcelona and Rome. Jewish cemeteries are daily ransacked and Jews are attacked on the streets if they wear the kippahs.

"Europe is again approaching, as many prefer to avert their eyes, the horrible paroxysm of Jew-hatred that plunged the continent into its [Twentieth Century] abyss..."

We cannot afford to ignore this phenomenon or its implications.


Much, much more to come in the days ahead. I am, I must report, glad to be back to this writing.



Contact Arlene Kushner at and visit her website:

To Go To Top


Posted by Robert Hand, June 15, 2012

 This article was written by Sarah Honig and is archived at

Word is that US President Barack Obama, remarkably free from introspection and unencumbered by healthy hints of self-doubt, assiduously attributes Israeli mistrust of him to his eminently Muslim middle name. For him that encapsulates it all.

Such simplistic, one-dimensional explanations typify his neophyte missteps on the treacherous turfs of foreign policy. Obama botches things up because of his predilection for facile grand gestures, which, alas, can't alter intricate realities. He hasn't got an elementary handle on our Israeli outlook and is likewise unable to navigate the tempestuous Islamic sea that swirls ominously around us.

He doesn't get us and he doesn't get them.

Obama's oversimplified presumptions about our perceived antipathy toward him (without stopping to consider his undisguised cold shoulder to us), are matched by oversimplified expectations that the Muslim/Arab world should cheer him. These too hinge on that eminently Muslim middle name. Being called Hussein should, in and of itself, create an affinity, make Muslims trust him and accept him as a kindred spirit.

This, of course, is every bit as simplistic as the notion that Israelis should harbor misgivings because of his name.

In both cases there's more than latent condescension in the notion that simpleton natives can be attracted or repelled with trivial outward accoutrements. Obama, the sophisticated enchanter, can manipulate them. Whether he captivates or chides them, they, like impressionable children, will play out his expectations, complying with considerations as silly as those encapsulated in a name.

The name accounts for everything.

It explains away resentment of his policies as betokening prejudice against his extraction. It claims a special position vis-à-vis the Third World by boasting about connections unprecedented for an American leader. Obama banked on being recognized as a quasi-native son of non-Western cultures, who — with no other attributes than his African absentee father's distant heritage and his Asian stepfather's upbringing — could forge bonds unlike any previous White House tenant.

All this doesn't just convey unwarranted hubris, it also — and foremost so — causes misrepresentation, misconception and distortion. It presents things as they definitely are not and it triggers dismal consequences.

By not giving Israelis and the enemies who surround them more credit, Obama does what few before him had managed as incompetently. He alienates America's one committed comrade while earning the disrespect of all those he set out to endear with just his name and fawning flattery. Few had succeeded in doing as badly in as short a time.

The final fall of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, sent for whatever time he has left to durance vile, underscores the Obamaesque folly more than the other Mideastern upheavals and sectarian conflicts falsely parading as democratic stirrings. Obama never came close to criticizing Mubarak as a tyrant while Mubarak held the reins of power. Indeed as regional despots go, Mubarak didn't come close to being the quintessential ogre. His harshest measures were expended on plugging the bottle in which he contained the Muslim Brotherhood genie.

Mubarak was savable but Obama released the zealous Muslim genie with gaucheness even exceeding that of Jimmy Carter (his rival for the most-bungling-president distinction). Mubarak wasn't Israel's chum but he was a dependable keeper of the frigid peace. However, beyond that, he was the most pro-Western leader produced by modern Egypt to date.

With all of Egypt's diverse endemic and inbuilt woes, he was the leader who gave his impoverished country its greatest economic lift ever, garnished with diplomatic gravitas. Ironically, the brand of progress and Westernization Mubarak introduced and furthered, admittedly imperfect as it was, became his undoing.

It wasn't that the masses demanded more Westernization, as Obama disingenuously later sought to present it, with his equally disconnected Secretary of State Hillary Clinton surreally chiming in. In actual fact, the rioters agitated precisely against Mubarak's Westernization.

Obama's belated spin either testified to his being dangerously out-of-the-loop or to his lack of elementary intellectual candor. Were Obama a tad more clued in or a tad more truthful, he'd acknowledge that Mubarak was in trouble because his adversaries didn't want anything resembling Western democracy rather than the other way around.

That doesn't only apply to the Muslim brotherhood's blinkered preachers of regression but also to many Egyptian secularists. The latter don't necessarily hanker after liberality, freethinking and multicultural pluralism. Their hero is none other than Gamal Abdel Nasser, despite his repeated battlefield humiliations. Bizarrely because of his defeats, Nasser is regarded as a proud pan-Arab stalwart who confronted the West (never mind the unkind outcome).

A comparatively more forward-looking Egypt — still the Arab world's primary power but with a stronger economy and flourishing tourism — may have had its perks, but it didn't instantly cure its population's festering afflictions and it certainly displeased the bearded fanatics. Mubarak was hard pressed from all sides. He had to be callous and pugnacious in order not to end up assassinated like his predecessor Anwar Sadat.

Therefore, Mubarak had compelling reasons for foreboding when Obama dashed to Cairo in June 2009, hot upon his electoral victory, to suck up to unspecified Islamists. Mubarak was undermined already in Obama's debut act of appealing with superficial naiveté to Muslim xenophobes and elevating their intransigence to undeserved equality with the West's carte blanche tolerance. The horror show elements of Obama's extravaganza were detected by a mere handful, Mubarak astutely among them.

At that pivotal point it should have been clear that the end was near for whatever remnants of delicate equilibrium still endured in this region. Obama ushered in chaos via what he hyped as a trailblazing new departure by a surprise soul mate with an unexpected middle name. Mubarak significantly absented himself from the milestone sham. He was not in the audience at Cairo University as Obama extolled the virtues of Islam. He could sense the ill-winds blowing.

But that was only the beginning of a tortuous path on which Obama seemed incapable of dodging any pitfalls. In the real world it's prudent to look out for long-term interests which include reliance, where expedient, on the lesser of given evils in the absence of ideal alternatives.

Mubarak was never the worst of options. Yet whereas Obama betrayed allies and quasi-tolerable hangers-on, he was incredibly hands-off toward the true villains of the Mideast piece — such as Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and, at least initially (and crucially), Syria.

For example, in 2009, following Iran's rigged election, thousands took to the streets in defiance of the theocracy that Carter pathetically enabled 30 years earlier. As pro-democracy demonstrators were killed in Tehran and as its ayatollahs furthered their designs to arm themselves with nukes, the current leader of the free world spared no effort to stress the need to downplay the fuss.

Obama gave his own people a lesson in moral relativism: "It's important to understand that, although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great advertised." Not unpredictably, Obama informed the unenlightened masses that he won't take sides: "I take a wait-and-see approach.... It's not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling in Iranian elections."

Given this, and given the irrefutable reality that colossal differences exist between Mubarak and the Muslim Brotherhood, one must wonder why Obama's administration couldn't wait before it took sides — this time against the ruling government.

Equally as unforgettable was Secretary Clinton's characterization (certainly with Obama's blessing) of Damascus despot Bashar Assad as "a reformer." This was when Assad's henchmen started slaughtering the junta's opposition.

With brash nonintervention in one instance and impetuous intervention in another, it appears that no principle or pattern guides Obama's responses. But on closer inspection, it's impossible not to conclude that Obama wasn't interested in destabilizing the anti-Western ayatollahs while he didn't mind destabilizing the pro-Western Mubarak.

In other words, painful as the bottom line is, Obama showed no loyalty to the West's allies — either on the streets of Tehran or in Cairo's presidential palace. If anything, his proclivities are anti-Western.

There's no chance that any Mideastern players would overlook this, much as Obama and his supporters may deny his apparent inclinations. All moralizing mantras about human liberty ring hollow as Obama is seen keeping his hands off the most rogue of Mideast autocracies while selling out professed teammates or opportunistic non-opponents.

If anything can conceivably discourage vulnerable local potentates (like the Saudis, the Gulf princes or Jordan's King Abdullah) from staking their futures on American promises, it's the evidence of their own eyes. Right now, all of America's allies — Israelis among them — look like suckers liable to be left high and dry.

The ayatollahs, who were helped by Carter and not hindered by Obama, must be rubbing their hands in glee.

The circle is closed for us too. Carter was the one who twisted Menachem Begin's arms to cede Sinai and contract the frosty peace with Egypt. We struck a risky bargain with a here-today-gone-sometime-tomorrow regime. All Egyptian undertakings might disintegrate into the desert sands, leaving us on the precipice of a strategic calamity.

The word to the wise is to cut our losses and — no matter how hard Obama twists our arms — refrain from neurotically duplicating the same inordinate gullibility on our long tortuous eastern flank, where Mahmoud Abbas is more of a hollow-reed staff than any of our Egyptian interlocutors ever were.

Such wariness on our part has nothing to do with leeriness of Obama's middle name. It has everything to do with the recklessness spawned by his own exploitation of that name.

This is true both for Israel — America's one leftover genuine friend in this erratic region — as well as for Israel's inimical neighbors, whose innate acumen mustn't be underestimated.

They may be trapped in their own circuitous reasoning, but their honed intuitions discern that precisely those in their midst — like Mubarak — who dared depart from nationalistic extremism or insular Islam are those whom America's president with the Muslim name let fall.

Contact Robert Hand by email at

To Go To Top


Posted by Michael Freund, June 15, 2012

Displaying their customary respect for Jewish holy sites, Palestinian vandals struck again last month, desecrating an ancient synagogue in Naaran near Jericho.

In addition to damaging priceless relics, the perpetrators spray-painted swastikas, Palestinian flags and political slogans, adding insult to injury in their hate-filled assault.

The defilement of the site was discovered by a group of Israeli worshippers who visit it regularly to maintain a Jewish presence in the area.

The synagogue in question was built more than 1,500 years ago, predating the establishment of Islam and serving as tangible proof that the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel preceded that of our foes.

Indeed, perhaps that is one of the reasons why the Palestinians attacked it. After all, the Naaran synagogue gives the lie to their dubious claim to the land.

Needless to say, this latest outrage received virtually no coverage in the mainstream press. Only a handful of Israeli news outlets bothered to mention it, and the international media showed no interest in sharing the story with their audiences.

Contrast this with the whirlwind of reports last October when an Israeli Arab mosque was desecrated and you begin to get a sense of the hypocrisy at work in the media. Indeed, the incident in Naaran is just the latest in a long line of Palestinian acts of sacrilege that have targeted Jewish religious sites.

Remember Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus)?

It was nearly twelve years ago, on October 7, 2000, that the IDF withdrew from the site under cover of darkness after a joint assault launched by Palestinian police and terrorists. The Palestinians, of course, agreed to protect the tomb, but that promise quickly went up in smoke. Several hours later the burial ground of the biblical Joseph had been reduced to debris.

Palestinians armed with pick-axes and hammers attacked the tomb, smashing the stone structure and ripping it apart, brick by brick. They burned Jewish prayer books and other religious articles and subsequently began transforming the site into a mosque. It was then and there, at Joseph's Tomb, just days after the start of the Second Intifada, that the Palestinians learned two very dangerous lessons — lessons that continue to haunt Israel until today.

First, they saw that violence pays. Israel's retreat from Joseph's Tomb was the first time Israel had fled under fire, abandoning territory to Palestinian control under threat of the gun.

Second, the Palestinians learned they could deliberately assault Jewish sites of immense historical, religious or emotional significance without fear of retribution from Israel.

The same holds true of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, where successive Israeli governments have failed to stand up to wanton Palestinian acts of desecration. And therein lies the "original sin" of various Israeli policymakers, who have consistently capitulated, retreated and withdrawn whenever the Palestinians have trampled on some of our most important national symbols.

Instead of displaying some elementary Jewish pride and confronting the Palestinians to prevent them from assaulting what is holy to us, we prefer to shrug our collective shoulders, look away in shame, and hope for the best.

That may have made sense when the extent of our national power was limited to community councils in the shtetls of Eastern Europe, but surviving in the modern-day Middle East requires an entirely different approach.

For far too long we have inculcated in the Palestinians a sense of impunity when it comes to vandalizing or defiling Jewish holy sites, and it is time for this to change. In light of the Palestinians' serial abuse of Jewish holy sites, it should be clear to all that they cannot, must not, be entrusted with safeguarding or administering them under any circumstances whatsoever.

The Palestinians have once again failed to demonstrate even the modicum of decency and civility that calls for respecting houses of worship that belong to others.

And so Israel should not hesitate to do what should have been done already: take back Joseph's Tomb, reassert its sovereignty over the Temple Mount, and eject the PA-controlled Muslim Wakf from the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron.

These three sites, more than any others, symbolize our ties to this Land, and the abiding faith upon which they are based. It is time for all of them to return to sole Israeli control, along with all Jewish holy sites in Judea and Samaria.

Such a step would send a clear and unequivocal message to the Palestinians that there is a price to be paid for treading on Jewish religious rights and assaulting our holy places.

It would also underline Israel's determination to retain these sacred spaces in any future arrangements that might be reached.

There is a limit to what a nation can be expected to tolerate when its most hallowed places repeatedly come under attack.

Israel's patience reached that limit long ago. It is time we let the Palestinians know that their abuse of our heritage, and all we hold dear, will no longer be tolerated.

Michael Freund is the founder and chairman of Shavei Israel (, which assists Anousim in Spain, Portugal and South America to return to the Jewish people. He served as an adviser to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his first term in office. This article is archived at The Jewish Press June 13, 2012

To Go To Top


Posted by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, June 15, 2012

 This article was written by Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah, June 14, 2012 and is archived at, Vol. 12, No. 15.

  • Mali, like other sub-Saharan countries, has been facing growing attacks from al-Qaeda's North African branch — Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). Islamists are involved in a multi-million-dollar ransom industry fuelled by kidnapping Westerners and drug-trafficking in Northern Mali, where al-Qaeda militants and other Islamist combatants share ground with the Tuareg, a minority of perhaps 1 million of Mali's 15 million people and about a third of the population of Northern Mali..
  • In March 2012 the country collapsed into chaos after soldiers toppled the president, leaving a power vacuum that enabled the rebels to take control of the northern part of Mali, approximately two-thirds of the country. This is the fourth rebellion led by Tuareg nomads since independence in 1960. The last ended only in 2008..
  • In October 2011 the Tuareg fighters gathered in the oasis settlement of Zakak in the hills by the border of Algeria. They were joined by career rebels, Malian army deserters, and young activists in a conclave that gave birth to the MNLA (National Movement for the Liberation of the Azawad)..
  • The Tuareg offensive occurred after the return of Tuareg fighters to Mali following the fall of their historical patron, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, in neighboring Libya. Most probably their rebellion would not have taken place had Gaddafi remained in power. Gaddafi's Malian fighters returned to Mali bringing with them battle experience and equipped with heavy and sophisticated weapons looted from Gaddafi's arsenals..
  • As has been the case in Tunisia, Egypt, and to a lesser extent in Syria lately, the Tuaregs' struggle for an independent homeland has been hijacked by better-organized and armed Islamists from Mali and abroad, creating a safe haven for militants in the Sahara — a west African Afghanistan. The implications of such a development could become a new nightmare for the West.

Until recently, Mali was regarded as an example of African democracy. Western intelligence agencies have been following events in Mali since, like other sub-Saharan countries, it has been facing growing attacks from al-Qaeda's North African branch — Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). Islamists are involved in a multi-million-dollar ransom industry fuelled by kidnapping Westerners and drug-trafficking. Northern Mali has long been a rear base for drug traffickers, with al-Qaeda militants and other Islamist combatants sharing ground with the local Tuareg. Still, Mali was a homogenous political entity with a vibrant leadership dedicated to fighting terrorism and Islamist extremists.

However, in March 2012 the country collapsed into chaos after soldiers toppled the president, leaving a power vacuum that enabled the rebels to take control of the northern part of Mali, approximately two-thirds of the country.

The Fourth Tuareg Rebellion

When Mali's Tuareg nomads launched their rebellion in January 2012, many in Africa and elsewhere thought it would be just the latest in a long line of desert uprisings to be swiftly terminated with offers of cash and jobs. The Tuaregs, a minority of perhaps 1 million of Mali's 15 million people and about a third of the population of Northern Mali, are traditionally nomadic people who live in countries touching the Sahara Desert, including Mali, Algeria, Niger, Burkina Faso, and Libya, who have resisted central authority since colonial times. Mali is no stranger to rebellions. This is the fourth led by Tuareg nomads since independence in 1960. The last ended only in 2008.[1]

In October 2011 the Tuareg fighters gathered in the oasis settlement of Zakak in the hills by the border of Algeria. They were joined by career rebels, Malian army deserters, and young activists in a conclave that gave birth to the MNLA (National Movement for the Liberation of the Azawad), a collation of different factions and agendas, with a force estimated at the time to be 1,000 strong and whose open goal was attaining independence. The Azawad is an immense territory equivalent in size to France and Belgium combined. It is situated north of the Niger River and includes three administrative sub-divisions: Kidal, Timbuktu, and Gao. In the Malian context, Azawad refers to the northern part of Mali, considered by the Tuaregs to be their homeland.[2]

The Impact of the Fall of Gaddafi

The Tuareg offensive occurred after the return of Tuareg fighters to Mali following the fall of their historical patron, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, in neighboring Libya. Most probably their rebellion would not have taken place had Gaddafi remained in power. Gaddafi's Malian fighters returned to Mali bringing with them battle experience and equipped with heavy and sophisticated weapons looted from Gaddafi's arsenals.

Furthermore, the situation in Mali itself played into the hands of the Tuaregs. Inspired by the South Sudanese precedent, and taking advantage of the weakness of the central government and of a poorly equipped army, the Tuaregs launched their offensive in January and subsequently won town after town in the northern part of the country. In late March, troops upset with the government's handling of the Tuareg rebellion, and opposed to any compromise with the rebels, staged a coup d'etat led by young officers against President Amadou Toumani Toure (commonly called ATT), creating a chaotic situation which was fully exploited by the Tuaregs. In less than three months, the Tuaregs became masters of their historical homeland and on April 6, declared independence for their Azawad nation.

The fall of ATT was dramatic for the West. Washington had tried to bolster Mali's army by providing $17 million in military aid over the past year to equip and train its forces, as well as providing political support. Regular surveillance flights supported by the U.S. Pan-Sahel Counter-Terrorism Initiative used to patrol the skies looking for suspect or unusual movement in the area. The deteriorating situation in Mali brought the U.S. to cancel an annual exercise called Flintlock 2012, which was due to bring African, European, and U.S. troops together to train together in late March. One of the aims of Flintlock was to build the counterterrorism capacities of African armies.[3]

Islamists Hijack the Rebellion

As has been the case in Tunisia, Egypt, and to a lesser extent in Syria lately, the Tuaregs' struggle for an independent homeland has been hijacked by better-organized and armed Islamists from Mali and abroad, creating a safe haven for militants in the Sahara — a west African Afghanistan.

As rebel forces took major tows in northern Mali such as the ancient city of Timbuktu, it appeared that MNLA fighters were operating alongside a newly formed Islamist movement known as Ansar Dine (Defenders of Faith), whose stated goal is to impose Islamic law (Shari'a) all across Mali.

Ansar Dine's leader is Iyad Ag Ghali, who, according to leaked U.S. diplomatic cables, is "northern Mali's undisputed power broker."[4] In two decades Ag Ghali led two previous Tuareg rebellions, and served briefly as Mali's Consul General in Saudi Arabia where he adopted the most extreme Salafi form of Islam before being expelled by the Saudi authorities. Once back home he acted as an intermediary between hostage-paying European governments and kidnappers belonging to AQIM.

While some wonder whether Ag Ghali is motivated more by religion or by personal ambition, he has taken on at least the appearance of a fundamentalist.[5] Gone is the large mustache that he used to sport. On a video released by Ansar Dine, he has a full, graying beard.

Colleagues say he became more religiously active in the 1990s when Tabligh Jamaat, a fundamentalist but nonviolent Islamic movement from Pakistan and India, started preaching in northern Mali. Tabligh Jamaat, founded early in the last century, is an offshoot of the Deobandi school of Islam, which is very hardline. Most of the Taliban leadership is Deobandi.

After Ag Ghali was assigned in 2007 to Mali's consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the Saudis became concerned about the amount of time he spent on his satellite phone and his ties to Tabligh Jamaat. They considered his activities incompatible with his status as a diplomat. He had been appointed to Saudi Arabia after he helped negotiate a peace accord that ended a brief Tuareg rebellion. "Some Tuareg rebels are irked at what they view as Ag Ghali's self-centered decision to abandon northern Mali during a time of crisis, leaving his Tuareg rebel colleagues in the lurch," a leaked U.S. Embassy cable noted in 2008.[6]

Today, the doubts about Ag Ghali's motivations are resurfacing. His family is part of a group of Tuaregs who have traditionally ruled the region around the town of Kidal, and he has been active in the rebellions there for years. Other leaked U.S. diplomatic cables describe Ag Ghali as a master manipulator, especially when there is a chance to make money. "Ag Ghali is so adept at playing all sides of the Tuareg conflict to maximize his personal gain," notes a cable from October 2008 released by WikiLeaks. "Like the proverbial bad penny, Ag Ghali turns up whenever a cash transaction between a foreign government and Kidal Tuaregs appears forthcoming."[7]

Ag Ghali's age isn't clear. He was born in Abeibara in northern Mali in the late 1950s. In the 1970s, like many other young Tuareg men, he left to join Gaddafi's Islamic Legion in Libya. He was sent to fight against Chad in the 1980s, and fought in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. By the early 1990s, Ag Ghali returned to Mali to take part in a Tuareg rebellion in which he was a senior commander and then helped negotiate a peace deal with the government.

The leaked cables show that Ag Ghali spoke with staff at the U.S. Embassy in Bamako several times about events in Mali between April 2006 and January 2010. "Soft-spoken and reserved, Ag Ghali showed nothing of the cold-blooded warrior persona created by the Malian press," according to a May 2007 cable written after one such meeting.[8]

Diplomats in Mali said Ag Ghali formed Ansar Dine last year after being rebuffed in separate efforts to head both the MNLA and his Ifoghas clan. Diplomats also say that his links with al-Qaeda are through a cousin who is a local commander. Yet if imposing Shari'a has won Ag Ghali little popularity, it has been crucial in drawing him closer to AQIM, which he now needed for its firepower and the cash it had accumulated after years operating in the area.

The MNLA now appears to risk tearing itself apart over a proposed power-sharing deal with Ansar Dine — with the latter saying that Shari'a is a non-negotiable part of the deal, even as it consolidates its position on the ground.

The alliance between the groups is tense. The MNLA seeks an independent secular state while Ansar Dine professes a Shari'a state. It is unclear which holds more sway in the strech of Sahara taken from the government. In Timbuktu, Ansar Dine has gained the upper hand and announced Shari'a law. The MNLA had already hoisted its green, black, red and yellow flags over Timbuktu, but Ansar Dine fighters pulled them down, burned them, and replaced them with their black flags. Ansar Dine's next step was to burn Timbuktu's holy sites, classified as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, in order to stress the direction they will be following in the near future: pure Salafism.

Mali is still far from the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan of the 1990s. However, the rapidly unfolding events are turning the area into a magnet for jihadists. Reports from Northern Mali tell of militants from Algeria, Mauritania and Nigeria (Boko Haram militants) present in the northern city of Gao. A leader of Africa's al-Qaeda branch, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, was also spotted in Gao. Belmokhtar, an Algerian, lost an eye in combat in Afghanistan and is known as "the one-eyed sheikh." Fighters from a breakaway branch of al-Qaeda called the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa have also been seen in Gao. So are al-Qaeda militants, who are not afraid to appear in public. Pakistani and Afghan jihadis apparently have been training recruits for Islamic groups in northern Mali. Boko Haram, the Nigerian Islamist fundamentalist group, was also reported to have set up training camps in the Malian town of Gao.[9]

Surprisingly, both the MNLA and Ansar Dine declared on May 26 their fusion into a single movement while announcing the establishment of an Islamic state in Northern Mali and the creation of a "Transitional Council of the Islamic State of the Azawad."[10] Three days later it seemed that this agreement had hit trouble over how strictly to impose Shari'a, and there are even news reports of armed clashes between MNLA and Ansar Dine fighters in the town of Kidal. A further deterioration of relations between MNLA and Ansar Dine could only worsen the security situation in Northern Mali.[11]

Destabilization of the area works in favor of the terrorist groups. The rebels' seizure of three major airstrips in the north — near the towns of Gao, Timbuktu, and Tessalit — means that these could be used for everything from drugs and weapons to yet more foreign fighters. The overflow of weapons and combatants from Libya into an already unstable area adds another layer of insecurity.

The implications of such a development could become a new nightmare for the West. Western intelligence agencies as well as those in Africa will have to concentrate their efforts in order to contain the new threat coming from Mali and stop al-Qaeda and its affiliates/associates/allies from establishing a safe haven in the sub-Saharan region. Failure to do so could be interpreted as weakness and as an invitation for terrorist activities in countries targeted by al-Qaeda.


1. David Lewis and Adama Diarra, "Arms and Men Out of Libya Fortify Mali Rebellion, Reuters, 10 February 2012.

2. Ibid.; Andrew Harding, "Sand and Fury: Mali's Tuareg Rebels," BBC, 3 March 2012; "Mali: des Touaregs proclament l'independence, la junte accepte de transferer le pouvoir," Le nouvel Observateur, 7 April 2012.

3. "U.S. Postpones Mali Military Exercise amid Attacks, Associated Press, 10 February 2012.

4. David Lewis, "Mali: The World's Next Jihadi Launchpad?," Reuters, 4 June 2012; Celeste Hicks, "Tuareg Rebels Make Troubled Return from Libya to Mali," BBC News Africa, 9 February 2012.

5. Martin Vogl, "Spotlight on Leader of Islamist Group in Mali," Associated Press, 27 April 2012.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Michelle Faul, "Mali Attracts Fighters in Void after Coup," Associated Press, 6 April 2012; "Niger Says Afghan, Pakistani Jihadis in N. Mali," Reuters, 8 June 2012.

10. "Les rebelles islamistes renforcent leurs positions au nord du Mali," La Croix, 28 May 2012.

11. "Mali Rebels Split over Shari'a in New State," Reuters, 29 May 2012; "Mali Rebel Groups Clash in Kidal," BBC News Africa, 8 June 2012.

Publication: Jerusalem Issue Briefs Filed Under: Al-Qaeda and Global Jihad, Global Jihad, Libya, Other Middle East, Radical Islam, TerrorismTags: Al-Qaeda, Azawad, Gaddafi, libya, Maghreb, Mali, Tuareg

Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah is a special analyst for the Middle East at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He was formerly Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Deputy Head for Assessment of Israeli Military Intelligence.

To Go To Top


Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 14, 2012

Bereaved U.S. families may win lawsuits against terrorist organizations and sponsors, but can they collect the awarded damages?

An American victim of a terrorist attack by Hamas sued Iran in a federal court. The court agreed that Iran bore responsibility for the attack, because it had helped finance and train Hamas. In 2003, the court awarded damages against Iran.

Iran refused to pay. Plaintiffs requested that Iran list all its assets in the U.S.. Iran asked the court to let it withhold the information. The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Iran's request. The court was aided in its decision by an amicus brief from the Dept. of Justice. The brief stated, "Compelling a foreign state to produce extensive material pertaining to its assets may impose significant burdens and impugn the state's dignity, and may have implications for the United States' foreign relations."

The victim's lawyer depicted the Justice Dept. brief as "aiding and abetting Iranian terrorism by supporting Iran's attempts to conceal its assets." Since Congress had legislated permission for victims of terrorism to sue states that sponsor terrorism, he decried the State Dept. effort behind the brief as helping Iran evade a U.S. court judgment in favor of American citizens. Without knowing the location of Iranian assets in the U.S., the victim cannot collect.

Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) fears this ruling will impede other court awards against sponsors of terrorism. ZOA asked "...the Justice Dept. to explain why the 'dignity' of a state sponsor of terrorism is so important that compensation to the victims of the terrorism it enabled must be frustrated and the state sponsor of terrorism's assets protected from disclosure. This is scarcely the way to hold terrorists and their sponsors accountable." (ZOA, June 14, 2012 from Jerusalem Post.)

Similar cases have been reported before. The State Dept. intervenes against justice. The State Dept. interprets these cases as infringement upon its authority to manage U.S. foreign policy for the President. I think that the foreign policy argument is not applicable to lawsuits for damages.

I think it would be better if the three branches of the federal government worked together against terrorism. That is, if the State Dept. opposes terrorism. Islamic terrorism is part of the international jihad against civilization, a jihad that potentially can succeed. If jihad succeeds, what would happen to State Dept. prerogatives?

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email.

To Go To Top


Posted by Stanley Zir, June 14, 2012

Dear Supporters,

As promised here is the final edit for "What's next for America .... This essay was composed to answer any questions people have about President Obama's modus operandi, for it provides a clear and precise assessment of Obama's policies and his intentions.

New Excerpt:

But Obama has chosen another path down which to lead our nation. He claims the people have been betrayed by the greed of the few, the rich, and a tea party that is determined to thwart his plans to construct a fair and equitable entitlement nation.

His Democrats claim that the Tea Party Nation is based on racism, not on their concern to save our nation from an economic meltdown. It is Obama's assertion that slavery was America's original sin that supports the notion that the Tea Party is discriminatory. Why? Because the assumption of an all white Tea Party is challenging the policies of the first Black-American President. Or is it Obama's political ideology that is geared to making America a pay-back nation that is being called into question?

It is not Wall Street greed that is devouring the middle class, it is the Democrats' failed entitlement polices, ones like Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac and welfare, based on the assertion of the unjust treatment of minorities throughout America's history up to the present. yet the opposite is true. To Obama's distress, Herman Cain is proof that, regardless of skin color, the American dream is alive to those who will strive to achieve greatness.

The essay below is entitled "What's next for America, if Obamacare is struck down?" by Stanley Zir.

Six months after the essay Obama's Coup was published, we find the President in full attack mode. His recent skirmish with the Supreme Court was not unprecedented. At the State of the Union Address in 2010, he dressed down the Judges in front of the nation and the world for overturning his finance law.

Neither attack was unpremeditated. These were calculated attacks on the Judges that fits the modus operandi of all petty dictators and fascists. Tyrants use this tactic to rally their base to undermine the rule of law and overthrow the government.

In Obama's case, he pre-emptively slammed the Supreme Court as a bunch of an "unelected group of people" who would have turned to "judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint" if they decide to strike down his signature legislative achievement, the Healthcare Reform Act.

Obama touted the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. Further, he stated, "I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

It is apparent that Obama's counsel to the Supreme Court was a political ploy to gain populist support in order to prevent them from striking down Obamacare. In actuality, it was a veiled threat, a WARNING that the Court must not go against the will of the duly elected People's Congress because of the tyranny of a few select judges who are not elected officials.

His threat is not unlike that of a Mafia boss who menaces another criminal enterprise that dares to invade its rival's territory. But this encroachment into Obama's turf was not from a criminal enterprise. It was from the Supreme Court whose Judges are authorized by Congress to determine if laws they pass, when challenged, comply with our Constitutional guidelines that protect our nation from laws that support governmental tyranny.

Lincoln and Roosevelt each took positions similar to Obama's regarding the Supreme Court's overreach, yet neither ever labeled Supreme Court Justices "unelected officials." To call these Justices 'unelected officials' is to challenge their authority to overturn laws passed by duly elected officials.

Obama's overreach attacked our Constitution at its core, the system of checks and balances, the front line of defense to prevent the rise of a tyrant uncontested authority would give him free reign to govern us. This is the final impediment Obama knew he must overcome to achieve his goal of absolute power.

Obama's attack on the Constitution mirrors the same systematic attack on America by her worst enemies His incendiary tirades against the rich and their capitalist system that he claims are the seeds of economic inequality have whipped his fan base into a frenzy, igniting a culture of street violence and lawlessness, as seen in nations that are divided into warring camps, capitalism and communism.

We see this in Ortega's Panama, Castro's Cuba, where people take to the streets to enforce their will on any who dare challenge the dictates of their leader especially at election time. Maybe we should check Obama's birth certificate again. Anyone read Espanol?

Obama's disrespect for the rule of law alerts his base that any attempts by the Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare will be a declaration of war on the people. Obama's criticism of those who dare oppose him are not mere disagreements, but directives, a call for action from supporters like Ortega and Castro's, who take to the streets to intimidate, threaten, and terrorize the populace — a warning that this is what will happen if you don't bend to their will.

We can't be naïve; Obama is not going to give up Obamacare. And don't be surprised if we even see an "Occupy Supreme Court" or "Occupy Congress," by those claiming this decision is unconstitutional because the American people were betrayed by conservative judges who are lackeys of the rich.

You have to remember that the Democrat Party NEVER forgave the Supreme Court for ruling in Bush's favor over Al Gore in the 2000 election. The Democrats felt the election was stolen by the Supreme Court, therefore we can assume that they are determined to not accept a ruling by the Supreme Court if they overturn Obamacare, a bill the Democrats worked tirelessly to pass. Their support for Obama's junta is inevitable, if the Supreme Court does not rule in their favor, but they won't do the heavy lifting. They will let the mob do the dirty work as Nancy Pelosi said "those Occupy Wall Street people are so idealistic and wonderful." Thus it will not be surprising if the Democrats claim that the tyranny by a select few judges overturned the will of Congress.

The Supreme Court has served this nation well. Whether decisions from the court favored conservative or liberal positions, we still advance towards a more perfect union. The proof is that our citizens have chosen to honor the principles of our Constitution as the staple to nurture America's cultural ethic for over 232 years.

Time and again in the history of our own country, we have been able to rise out of the ashes of our own inequities (slavery, segregation, etc.) by using the Constitution's unrelenting mirror of justice. We have been richly rewarded for such idealism with a renaissance in each generation, despite the tyrannical naysayers' predictions of our impending doom and accusations of our greed and decadence.

But Obama has chosen another path down which to lead our nation. He claims the people have been betrayed by the greed of the few, the rich, and a tea party that is determined to thwart his plans to construct a fair and equitable entitlement nation.

His Democrats claim that the Tea Party Nation is based on racism, not on their concern to save our nation from an economic meltdown. It is Obama's assertion that slavery was America's original sin that supports the notion that the Tea Party is discriminatory. Why? Because the assumption of an all white Tea Party is challenging the policies of the first Black-American President. Or is it Obama's political ideology that is geared to making America a pay-back nation that is being called into question?

It is not Wall Street greed that is devouring the middle class, it is the Democrats' failed entitlement polices, ones like Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac and welfare, based on the assertion of the unjust treatment of minorities throughout America's history up to the present. While the opposite is true. To Obama's distress, Herman Cain is proof that, regardless of skin color, the American dream is alive to those who will strive to achieve greatness.

Obama forgets the U.S. Constitution was penned to overcome thousands of years of bondage. It was a couple of Caucasian Americans who wrote the greatest documents of governance for the peaceful existence between all nations. The Constitution exposed not only their sin of slavery, but would begin to put asunder all the sins humanity had committed against each other in the pre-colonial era as America moved towards a more perfect union.

It is time to set the record straight. Never in the history of the world has there been such a guideline to end governmental tyranny in this world as the American Constitution provides.

It embraces people of all cultures and beliefs equally under its canopy. Its creators took the best of secular and religious ideas, morals and ethics, and condensed their essence under one umbrella, then crowned that enlightenment by outlying a form of governance whereby the individual, not the state, would emerge to become the only standard that would be adhered to for creating the building blocks to forge a new emerging civilization.

From this stage, America's Founding Fathers launched in America the greatest experiment in the history of civilization: the quest to secure liberty as the foundation to eternally ensure the protection of all people's inalienable rights against any and all, who would release tyranny's deadly venom into the hearts of humankind.

This year the Reverend Sharpton, his disenfranchised core, social-justice groups, the yes-we-can government unions, illegal aliens, and Occupy Wall Street nation will begin actions of civil disobedience as soon as Obamacare is struck down. They will pull out all stops to win this election. Even Eric Holder is trying to get stop Florida from verifying the names of voters to secrete their illegal alien status. I am sure at the end if Obama loses this election, Holder and his legions will find some way to declare the election unconstitutional.

Just as a small piece of fodder turns a sumptuous soup into a vile concoction, when the principles on which the foundation of our Republic stand, the Constitution, are altered, violated to accommodate peoples' cultural, religious and political agendas, only a doctrine of tyranny will remain. There is only one brand of democracy in our Republic, only one culture under its domain — the culture of Freedom. Stay alert. Do not give Obama and the Democrats any wiggle room. Stay on top of them every step of the way, or they will steal this election from under us.

Stanley Zir is Founder of the Victorious America Think Tank, which is dedicated to the completion of America's destiny: The Eternal Victory over Global Tyranny. His website is This article is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by Mech'el Samberg, June 14, 2012

This article was written by Josh Rogin and is archived at why_did_the_us_exclude_israel_from_the_new_counterterrorism_forum

Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Istanbul to convene a new worldwide forum of countries to share info and help integrate efforts to fight terrorism -- but Israel wasn't invited.

In her opening remarks at the June 7 forum, Clinton framed the terrorism challenge as a common world cause and emphasized the need to build up civilian institutions, coordinate anti-terror efforts, and establish a unified, long-term strategy for fighting terrorist groups' ideology and their sources of funding.

"We view this forum as a key vehicle for galvanizing action on these fronts and for driving a comprehensive, strategic approach to counterterrorism," Clinton said, standing alongside Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davotoglu. The United States and Turkey are the co-chairs of the initiative, known as the Global Counterterrorism Forum.

Although Clinton mentioned that terrorism is a challenge in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mali, Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Maghreb, Turkey, and Europe, she didn't mention Israel or any of the groups that support terrorist attacks against Israeli interests, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

"We underscore our condemnation of all acts of terrorism, which cannot be justified on any grounds whatsoever, and our continuing commitment to oppose terrorism irrespective of the motives of the perpetrators of such acts," read the September 2011 political declaration that established the forum.

Although 29 countries and the European Union were invited to be founding members, Israel was not. After facing repeated questions at last week's briefings, the State Department put out the following explanation as to why Israel was not included:

"Our idea with the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) was to bring together a limited number of traditional donors, front line states, and emerging powers develop a more robust, yet representative, counterterrorism capacity-building platform. A number of our close partners with considerable experience countering and preventing terrorism are not included among the GCTF's founding members," the statement said. "We have discussed the GCTF and ways to involve Israel in its activities on a number of occasions, and are committed to making this happen."

The founding members are Algeria, Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Egypt, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The State Department's explanation wasn't enough to satisfy critics of the administration, who point out that Israel is an ally and has more experience with terrorism and counterterrorism than, say Japan, or Switzerland.

Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) joined together Monday to protest the Obama administration's decision to exclude Israel from the new forum, in a letter to Clinton.

"As you know, there are few countries in the world that have suffered more from terrorism than Israel, and few governments that have more experience combating this threat than that of Israel," they wrote. "We strongly believe that Israel would both benefit from, and contribute enormously to, this kind of exchange. We look forward to hearing from you about whether the administration shares our view that Israel rightfully belongs as a full participant in the and what, if any, steps you are prepared to take to right this wrongful omission."

The Israeli government hasn't publicly complained about the snub and the Israeli embassy in Washington declined to comment, but multiple Congressional sources said that Israeli officials have complained privately to them, saying the Israeli government was unhappy about being left out.

"Obviously the U.S. is looking to adhere to the wishes of Turkey and the Turks have made it very clear they don't want the Israelis there," said Jonathan Schanzer, vice president for research at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. "But since this is a U.S.-sponsored event, hosted in Turkey, the U.S. should not be listening to anybody about who they should or should not invite."

Contact Mechel Samberg at

To Go To Top


Posted by Robin Ticker, June 14, 2012

Sadly, Mishpacha Magazine is taking its cue from the Miraglim in its front page cover in this week's Parashat Shlach:

"RESIGNED to EXILE The would-be settlers of 2012 know that fighting their eviction is a losing proposition." by Avi Friedman whereby the blurb describing the article reads "Seven years after the Gush Katif expulsion, a new group of families is facing eviction. This time around, bitter resignation has replaced the fighting spirit, and the would-be settlers understand that fighting the State is a losing proposition". Mr. Friedman writes: "Looking out at the view from a small porch, Galit and Naftali Friedman try hard to project a sense of confidence in G-d's plan for them. But (emphasis my own, sounds familiar from the Parsha?) they can not hold their anxiety as the clock ticks down to July 1, the day the High Court has set for the eviction of the Ulpana Hilla and several other disputed outposts".

Surely anyone reading this article will feel a wave of discouragement going through their very souls.

Who asked Avi Friedman for his opinion? (Unfortunately, the publisher and/or Editor of Mishpacha).

Upon seeing these headlines on the front page cover of Mishpacha Magazine, I reminded myself that WE ARE FORBIDDEN TO ACCEPT LASHON HARA even from our Leaders who discourage settling the Land of Israel.

Well obviously Avi Friedman is talking to the wrong people and getting his information from the wrong people. Maybe he is influenced by Rav Shteinman who instructed UTJ Knesset members to vote against the Settlers in the recent Regulation Bill to normalize Ulpana. Ein Chadash Tachat Hashemesh.

Let us take this as an opportunity to correct the Sin of the Spies and loudly protest any attempt to discourage the settlers!

The Jewish people must not accept this attitude of defeatism that caused Bechiya LeDorot, crying for all generations. Arutz-7, Mattot Arim and Komimyut emails clearly don't. They show the fighting spirit side of the Settlers. So let's report, and encourage the Settlers and their supporters who are taking their cue from Hebron and not the Spies!

We suggest that the publisher Eliyahu Paley and his entire staff including Editor in Chief Rav Moshe Grylak take a trip to Hebron. And next time they publish an article about Settlers, they should use Rachel Ginsberg associate editor of Mishpacha Magazine, who started her career in Hebron writing for Counterforce.

Arutz-7 has the right fighting spirit!
Gush Katif Evacuees to People of Beit El: Don't Be Suckers

So do the people at Mattot Arim!

Same for the people at Kommiyut:

In their letter to their people they described the two different approaches among the Settlers. One approach, the way of the Yesha Council is to look at the short term goals of going from crisis to crisis and as they put it "sewing" a custom-made garment for each settlement crisis trying to get out with minimal damage and maximum tactical gain. The other approach, the approach much preferred by Kommimiyut which originated in Kfar Maimon in Gush Katif with those who aspired to a permanent solution rather than making deals that would endanger the entire settlement enterprise. They are determined to fight the struggle rather than evacuate peacefully in exchange of some package of benefits that would later not help to prevent further destruction down the line.


Robin Ticker

Robin Ticker is an activist and a lover of Eretz Yisroel, Am Yisroel and the Torah. Yehi Zichrono Baruch. Her website is called:

To Go To Top


Posted by Midenise, June 14, 2012

 This article was written by Paul Joseph Watson and is archived at

Leaked U.S. Army Document Outlines Plan For Re-Education Camps In America

A leaked U.S. Army document prepared for the Department of Defense contains shocking plans for "political activists" to be pacified by "PSYOP officers" into developing an "appreciation of U.S. policies" while detained in prison camps inside the United States.

The document, entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations (PDF) was originally released on a restricted basis to the DoD in February 2010, but has now been leaked online.

The manual outlines policies for processing detainees into internment camps both globally and inside the United States. International agencies like the UN and the Red Cross are named as partners in addition to domestic federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA.

The document makes it clear that the policies apply "within U.S. territory" and involve, "DOD support to U.S. civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement and other activities," including "man-made disasters, accidents, terrorist attacks and incidents in the U.S. and its territories."

The manual states, "These operations may be performed as domestic civil support operations," and adds that "The authority to approve resettlement such operations within U.S. territories," would require a "special exception" to The Posse Comitatus Act, which can be obtained via "the President invoking his executive authority." The document also makes reference to identifying detainees using their "social security number."

Aside from enemy combatants and other classifications of detainees, the manual includes the designation of "civilian internees," in other words citizens who are detained for, "security reasons, for protection, or because he or she committed an offense against the detaining power."

Once the detainees have been processed into the internment camp, the manual explains how they will be "indoctrinated," with a particular focus on targeting political dissidents, into expressing support for U.S. policies.

The re-education process is the responsibility of the "Psychological Operations Officer," whose job it is to design "PSYOP products that are designed to pacify and acclimate detainees or DCs to accept U.S. I/R facility authority and regulations," according to the document.

Read the rest here.

Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav.

To Go To Top


Posted by David Wilder, June 14, 2012

A couple of days ago I received an email that reads:

Tomorrow: Women action to demand the opening of Shuhada Street
Press conference will be held prior to the protest.
When: Wednesday, June 12, 2012 at 14:00
Where: Press conference: Sumood and Challenge Center, Hebron
Media contact: Issa Amru (Youth Against Settlement)

Palestinian women, joined by Israeli and International women, plan to march tomorrow, Wednesday, to Shuhada Street in the city center of Hebron, demanding it's re-open.

The action, organized by the "Youth Against Settlements", is part of the global campaign to Open Shuhaada Street which has been closed to the movement of Palestinians.

The organizers will hold a press conference prior to the demonstration, at the Sumood and Challenge Center in Tal Rumeideh, hebron. The press conference will start at 2pm, and will be followed by the march.


Another one:

From: Tali Shapiro 052-4246519
On Jun 11, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Irene Nasser wrote: or rides from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv call me at 052-533-9054

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Neta Golan wrote:
If you want to act as a palestinian woman, if you want to support the palestinian woman rights, Calling the Israeli Army to let them use shuhada street in Hebron.

For more information Please Call Issa Amro or send an Email to

None of our children are safe in a world in which the children of Gaza can be imprisoned and bombed.


I've written numerous times about 'Shuhada Street' — the street of the Martyrs in Arabic — King David Street in Hebron. More about that a few paragraphs down.

Shuhada Street

But first, who are the 'activists' who organized yesterday's provocation? Here's one more email:

Register for Transportation to June 15 - June 16 Weekly Demonstrations Against the Wall and the Settlements

Kufr Qaddum Friday June 15Contact Alona at AlMa'asara Friday June 15Contact Dany at or 054-6966253 (no SMS) Ni'lin Friday June 15Contact Shai at or An Nabi Saleh Friday June 15Contact Daniel at or (preferably by SMS) Bil'in Friday June 15 Contact Phone Against Wall (no SMS). Only if you must send e-mail with mobile phone number to butreply in time is not guaranteed Beit Ummar Saturday June 16Contact Kobi at For those wishing to come from Jerusalem please contact Ruth at - Newcomers and those requiring more information are invited to contact Renen at 054-3241622

This mail arrived from the same address as the previous one:daniel rubin

These are all one and the same: anti-Israel anarchists, whose basic goal is the destruction of the State of Israel. In an article published a year ago, Caroline Glick lumps them together with Yesh Din, Gush Shalom, Physicians for Human Rights - Israel, and attorney Michel Sfard, Breaking the Silence, Bimkom, Peace Now, Gush Shalom, Adalah, the Geneva Initiative, the Committee for Peace and Security and of course, B'Tselem (

These are not love-dovey peaceniks. They are dangerous, anti-Israel elements, who, as Glick writes, receive massive financial budgets from the British, Swiss and Irish governments, Christian Aid, the Ford Foundation, DanChurchAid (funded by the Danish government), Diakonia (funded by the Swedish and Norwegian governments and the EU), Trócaire (funded by the Irish and UK governments), Dutch, British, German and Norwegian governments, the EU, and George Soros's Open Society Institute.

Their primary trade is trouble-making, with a capital I for incitement. Working together with many Arabs, such as Hebron's Issa Amru (see for my run-in with him a few days ago), and others, they incite local populations, leading to massive violence aimed at IDF personnel and civilians.

I'm told that Amru, well known to the authorities, was arrested earlier today for his part in yesterday's events here in Hebron. As can be seen in the above emails, he was the primary organizer of the anarchists' march down King David Street, dressed up as Arab women.

the anarchists

Hebron's leadership has taken numerous measures in an effort to maintain a quiet and peaceful city. These include frequent meetings with Hebron Arab leader Sheich Ja'abari, as well as meetings and discussions with various organizations in Hebron. We have met with representatives from the International Red Cross, internationals, as well as diplomats from around the world, attempting to allow for an open dialogue and discussion. A few days ago I met with a group from the very left wing, pro-Palestinian state American Jewish organization J Street. After a short tour of the Beit Hadassah museum, I spent an hour answering their questions. The discussion was interesting and fruitful. I'm sure we didn't all agree about everything, but there wasn't any sense of animosity or uncomfortableness. That's what happens when civilized people sit together.

However, the same cannot be said about foreign provocateurs, collaborating with Israeli's enemies and Israeli left wing extremists, provoking the local population against Jewish civilians and security forces, in places like Hebron, and around Israel.

For example: During a violent riot today in Bil'in, rioters continued to hurl rocks at security forces and damage the security fence. Approximately 70 rioters participated. In addition, another violent riot occurred simultaneously in Hebron in which four Border Policemen were injured and one Border Policewoman was lightly injured after being assaulted by a female rioter. The rioter was subsequently arrested and Fri: ~70 protesters hurled rocks @ security forces in violent protest near Ni'lin.

Clearly, the anarchists who invaded Hebron have a definite agenda, which precludes the Jewish Community of Hebron or any Jewish-Israeli presence in this city. We expect all Israeli government and security officials to maximize efforts to remove these perilous rabble-rousers from our midst, as they are an actual threat to a peaceful existence in Hebron and elsewhere. At present, Hebron could be called an anarchist's paradise. It's time to send them help others in the Middle East, as long as its outside the borders of the State of Israel. (Like, maybe, Syria.)

Street of the Martyrs

Concerning King David (shuhada) Street: Arabs today have access to 97% of Hebron. Jews have access to 3% of Hebron. The only area closed to Arabs is this stretch of road, about a kilometer in length. This street was closed by the IDF following numerous terror attacks in the area, including a suicide bomber who killed two, stabbings, shootings, acid attacks and more. The Israeli supreme court, not known to be a bastion of the right, has upheld the road's closing for security reasons. It is the only place in Hebron where Arabs have no access, but they do have a bypass route, allowing them to reach whatever their destination might be. Jews, on the other hand, are prevented from accessing the entire H1-Arab side of the city, including holy sites there, such as the cave of Otniel ben Knaz and the famous Hebron-Slobodka yeshiva. For more see: 'King David Street' or 'Street of the Martyrs' - Shuhada? (

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: This article is archived at

To Go To Top

 This article was written by Deborah Weiss and is archived at islamically-correct-counterterrorism?f=must_reads


Posted by FSM, June 14, 2012

CAIR pressure tactics at work throughout government.

The Department of Justice and the FBI are revising their counterterrorism training material to remove "inaccurate and biased information" at the direction of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller. The Department of Homeland Security, which uses the most funding for counterterrorism training, recently issued new guidelines on "countering violent extremism." Why the sudden need for drastic change?

On Nov. 15, 2011, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) National launched a coordinated campaign across the country, with its various chapters requesting records from local, state and federal agencies on their use of taxpayer dollars to fund "Islamophobic training." The campaign involves 87 filings for records requests across 15 cities nationwide.

CAIR-Michigan's civil rights director claims CAIR wants these records to ensure that law enforcement is using trainers who provide "objective and unbiased information" to protect Americans from "violent extremists." CAIR expressed particular concern that tax dollars are being "wasted" on "agenda-driven, inaccurate, or Islamophobic" training and materials.

For years, CAIR has led an aggressive campaign against "Islamophobia." In the past, its targets have included individuals and corporations whose words, actions or package designs smack of insults to Muslims, as seen through the eyes of CAIR.

Now CAIR's target is national security. CAIR's professed goal is to wipe out bigotry, insensitivity and "unfair" bias. So what's wrong with that?

CAIR, which presents itself as the country's leading American-Muslim civil rights organization, is, in fact, a radical Islamist organization that is extreme in its goals and tactics. It was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terror-funding trial in the history of the United States.

Though it is expert in public relations, it cannot escape the fact that its roots stem from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Association of Palestine and that it has close ties to Hamas. Several of its former leadership members have been arrested and convicted on terrorism-related charges or other felonies, and numerous others are being monitored by the FBI. Despite its claims of representing "mainstream Muslim Americans," the FBI finally has wised up and cut all ties with CAIR.

One of CAIR's main goals is to "protect Islam" from "defamation," using, of course, the Islamic definition of defamation rather than that of American constitutional law.

American law allows free speech, with certain limited exceptions. One cannot incite imminent violence, shout "fire" in a crowded theater unless there's a fire, or spew forth defamatory comments about others.

Defamation in American law consists of a false statement of fact made with negligent or reckless disregard for the truth, which results in a pecuniary harm or harm to one's reputation.

By contrast, defamation under Islamic law is not limited to people, but is applied to the religion of Islam as well. In other words, it gives protection normally afforded only to people to a religion - in this case, Islam. Furthermore, the criticism doesn't have to be a false statement. It can be any true statement that is critical of Islam or any Islam-related topic. This includes, but is not limited to, the topics of gender apartheid, forced marriages of young girls, human rights violations under Shariah law, and Islamic terrorism.

Under the threat doctrine, famously set forth in Sun Tzu's "Art of War," in order to win a war, it is imperative to know one's enemy, be able to name him, and to know oneself. The absence of any of these elements drastically increases the odds that one will lose the war. Further, to understand the enemy, it is critical to understand his goals, ideology and tactics.

Though America claims it is in a war on terror, this is a misnomer. Terrorism is a tactic; it fails to state who the enemy is. Moreover, it is but one tactic out of many designed to achieve the same goal.

In total contravention to the constitutional understanding of free speech, CAIR has used numerous tactics to pressure others to comply with the Islamic notion of free speech, which excludes any expression critical of Islam, even if true.

CAIR has employed a wide repertoire of methods to force such compliance, including, but not limited to letter-writing campaigns, negative publicity, protests, lawsuits and boycotts.

Now, CAIR's document requests and demands for "investigations" not only pressure conformance in wiping out alleged "Islamophobia," but hinder national security procedures. The document reproduction, litigation preparation, replies to letter and phone campaigns, and constant barrage of pressure constitute the true waste of taxpayer resources.

Contact Family Security Matters (FSM) at info@

To Go To Top


Posted by Jerry Sobel, June 14, 2012

For those of you old enough to remember, during their epic heavyweight battle in 1974 known as the "Rumble in the Jungle," Muhammad Ali made famous a defensive ploy known as the "Rope-a-Dope." Flailing on the ropes, the former boxing great feigned being beaten by then World Heavy Weight Champion George Foreman.

Allowing Forman to throw punches until the champ's energy was spent Ali then went on to defeat his much larger foe. Iran today is proving what works in boxing can also work in the international ring of world politics.

Following a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran's nuclear program far exceeded civilian purposes, since July of 2006, no less than seven resolutions have been passed by the U.N. Security Council attempting unsuccessfully to reverse this policy.

Each Resolution passed demanded the Iranians suspend their uranium enrichment activities, and for whatever it's worth, made it legally binding upon them to do so. Not shockingly, Teheran has refused and continuously scoffs at the pity pat sanctions imposed against her mainly at the behest of the Obama administration.

Hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and clearly unimpressed with the rhetoric and wrist slapping of the world body and the United States, the Ayatollahs and their mouth piece, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defiantly continue their development of enriched uranium and the hegemony a nuclear weapon would bring them.

The most ludicrous aspect of this sorted affair is the propensity of President Obama to double down on defunct policies. With the same conviction, Neville Chamberlain had at the Munich Conference in 1938, and Jimmy Carter had during the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, Obama is either too timid or naive to recognize that tyrants dead set on mayhem do not respond to talks and hand slaps. Rather than drawing a definitive line in the sand and threatening military action by a certain date, the President is content to go along with the Iranian charade and playing the part of George Foreman in this international boxing match.

Obama: Possible Iran Talks Offer Opportunity nuclear_1_catherine-ashton-iran-nuclear-program?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST)

Does history have a way of repeating itself? Not exactly, but close enough. As it was tragically farcical to believe Hitler would be satiated with the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia following the annexation of the Sudetenland, the same is true today holding talks with the rogue Iranian cabal headed by "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Sayyid Khamenei. Ardent supporters of terrorism throughout the world since the downfall and betrayal of the Shah by the Carter administration, Iran has been implicated in countless assassinations, bombings, and kidnappings throughout the world directly by its own operatives and indirectly by terrorist proxies set up by the regime. Amongst these, first and foremost is Hezbollah, financed, trained, and supplied by Teheran through the auspices of their closest friend and ally, the butcher of Damascus, Bashar al-Assad.

These sweethearts along with splinter groups have proudly accepted responsibility for:

  • The 1982-1983 Tyre headquarter bombings.

  • The bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut killing 58 Americans.

  • The 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks killing 241 Marines.

  • The hijacking of TWA flight 847 holding 39 captive for weeks and the murder of 1 sailor in 1985.

  • The bombing of the Israeli Embassy killing 29 in 1992.

  • The bombing of the Jewish Community center in Argentina in 1994 resulting in 94 fatalities.

  • In Saudi Arabia the attack on the Khobar Towers killing 19 servicemen in 1996.

  • The firing of thousands of rockets into northern Israel and the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.

Iran and State Terrorism.

It's the ringmaster of these vipers that the group of 5+1, consisting of the permanent members of the Security Council: The United States; United Kingdom; France; Russia; China; plus Germany hope to dissuade from its present course of action. Not crazy enough? How about throwing in the fact that one of this so called group of five is none other than Iran's good friend and trading partner Russia. The other being China, a nation so in bed with the regime that in 2009, Chinese President Hu Jintao unambiguously reaffirmed his commitment to Iran by stating,

"We are quite confident that friendly and profound economic relations between the two countries should continue forever."

China-Iran Foreign Relations

Talk about wolves guarding the hen house.

On September 12, 2011 Iranian and Russian officials celebrated their joint project, the opening of Iran's first nuclear reactor in the port city of Bushehr. U.S. officials candidly expressed fears that it might be a cover for a nuclear weapons program at other sites. Now there's some astute thinking.

China in turn, driven by economic ties and sympathy with the Iranian position has steadfastly defied the most grievous sanctions against Iran and is still very active in the Iranian oil patch paying mainly lip service to a ban on energy investment in Iran.

Getting China to Sanction Iran maloney/getting-china-to-sanction-iran

Can it get any more bizarre? Of the countries assigned the task of curtailing the Iranian nuclear program, 33% of them are allies and trading partners of this rogue state.

As the Iranians enrich greater quantities of weapon grade uranium and burying it deeper into mountains throughout their country, round and round we go in a perpetual game of Ring Around the Rosie. Sanctions, condemnations, talks and more talks.

In April, after first agreeing to talks in Turkey the Iranians adroitly bid for time by suggesting Iraq or China as the venue balking that Turkey, a NATO member is participating in the shield project designed to potentially thwart their missiles. What was accomplished? Iranian officials agreed not to let the negotiations reach a dead end. That's it. With nothing tangible accomplished, NATO officials somehow came away optimistically seeing it as: "the beginning of a process of confidence-building between the two sides." Onto to Baghdad they went for, you guessed it, more talks.

Iran Open to More Talks in May

At the conclusion of this conference a spokesman for Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations had the following to say:

"Ban Ki-moon was satisfied with the good intention of the parties for the delivery of the negotiations to a conclusion and that he welcomed the continuation of these negotiations in the Russian capital Moscow on 18 June next," stressing that "the moon supports always the continuation of negotiations to reach a solution comprehensive about Iran's nuclear program.

Satisfaction of the Results of a UN Meeting in Baghdad, 5+1

You may notice, glaringly missing from this statement is anything about Iranian compliance with previous U.N. Resolutions or a willingness to cease and desist further uranium enrichment. Instead next stop Moscow for more of the same. Tick tock, tick tock. The days and weeks tick by and the Iranians move closer to perfecting a nuclear weapon, and the means of delivering it. What's even more incongruous, as Czechoslovakia was not allowed to be party to its own dismemberment, Israel, most affected by these talks is not a party to them either.

Despite continuous threats of annihilation since the 1979 revolution by the Islamic Republic, Israel has been cajoled by successive administrations to withhold military action and to allow gradually ratcheted sanctions and talks to take hold. Unfortunately, while the group of 5+1, residing thousands of miles away have time to dither and incomprehensibly allow the Iranians to engage them in a game of rope-a-dope. Israel, 900 miles from Teheran the professed target of Iranian angst sits and waits American mandate on military action.

This article is archived at Iran_and_the_5_1_Nuclear_Talks_printer16080.shtml

To Go To Top


Posted by Act for America, June 14, 2012

 This article is archived at burqa-ban-prompts-somali-walk-out-from-minn-business

What would happen to a business owner who failed to institute a safety policy and an employee was injured as a result? Asked another way, how quickly would a lawsuit be filed?

Muslim employees at a Minnesota business have gone to CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) asking for help in their opposition to just such a safety-inspired policy. (See the KSMP-TV story below.)

They claim the policy infringes on their beliefs.

But what if one of them got injured if the owner did NOT institute the safety policy? They would sue the owner!

A few years ago Muslim organizations in the UK protested a policy that required surgical staff to thoroughly sterilize up to their elbows. They protested because they said it required Muslim women to expose their arms.

The policy was rescinded. Accommodating unreasonable Muslim demands trumped sound public health policies, putting patients at risk.

Now these Minnesota Muslim employees are demanding that the business owner be put in an impossible situation—rescind the safety requirement and risk being sued if someone is injured, or keep the requirement and get slapped with a discrimination lawsuit.

More than 30 Somali employees walked out in protest of dress code changes at a privately-owned business in Le Center, Minn.

The former employees of Dianne's Fine Desserts claim a new uniform policy was instituted to force them off the job because of their Islamic beliefs.

The owner of the bakery, Mike Knowles, told the Faribault Daily News a woman's long dress recently got caught in a boot washer and the new guidelines were instated over safety concerns.

Knowles, who bought the business just 11 days before the accident, said the company leaders went out of their way to try to work with the Somali Community. Originally, they had recommended knee-high skirts but later agreed to boot-high or mid-calf skirts before making the policy public at a meeting on Friday.

On Monday, many devout women reported back to work in their full-length attire, saying the new dress code conflicts with their religious beliefs. They were then given the option adjust their skirt lengths or leave.

Eleven women walked out and were joined by about 20 Somali men.

The workers have asked the Council on American-Islamic Relations to intercede, and CAIR has previously helped 25 Muslim employees who were terminated in December 2010.

At the time, the business was called Dianne's Gourmet Desserts and was under a different owner who fired the employees after the break schedule was altered into conflict with employees' prayer schedule, but employees prayed anyway. A complaint was forwarded to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the workers were reinstated.

The walk-off has also been brought to the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union

To Go To Top


Posted by Arutz Sheva, June 14, 2012

 This article was written by Chana Ya'ar and archived at C3F89C6B056B0C882B44C4E.htm#0_156881

A Russian-born Israeli citizen says he wants to live in the Palestinian Authority, and renounce his Israeli citizenship. PA officials don't believe him.

Tajikistan-born Israeli citizen Andre Pshenichnikov has been ejected from the Palestinian Authority — by PA officials and locals alike — several times.

But the 23-year-old Jewish immigrant, who made aliyah with his family ten years ago, keeps going back, insisting that he no longer wants to live on the Jewish side of the border.

"We don't have a problem with any Israeli coming to be one of us," said Arab residents of Deheishe, which still calls itself a "refugee camp" decades later, with television satellite dishes atop nearly every home.

"We'll be honored and give them an ID card, but this young man was suspicious and he lied and that is why we handed him to the Israelis," Tareq Abu Sheikha explained to The Associated Press.

Abu Sheikha, who rented Pshenichnikov a room for a month, said the Israeli presented himself as a foreign activist — but the Arabs spotted his old IDF military ID card. He threw stones at Israeli soldiers together with PA Arabs along the roadside, but was also heard speaking in Hebrew on his cell phone.

PA officials simply handed him over to the IDF, saying he needed to go through legal channels. "If people knew his true identity there's no guarantee for his safety," Bethlehem governor Abdel-Fatah Hamayel told the AP, adding that the Israeli should have made an official request to the PA.

"I hate Zionism..." declared Pshenichnikov, who has since left for a two-month tour of Europe, but said he hopes to move to the PA when he returns. Israeli officials have not commented.

"I want to be part of the Palestinian resistance. I call for other Israelis who support the existence of a state of Palestine to do the same, to come live in the West Bank or Gaza as Palestinians."

To Go To Top


Posted by Moshe Feiglin, June 14, 2012

sin of the spies 2

Our Sages consider the Sin of the Spies even worse than the Sin of the Golden Calf. What is the root cause of the sin of rejection of the Land of Israel? What is so terrible about "We will make a new leader and return to Egypt?" At the time of the sin, as Rashi explains, the spies were righteous Jews who had just experienced the myriad miracles of the Exodus from Egypt and the journey through the desert. Did they really believe that G-d could not humble the lowly Canaanites as He had the mighty Egyptian empire? How could they so severely miss the mark?

There is a difference between the Exodus from Egypt and the entry into the Land of Israel. The entry into the Land of Israel brings with it an entirely new reality. G-d took care of Pharaoh by Himself: "G-d will fight for you and you, remain silent," G-d told the Israelites at the edge of the Red Sea. But for the Canaanites, the approach is different: Both the Israelites and G-d will be in the fight.

As soon as the Jewish People enters the Land of Israel, the manna stops falling from the heavens. In the Land of Israel, we must plow, plant and harvest. We must live a life of action and bring the manna down from heaven by ourselves — in full cooperation with the Creator. That is the message of the Jewish Nation. It is a message that cannot be applied without the Land of Israel. It is the message of perfection of the world — in the Kingdom of the Almighty.

The Sin of the Golden Calf, although totally unacceptable, was easier to rectify. The Israelites were punished, repented and returned to G-d. The Sin of the Spies is much more difficult to eradicate and rectify. It is not a tactical sin but a rejection of the entire purpose of the Jewish Nation. It is a strategic sin — a strategic error of cosmic proportions. It is a lack of understanding of the goal of the journey, the loss of the purpose for our very existence.

The resolution of the conflict between the material and spiritual has tormented humanity from time immemorial. The Western approach is to nullify the material in order to be holy. The Moslem approach is to wallow in the material in order to be holy. On the Festival of Tabernacles, the 70 nations of the world bring their holiday offerings to the House of G-d in Jerusalem. But there is one offering that only Israel can bring. It is the shlamim (wholeness) offering. Half of it is to be eaten by the people and half is for G-d. It is the offering that is irrelevant to a non-Jewish reality. The secret of the unification between the holy and the mundane was given to Israel alone.

There is only one way to resolve the conflict between the spiritual and the mundane. Only when the Jewish Nation lives in the unique Land chosen for it by the Master of the Universe and crowns the spiritual G-d over the material world at their fusion point — in Jerusalem, at the Royal Palace, the Holy Temple — will the world live in peace and serenity.

By attempting to return to Egypt, the Israelites effectively sent the entire world into a helter-skelter tailspin. No wonder that the consequences of that ill-conceived error are still plaguing us today.

The Sin of the Spies smolders in all sectors of Jewish society throughout the generations. It infects every person who excludes himself or G-d from even one aspect of our holistic reality. It infects those who cling to G-d to the exclusion of the Land of Israel and those who cling to the Land of Israel to the exclusion of G-d. It infects the person who studies Torah but does not work, the person who does not study Torah and only works, the person who does not settle the Land, the person who strictly settles the Land, the person disassociated from politics, the person who deals only with politics; any attachment to partial reality conceals within it a touch of the Sin of the Spies.

The solution is to open ourselves to the entire spectrum of our reality - and to perfect the world in the Kingdom of the Almighty.

Shabbat Shalom,
Moshe Feiglin

Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell). This article is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by Meir Amit Terrorism Information Center, June 14, 2012

  1. The website of the Jerusalem Brigades, the military-terrorist wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, recently posted pictures from the end-of-the-year party held at one of its affiliated kindergartens in the Gaza Strip. The children put on a display in which they pretended to be armed Palestinian terrorist operatives, Palestinian prisoners and Israelis.
  2. The pictures were taken by a correspondent working for the Jerusalem Brigades "combat information." He interviewed the kindergarten teacher, who emphasized the need to teach the children the ideas of "resistance" and jihad [i.e., anti-Israeli terrorism]. The correspondent also interviewed one of the children, who expressed his determination to join the PIJ and die as a shaheed. ..."When I grow up," he said, "I want to get on a bus with lots of Zionists and blow myself up in a suicide bombing attack and kill them..." (Jerusalem Brigades website and Hamas' PALDF forum. In the meantime, the PALDF website removed the pictures.)
  3. Such ceremonies at kindergartens in the Gaza Strip have been customarily held for years by Hamas, the PIJ and other terrorist organizations. They all regard young children as an important target audience for inculcating the ideology of the "resistance culture" and jihad [i.e., terrorism], and customarily exploit kindergarten end-of-the-year parties for putting on displays whosecentral themes are terrorism and hatred for Israel.[1]
  4. According to the website of the Jerusalem Brigades, the Israeli media had reported on the ceremony,[2] indicating that Israel feared the so-called "resistance culture" [i.e., the culture of brainwashing Palestinian society with an ideology of terrorism, violence and hatred for Israel] (Jerusalem Brigades website, June 13, 2012).

This article comes from the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israeli Intelligence and Heritage Commemoration Center. It is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by Israel Commentary, June 13, 2012

 This article was written by Aaron Klein and is archived at

A flurry of news media reports last week highlighted a Harlem public elementary school that will become the first in New York to require students to study Arabic.

Entirely unreported is that the organization that co-created and funded the Arabic language program for the New York school, KleinOnline has found, maintains close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood while the group's founder also started the Al Jazeera television network.

The Qatar Foundation International, or QFI, a nonprofit group financed by the government of Qatar, gave Harlem's Hamilton Heights, a K-5 public school school, a $250,000 grant to support the Arabic program for three years. The school's Arabic language program was reportedly developed by QFI and the the Global Language Project.

In addition to the Harlem school, KleinOnline found that the QFI just awarded "Curriculum Grants" to seven U.S. schools and language organizations to "develop comprehensive and innovative curricula and teaching materials to be used in any Arabic language classroom." Those schools include Bell High School, a Los Angeles public school, and Safford K-8 in Arizona's Tucson Unified School District.

QFI, based in Washington DC, is the U.S. branch of the Qatar Foundation, founded in 1995 by Qatar's ruling emir, Sheikha Hind bint Hamad Al Thani. Thani is still the group's vice-chairman, while his wife, Sheikha Moza bint Nasser, chair's the organization's board. Thani also launched Al Jazeera in 1996 and served as the television network's chairman.

The Qatar foundation is close to the Muslim Brotherhood. This past January, it launched the Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics under the guidance of Tariq Ramadan, who serves as the center director.

Ramadan is the grandson of the notorious founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al Banna. Ramadan was banned from the U.S. until 2010 when the Obama administration issued him a visa to give a lecture at a New York school.

The Qatar Foundation, meanwhile, named several institutions after Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the top leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Many regard Qaradawi as the de facto spiritual leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.The Foundation instituted the Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi Scholarships and in 2009 established a research center named the Qaradawi Center for Islamic Moderation and Renewal.

Qaradawi has personally attended scores of Foundation events, including conferences at which he served as a keynote speaker. Qaradawi achieved star status because of his regular sermons and interviews on Al Jazeera. Two weeks ago, Qaradawi was in the news after he told Egyptian Muslims it was their religious duty to vote for one of three Islamic candidates in the country's presidential election, describing them as the "best for Egypt" because they will "apply the Islamic Shariah and achieve justice."

The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) documents how Qardaqi openly permitted the killing of American troops in Iraq and praised the "heroic deeds" from "Hamas, Jihad, Al-Aqsa Brigades, and others." Reports by the London newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat repeated Israeli claims that Al-Qaradawi once served to fund "the heart of Hamas," the Al-Islam Charity, through his Welfare Coalition.

With additional research by Danette Clark and Brenda J. Elliott.

Israel Commentary is hosted by Jerome S. Kaufman.

To Go To Top


Posted by Yoram Fisher, June 13, 2012

 This article was written by Paula R. Stern, Founder and Documentation Manager of WritePoint, a technical writing company.

If the Medal of Freedom is to mean anything - it must come with action. The US should release Pollard now; he can fly back on the plane with Shimon Peres and end an ugly and dishonorable chapter in US history.

The Medal of Freedom is the highest civilian award that exists in the United States. It is bestowed by the President in a ceremony of honor and respect. The award was created in 1945 and was more recently is called the Presidential Medal of Freedom. It can be given to anyone - including someone who is not a citizen of the United States.

President Shimon Peres will receive the Medal of Freedom from President Barack Hussein Obama. Peres has already taken one noble stand in telling Obama that he is accepting the medal on behalf of the entire State of Israel.

"I have come here as the representative of the whole of the State of Israel to say thank you for the great friendship that America has demonstrated towards Israel."

Medal of Freedom - named for the fact that there are few things Americans (and Israelis) value more than their freedom. It is an honor - bestowed on a noble person, someone who acts bravely to protect the interests of their country, world peace, humanity.

According to a 1983 Memorandum of Understanding signed between Israel and the United States, Israel was entitled to vital information related to its security. The United States was breaking that agreement, withholding strategic information that Israel should have been given. A man, an American, and yes, a Jew found out and went to his superiors. He asked why Israel was not being given this information and, according to sources, was told, "Jews get nervous talking about poison gas; they don't need to know." Yes, Jews do get nervous about poison us crazy but even this rather human tendency does not justify the fact that Israel had a right to know, and the US had an obligation to honor its agreement.

When he could not find another way, Jonathan Pollard leaked this information to Israel...yes, he turned over secret US documents to an ally. What vital information was contained in these papers? Well, sources say it included information about Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities being developed for use against Israel. It also included information on ballistic missile development by these countries and information on planned terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian targets.

American government officials caught on and Pollard was arrested in 1985. But here is where it gets tricky...Pollard never had a trial. He was never charged or indicted with most of the charges people think he has been convicted of doing. Before it came to a trial, Pollard was encouraged by both the Israeli government and the US government to accept a plea bargain that would save the embarrassing details from coming to the surface - that the Americans had broken an important agreement with an important ally; that Israel had spied on a valued ally.

Since he was never given a trial, Pollard was never found guilty - rather, he pleaded guilty to one charge. No, not treason, not harming the United States. He was never charged with compromising codes, agents or war plans. The ONE charge that he pleaded guilty to was one count of passing classified information to an ally, without intent to harm the United States. That is ALL.

After Jonathan Pollard admitted guilt for this minor charge - the US broke the plea bargain agreement and sentenced him to life in prison with no opportunity for parole. He was not released even for a few hours to attend the funeral of his father; he remains isolated in prison.

No one in the history of the United States has ever received a life sentence for passing classified information to an ally - not before...or after Jonathan Pollard. The median sentence for this offense is two to four years. Jonathan Pollard has served more than 26 years.

It is time for Jonathan Pollard to be free. Whatever crimes he committed, he did so out of a deep love of Israel and the knowledge that he was only passing to Israel what it should have been given in the first place. He has served his time and what might once have been considered justice has now become injustice.

On Wednesday, Shimon Peres will receive the Medal of Freedom - I urge him to thank President Obama and the United States and then, on Thursday, to go visit Jonathan Pollard and give the Medal of Freedom to him. Freedom is nothing if it is at the expense of others; justice for some is not enough. Israel cannot accept such an honor from the United States so long as the US continues to hold Jonathan Pollard in captivity.

Jonathan Pollard has repeatedly expressed his remorse publicly and in private letters to the President and others. He has made it clear that he regrets breaking the law, and wishes he could have found a legal way to act upon his concerns for Israel. If he were freed, after more than 26 years in jail, he would be on the next plane to Israel, to live out his life here.

If the Medal of Freedom is to mean anything - it must come with action. The US should release Pollard now; he can fly back on the plane with Shimon Peres and end an ugly and dishonorable chapter in US history...or, Peres should go to the prison where Jonathan is being held and give him the Medal of Freedom. Israel can only accept it and all it means, when Jonathan comes home. We'll have it here - when Jonathan brings it home.

We released 1,027 terrorists for Gilad Shalit; we can give up one medal and perhaps embarrass the US government just a little for another man captured and held in darkness for so many years. Gilad's captivity has ended; he's back in the sunshine of Israel. Jonathan Pollard deserves no less.

Yoram Fisher lives on Kibbutz Kfar Blum Doar Na Galil Elyon. Contact him by email at

To Go To Top


Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 13, 2012

The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) demands a steady supply of arms. Reason given? To maintain order. Lacking arms? It states that many were worn out ones and many were destroyed in the second intifada. It makes arms supply yet another precondition for negotiations along with another new one, releasing P.A. prisoners from Israel.

[Israel that delegated authority to the P.A. and the PLO had agreed to limits on arms.] The P.A. doesn't acknowledge its obligations. The P.A. refuses to submit an inventory of weapons possessed by official and non-official armed groups. The P.A. also refuses to comply with the Accords' restrictions on the number and types of weapons. The P.A. possesses hundreds of thousands of illegal weapons. It violates limits in numbers and in types of weapons: rockets, anti-tank missiles, and anti-aircraft missiles, which are weapons not of keeping order but of making war. And if Hamas joins up with the PLO, the illegal cache would mount.

The Quartet evinces no interest in P.A. obligations not to arm for war.

Should Israel grant the P.A. demand? Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA explains that the P.A. has made clear that if negotiations do not satisfy it, it would use the guns it has against Israel. It has no compunctions about doing so, having acknowledged that the only question is whether fighting Israel would be efficacious at the time. Therefore, Israel should reject the arms request.

In demanding the release of prisoners, the P.A. visualizes them as POWs, released after a war, rather than as terrorists, convicted of murder and other war crimes in a war that the P.A. still supports. Obviously, Israel cannot trust the P.A. to be honorable and civilized.

Why doesn't PM Netanyahu bring up these questions, until the Quartet no longer can ignore them?

(Dr. Aaron Lerner,, 6/9/12 from

The P.A. wants more arms even though it has a huge excess over permitted arms. How suspicious!

The P.A. admits that it lost arms during an Intifada — remember that it instigated or fanned the flames of the Intifadas. In other words, the P.A. wants Israel to furnish it more arms after losing some fighting Israel. Obviously it wants arms so it can renew war on Israel. The U.S. has facilitated this war by training three PLO battalions in military tactics.

The P.A. practice of adding new demands, as does Iran, shows the futility of negotiating with jihadists. Jihadists do not negotiate to resolve problems but to advance their military goals.

If Israel simply releases convicted murderers, what is the point of capturing and punishing them? What restraint does the P.A. show in its terrorism, if it thinks they are holy warriors because they attack Jewish civilians? But they are terrorists, equivalent to pirates, not POWs, who have some rights. The P.A. officially made peace, but then made war. In any case, Israel's prisoners are criminals, not soldiers.

The facile way the P.A. lies, breaks agreements, and make outrageous demands of Israel seems to be to be a combination of jihadist deception and an Islamic sense of superiority over non-Muslims. Another factor might be that the P.A. has gotten much of what it wants by demands, blackmail, and terrorism, gaining foreign support as it goes along, including from the U.S. but especially under the Obama administration. The P.A. figures that the Israeli Left will go along yet again.

The Quartet's disinterest in P.A. violations, violations that lead the P.A. to aggressive war, is still another lesson to Israel not to trust foreign powers, including the U.S.. This lesson the Israeli governments seem unable to learn. Israel still makes believe that peace is possible with such evil-minded people.

Really, Israel needs a new policy to replace the Oslo Accords that the Arabs do not honor. The new policy, which should have been the old policy, would advance Zionist goals for settlement and security without depending on Arab compliance and hostile State Dept. approval.

Let's answer the question, how strong should P.A. forces be? I think they should be just strong enough to prevent anarchy and deal with crime and traffic. They should not be strong enough to make surprise attacks on Israel. Israel should not condone their violations of the peace agreement, by letting them get more arms. Buy condoning P.A. violations for 13 years, no progress has been made for peace or for Israeli security.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email.

To Go To Top


Posted by UN Watch, June 13, 2012

Text prepared by professional experts could still be overturned by 21-nation committee meeting soon

GENEVA, June 13, 2012 — The United Nations circulated a draft resolution that would reject a Palestinian bid to list the birthplace of Jesus as an endangered World Heritage site, citing a report by international experts who investigated and dismissed claims that the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem was under any specific danger.

The draft resolution will be considered by UNESCO's 21-nation World Heritage Committee at a meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, later this month.

The committee — which includes Algeria, Cambodia, Iraq, Malaysia, Mali, Qatar, Russia, Senegal, and the United Arab Emirates — has the power to overturn the expert-drafted text, but insiders say that Arab states may not win the required two-thirds majority, noting that several states, including Russia, the host country, may be hesitant to upset an objective evaluation submitted by UN professionals.

This is the first time in recent memory that a draft resolution circulated by the United Nations — let alone by the largely Arab-dominated UNESCO, which recently elected Assad's Syria to its human rights committee — openly rejected a Palestinian claim or position.

At the UN, where the General Assembly each year adopts more resolutions criticizing Israel than on the rest of the world combined, this is a spectacle about as rare as Halley's Comet.

The reason for the extraordinary occurrence is very simple: the Palestinians have just been admitted to UNESCO as a member state, and this is their first time taking advantage of the World Heritage procedure, which is governed in its initial stages by experts who are non-political — instead of by the very political 195 governments, most of whom join the automatic UN majority that rubber-stamps Arab resolutions.

While there's no question that holy places are worthy heritage sites, the experts' complete rejection of the Palestinian allegations underscores the unfortunate manner in which President Mahmoud Abbas is improperly politicizing a vital process for protecting the world's most historic cultural monuments.

Remarkably, today's CNN report, which took pains to portray the nomination in a strictly positive light, failed to mention anywhere that the Palestinian submission — its first nomination to the World Heritage List since UNESCO voted to admit "Palestine" as a member in October 2011 — was completely rejected by the professional body charged with evaluating country applications.

In its submission, the Palestinians claimed that "the Israeli occupation," which is "hampering the supply of appropriate materials," creates an "emergency situation" that needs to be addressed by "an emergency measure."

Yet a comprehensive investigation and report by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) — a Paris-based entity that advises the World Heritage Committee on which nominated properties to list — said the very opposite.

"[T]he Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage route in Bethlehem, Palestine should not be inscribed on the World Heritage List on an emergency basis," said the experts.

"ICOMOS does not consider that the conditions required by paragraph 161 of the Operational Guidelines are fully met, concerning damage or serious and specific dangers to the Church of the Nativity that make its condition an emergency that needs to be addressed by the World Heritage Committee with immediate action necessary for the survival of the property."

ICOMOS found that, contrary to the Palestinian submission now before the UNESCO committee, the Church of the Nativity was neither "severely damaged," nor "under imminent threat".

There was no "immediate action... necessary for the survival of the property". Despite the Palestinian claims, Israel was not found to be a major obstacle to the preservation of the Church of the Nativity.

In fact, the report pointed out that the church's roof — said to be at greatest risk — was repaired "most recently in 1990, when works were implemented by the Israeli military authorities."

Accordingly, ICOMOS suggested that the PA "resubmit the nomination in accordance with normal procedures for nomination."

Nevertheless, when the 21-nation World Heritage Committee meets in St. Petersburg, from June 24 to July 6, it is still liable to find that the "Birthplace of Jesus: the Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage route, Bethlehem" is under some urgent danger and therefore worthy of special UN protection — a declaration that would only further inflame the region.

UN Watch is a non-governmental organization based in Geneva whose mandate is to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter. Visit the website at

To Go To Top


Posted by Arutz Sheva, June 13, 2012

 This article was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and is archived at 2D90700DA91FBE94B056B0C882B44C4E.htm

The expansion of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria is the most "urgent" problem in the Mideast, according to European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

She said in a debate on the Middle East at the European Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg this week that ending the Palestinian Authority-Israeli disagreement regarding sovereignty over Judea and Samaria remains a "key priority and fundamental to EU interest."

Iran's nuclear weapons program, which Tehran denies exists, and Syria' documented massacre of men, women and children opposing the Assad regime, took the back seat to the regions' problems that must be settled immediately.

Ashton has been an active opponent of Israeli sovereignty over any parts of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria that were restored to the country in the Six-Day War in 1967.

She did condemn recent missile attacks on Israel from Gaza, but she otherwise hammered on what she called "illegal settlement expansion."

As for the future of Jerusalem, she stated that the capital "must be shared between the two nations as part of any two state agreement."

After establishing the "settlements" as the issue of priority, she described the "sickening" violence of Syrian regime. Ashton defended Kofi Annan's six-point plan to end the violence in Syria despite Syrian President Bashar Assad's refusal to honor several ceasefire agreements and despite the failure of United Nations observers to travel freely throughout the country to survey damage and Syrian army offensives.

She argued that the diplomatic approach "remains the best option."

To Go To Top


Posted by Sergio HaDaR Tezza, June 12, 2012

 This article was written by Jonathan Tobin and is archived at

A new survey of the Jewish population in the Greater New York area contradicts the conventional wisdom about the subject. It has long been assumed that any portrait of American Jews must tell us a story about an aging, liberal population that is rapidly assimilating. But, as the New York Times reports, the latest results show that the population of the largest center of Jewish life outside of Israel is actually growing.

The survey's estimate of New York City's Jewish community pegs it at about 1.1 million, with 1.54 million being counted when you include the surrounding suburban counties on Long Island and Westchester (Jews in Northern New Jersey who would also be considered part of Greater New York were not counted). Of even greater import is that the rapid expansion of fervently-Orthodox and Hasidic Jewry are the sole reason for this population growth.

By contrast, the numbers of Jews who identity with the heretofore much larger non-Orthodox movements have declined precipitately. The only other sector that is growing is made up of those Jews who reject all the denominations or eschew religion entirely.

If, as the survey tells us, 40 percent of Jews in New York City and 74 percent of all Jewish children are Orthodox, then this must inform our conclusions not only about what American Jews believe but also about its future. When combined with the nearly one-third of Jews who are abandoning Jewish identity altogether, this paints a picture of an American Jewish population that is comprised of two ships passing each other in the night — one becoming increasingly Orthodox and the other on the brink of not being Jewish at all.

Because the Orthodox have radically different views on political issues from those of the non-Orthodox as well as generally identifying more thoroughly with Israel, this will inevitably alter the political balance of the community. Though the numbers may be different elsewhere in the country, with about one-third of American Jewry located in Greater New York, there's little doubt this means the Jewish community of the future will be far less liberal.

More than 20 years ago, the organized Jewish world was shaken by the results of the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey. It painted a sobering picture of an aging and shrinking community, but the number that galvanized discussion about the results was 52 percent. That was the survey's estimate of the number of Jews marrying outside their faith and constituted a stunning rise above previous studies on the subject. Some experts, including Steven M. Cohen (the leader of the group who conducted the current survey about Greater New York), who later wrote that a more accurate estimate would have put the figure at 41 percent, disputed that figure.

But whether it was 41 or 52 percent, there was no longer any doubt about the fact that the American Jews were undergoing a radical change. More to the point, the impact of such a high intermarriage rate as well as other indications that much of Jewry was rapidly assimilating and thereby shedding their Jewish identity, would ultimately lead to a very different looking community in the future.

These numbers scared Jewish organizations badly. But much of the concern was wrongly focused on a symptom — intermarriage — rather than the cause of the problem that was rooted in a communal culture that pinned identity on external factors such as memory of the Holocaust and support for Israel rather than on building identity via education.

Nevertheless, the furor about intermarriage was enough to cause Jewish philanthropic groups to begin to focus their efforts more on causes that promoted "continuity," fearing a future in which a dominant liberal American Jewish identity would find itself on the verge of extinction.

But 20 years later, it is more than obvious that the demographic chickens have already come home to roost for liberal Jewry. As the new study points out, even as the numbers of Orthodox Jews grow by leaps and bounds, Jewish observance is declining among the non-Orthodox. While nearly half of young Jewish adults in the region have a attended a Jewish day school of some kind, most of those who do not identity with a denomination aren't giving their kids any sort of Jewish education.

And it should also be noted that half of the non-Orthodox who marry have a spouse who is not Jewish. Because studies have shown us that the children of intermarriage are far less likely to get a Jewish education or to marry a Jew, the ominous conclusions to be drawn from these numbers are obvious.

But above all, this means the Jewish community of the future will be even less politically and religiously liberal. The assumption that Jewish life could be built on a largely secular lifestyle in which liberal politics would provide a substitute for faith was as foolish as the notion that it could persist on identification with the Yiddish language or certain ethnic foods. The assumption that most American Jews will always be secular liberals is a myth that has just been exploded.

Sergio Tessa can be reached at

To Go To Top


Posted by The International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation, June 12, 2012



100,000 Euros to any person or institution that provides credible information leading to scientific identification and repatriation of Raoul Wallenberg back home

We would like to receive your comments on this news:

To any person or entity that will provide credible information leading to the scientific identification and repatriation of Raoul Wallenberg and Vilmos Langfelder back home:

The International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation (IRWF), a global-reach NGO devoted to research to preserve and divulge the legacy of Raoul Wallenberg and of many other saviors, has instituted a 100,000 Euros reward to any person or entity coming forward with reliable information concerning the whereabouts of Raoul Wallenberg and Vilmos Langfelder.

Wallenberg, the young Swedish diplomat who saved thousands of innocents lives in Budapest during the Holocaust, was arrested by the Soviet forces back on January 17th., 2012, together with his driver, Vilmos Langfelder. Ever since, their fate and whereabouts are shrouded in mystery.

For this specific reward, the IRWF has secured a special earmarked donation from a donor who requires remaining anonymous.

The underlying purpose of this campaign is to bring closure to this tragic event which remains as an open wound even today, 67 years later. This year, the world marks Raoul Wallenberg's 100th birthday.

Based on the information available, the IRWF is convinced that if Wallenberg and Langfelder had indeed been murdered while in Soviet custody, clear historical records should be available but are still inaccessible due to the Russian authorities' refusal to allow unfettered access to scholars and researchers.

The reward will be given at the sole discretion of the IRWF, after having been satisfied all the pertinent conditions and requirements, including positive DNA identification of both Raoul Wallenberg and Vilmos Langfelder and their repatriation to Sweden.

"Raoul saved scores of lives but could not save himself. To shed definitive light on his fate is the least we can do those committed to his legacy, an exemplary life at the service of the values of solidarity and civic courage", Eduardo Eurnekian and Baruch Tenembaum, Chairman and Founder respectively of the IRWF, stated.

This campaing follows previous worldwide intitiatives launched by the IRWF, such as the the gathering of more than 20,000 signatures for a petition to the Russian authorities to provide answers as to Wallenberg's fate and whereabouts, or the request to Heads of State to support the quest for information. Any information received will be treated in utmost confidentiality. The IRWF reserves the right to revert to incoming enquiries at its sole discretion. The public is requested to refrain from sending general or unsubstantiated information. Only solid pieces of information shall be considered.

Please contact us at:

34 East 67 Street
New York, NY 10061

Tel: + 1-212-737-3275
Fax: + 1-212-6356262

Baruch Tenembaum is the founder of The International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation and Eduardo Eurnekian serves as its Chairman. Visit the IRWF website at

To Go To Top


Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, June 12, 2012

This is a book review by Raymond Ibrahim of America and the Battle of Ideas across the Islamic World (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2010. 364pp/) authored by Philip Smucker. It is archived at Raymond Ibrahim is with the Middle East Quarterly and is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

My Brother, My Enemy, being true to its namesake, takes a fraternal, even emotional, approach to understanding the conflict between the United States and the Muslim world, based on the author's travels and interviews in the Middle East.

While Smucker, a foreign journalist for publications including U.S. News and World Report and Time, appears sincere in his search for peaceful solutions, he is ultimately too ideologically driven for this book to have much value. All the classic leftist bromides are here: The notion that an "Islamo-fascist" movement is "a mirage, a false specter created out of our own fears"; with proper cooperation, Hamas might "morph into something far more peaceful in the future"; a two-state solution will not only solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, it will destroy al-Qaeda and radicalism; Fort Hood killer Nidel Hasan is misunderstood and was primarily motivated by a sense of moral outrage.

Smucker's biases are sometimes more subtle: In a paragraph describing the worship of Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Jerusalem, the last are portrayed straightforwardly while less-than-dignified depictions are reserved for Christian pilgrims "huffing and perspiring fanatically" and Jews who "bob up and down" at the Western Wall. The author's apologies for Islam lead him amateurishly to quote and comment on the Qur'an and Islamic history, portraying, for instance, Muslim-dominated Spain in the medieval era as nearly as tolerant as modern-day America.

Smucker appears to be motivated by noble sentiments: "Indeed, my work on My Brother, My Enemy has reaffirmed a basic principle I always knew to be true: 'Love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great and you will be sons of the most high' [Luke 6:35]." While such counsel may be noble for an individual's conscience, it is disastrous as state policy.

In the end, Smucker's "brotherly" advice is being preached to the wrong audience. Much of the Muslim world scoffs at the notion that the infidel is a "brother" and sees him only as a misguided enemy. Surely it is in greater need of such advice than the West.

Contact Raymond Ibrahim at

To Go To Top


Posted by Sergio Hadar Tezza, June 12, 2012

This article is posted by Carl in Jerusalem and is archived at

dennis ross at j street
dennis ross at J Street

Dennis Ross, former President Bill Clinton's top adviser on the Oslo Accords, admits in his book that he urged Clinton to double cross Prime Minister Netanyahu at Wye River in 1998, and keep Jonathan Pollard in jail as political barter. This despite the fact that Ross did not actually believe that Pollard was a spy.

Excerpts from the book The Missing Peace, cited by the Justice for Jonathan Pollard organization, include Ross' relating conversations he had with Clinton, who told him that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu wanted Pollard's release in return for concessions in the Wye Agreeement with Yasser Arafat.

Ross wrote, "Pollard, while working as a civilian intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy, had spied for Israel, sharing highly classified materials."

Several pages later, Ross unapologetically admitted his role in keeping Pollard in prison.

He wrote that after Clinton approached at Wye for a private conversation, "I assumed that he wanted to talk about where my private discussions stood with Bibi and [Palestinian Authority official Mahmoud] Dahlan.... He wanted to talk about releasing Jonathan Pollard."

"'Is it a big political issue in Israel? Will it help Bibi?'

"'Yes,' I replied, because he is considered a soldier for Israel and 'there is an ethos in Israel that you never leave a soldier behind in the field.' But if you want my advice, I continued, I would not release him now.

"'It would be a huge payoff for Bibi; you don't have many like this in your pocket. I would save it for permanent status. You will need it later, don't use it now.'"

Ross also wrote that he was in favor of freeing Pollard because "he had received a harsher sentence than others who had committed comparable crimes" and that he "preferred not tying his release to any agreement."

However, politics overcame humanitarian concerns. "If that was what we were going to do," he added, "then I favored saving it for permanent status."

Clinton told Ross he was pessimistic about solving the stalemate in the "peace process" and that, according to Ross, "I don't think we can afford to wait, and if Pollard is the key to getting it done now, we should do it."

An agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority never was achieved. The Oslo Accords literally blew up two years later with the beginning of the Second Intifada, also known as the Oslo War. Pollard remains in prison.

Ross' book also substantiates statements by Netanyahu that he did everything possible to release Pollard at the Wye talks. The book also reveals the American government's disregard of Netanyahu.

Clinton "told me Bibi wasn't going to sign the deal unless he released Pollard," Ross wrote. "He said he'd made concessions on the prisoners based on the assumption that he would have Pollard and on that basis could sell prisoners, indeed, could sell the whole deal..."

"The President then asked what he should do. I asked him. 'Did you make a commitment to release Pollard? If you did, you have to release him.' The President swore he had made no promises.... I then said, if you did not make a promise to him, you should not give in to this.

"'This is Bibi's problem and it is not tenable. Is he going to forgo a deal that enhances Israel's security, breaks the stalemate on peace, and gives the process a major push so he can have Pollard? That is not sustainable in Israel. He can't do it, and you can't give in to this..."

"Look, I know Bibi wants this and probably believes he needs this, but he can't forgo the deal over Pollard. This is a bluff and you have to call it."

Netanyahu finally relented, accepting a promise from Clinton that he would "review" the Pollard case.

How much longer does Jonathan Pollard have to sit in jail as 'political barter' for a deal that will never happen?

May the name of the wicked Dennis Ross rot... along with that gigolo Clinton....

P.S. to Justice4Jonathan Pollard: Why did you guys wait so long to release this? Surely you didn't think people like me were going to spend the money to read Ross' book, did you? David K - what happened?

Sergio Tessa can be reached at

To Go To Top


Posted by Roberta Dzubow, June 12, 2012

 This article was written by George Jochnowitz and is archived at

Which is worse, being trapped under rubble after an earthquake and left to die, or being rescued by Israelis? A horrifying earthquake hit Pakistan on October 8th, 2005. On October 9th, the government of Pakistan still didn't seem to know whether to accept aid from Israel, according to a news story in the Jerusalem Post's online edition entitled "Pakistan snubs Israel aid offers" (October 9). Israel had offered to send assistance to help the victims of the most recent earthquake in Kashmir. There was no immediate reply.

Time is of the essence in rescue operations, and Israelis are skilled at digging people out of fallen buildings. Israel has sent large-scale assistance in the past, after earthquakes in northwestern Turkey in 1999 and in western India in 2001. Pakistan, which appealed for help from the nations of the world, agreed to accept aid from American Jews, according to a news story in the New York Times dated October 12th. Finally, on October 15th, Pakistan responded to Israel's offer by saying the aid would be accepted if it was "channeled through the United Nations, the Red Cross, or donated to a relief fund," according to a news item in Haaretz entitled "Pakistan welcomes Israeli aid, but through third party."

Israeli aid has been refused before. In November of 1970, there were floods in what was then East Pakistan and is now Bangladesh. Israel offered to help. Pakistan turned down the offer: "While the Mogen David Adom was preparing a shipment of medicines and first-aid supplies in November for relief of the Pakistani disaster victims, the International Red Cross informed the Israel agency that Pakistan refused to accept any aid from Israel" (reported in Jewish Currents, February 1971, p. 13, by Louis Harap). The story attracted very little attention then and is forgotten today. No one was surprised or even interested in the fact that it was more important to Pakistan to make an anti-Israel gesture than to save the lives of its citizens. Anti-Zionism, particularly in the Islamic world, was taken for granted.

Perhaps things are changing. The calls for the destruction of Israel made by Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, led U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to cancel a trip to Iran. This is especially interesting in light of the fact that an earlier president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, had made a similar statement in the annual Al-Quds (Jerusalem) sermon given on December 14, 2001. Rafsanjani, then president, said that if one day the world of Islam came to possess nuclear weapons, Israel could be destroyed. He added that the use of a nuclear bomb against Israel would leave nothing standing, but that retaliation, no matter how severe, would merely damage the world of Islam (reported in MEMRI Special Dispatch Series No. 325).

In other words, Rafsanjani was saying that Iran should turn itself into a suicide bomb — a nuclear suicide bomb. No one noticed.

On September 14th, Pakistan's Prime Minister Pervez Musharraf shook hands with Israel's Ariel Sharon. This followed a meeting on September 1, when Pakistan's foreign minister, Khursheed Kasuri, met with Israel's foreign minister, Silvan Shalom. Kasuri agreed to be photographed shaking hands with his Israeli counterpart. Both ministers linked the change to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. Pakistani officials, anticipating condemnation from other Islamic nations and from its own citizens, made it clear that full diplomatic relations would have to wait until there was an independent Palestinian state. Would Pakistan have dared to abandon its anti-Zionism merely because of an Israeli action that can be interpreted as a step toward the establishment of a Palestinian state? It seems unlikely. Israeli gestures of generosity have never modified Pakistan's hostility in the past. Perhaps Israel's arms deals with India motivated Pakistan to try to establish similar deals.

Why is shaking hands less controversial than accepting aid? Perhaps shaking hands can viewed as simple courtesy; accepting aid, on the other hand, puts one in the embarrassing position of acknowledging that your enemy is strong enough to help you and generous enough to do so. But then, why should Pakistan consider Israel an enemy at all?

The power of anti-Zionism is a great mystery. Why has the separation fence that Israel is building attracted so much condemnation? The world has many walls and other barriers that exist for the sake of security. The most heavily fortified is the border between North and South Korea. Then there are walls within the city of Belfast separating Catholic and Protestant neighborhoods. An article by Abigail Cutler in the March 2005 issue of The Atlantic entitled "The List: Security Fences" lists ten such walls. City walls have existed throughout history. A country, China, erected the Great Wall, the longest in the world, in an attempt to defend itself against invaders from the north.

There is only one wall, however, that has ever been condemned by the International Court of Justice as a violation of international law: the barrier Israel is building to defend itself against terrorism. There is only one wall that has been condemned by the Evangelic Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). On August 13, 2005, the national assembly of the ELCA voted 228 to 289 to adopt a resolution entitled "Peace Not Walls: Stand for Justice in the Holy Land."

The United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. have gone a step beyond the Lutherans. The United Church of Christ voted on July 5th to divest from Israel. The Presbyterians, on August 5th, voted to press American companies not to provide technology to Israel that might be used in the occupation of Palestinian territories, and that if the companies did not comply, the church would take a vote to divest its stock in them. The United Church of Christ, the Presbyterians and the Lutherans don't have to fear Israel's sales of arms to India. They have not modified their anti-Zionist resolutions. Their position is more anti-Israel than Pakistan's. Only the Presbyterians have continued to speak of divestment. The Episcopal Church "stepped back" from actual divestment, as reported in The Jewish Week on October 14th (" 'Turning Point' Seen In Divestment Campaign"). Nevertheless, the Episcopal Church continues to condemn Israel's security fence.

These condemnations took place after Israel had announced its plans to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, in a unilateral concession designed to promote peace. According to a column by Meir Shlomo in the August 19th issue of Metro, the withdrawal means that "5,000 Israeli children would need to find new schools, 10,000 people employed in agriculture would need new jobs, graves would be uprooted, and synagogues would be dismantled—costing Israel about $2 billion."

North Korea not only has a wall, it is also the most repressive country on earth. Furthermore, North Korea, according to an article by Matthew Quirk entitled "The World in Numbers: The New Opium War" in the same issue of The Atlantic, "has required collective farms to set aside land for growing poppies, despite famines." The International Court of Justice doesn't care about the famine or the export of opium. There isn't a church in the world that objects to North Korea's policies.

Among North Korea's policies is anti-Zionism. Since the Korean war ended, North Korea has sent its forces abroad to fight only once, against Israel. According to an interview in the August 15th edition of, Abraham Rabinovich, author of a book entitled The Yom Kippur War, "The Egyptians had a North Korean fighter squadron flying cover over air bases."

The difference is anti-Zionism, perhaps the most powerful political idea in the world today. It is an irrational hate movement. Some of its adherents go so far as to call for genocide. For example, an editorial in the New York Sun informs us that a Hezbollah statement in 1992 vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth" ["Nasrallah's Nonsense," March 11, 2005]. More recently, Pranay Gupte reported in the Sun that Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, spits on the ground when he says the word for "Jew" ["Blood Libels In the Sand Of Lebanon," March 14, 2005]. Few people know about this. Fewer care.

Many academics, especially in Europe, are members of a de facto Marxist-Islamic alliance, a union of people who agree on absolutely nothing except their opposition to Israel and the United States. In fact, Andrei S. Markovits, writing in the Winter 2005 issue of Dissent, says, "A new European (and American) commonality for all lefts — a new litmus test of progressive politics — seems to have developed: anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism (though not anti-Semitism, or at least not yet)." It is, of course, possible to oppose the idea of a Jewish state without hating Jews. Such views seemed to make sense before World War II. But today, anti-Zionism has come to mean acts like the bombing of the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires on July 18, 1994, where 85 people died. The people were Argentinians, not Israelis, although many of them were Jewish.

An example of the mysterious power of anti-Zionism occurred in 1972, when the Japanese Red Army sent four of its members to Lod Airport in Israel to die for the sake of killing Jews. They got off the plane and began shooting, not knowing who their victims would be. Three of the Red Army members were shot and killed; the fourth survived. As it turned out, more than half the people they killed were Puerto Rican Christian pilgrims. The Japanese Red Army, if they thought about the question at all, most have known that some of the victims of their random shooting would not be Israelis or Jews. One assumes they didn't care. One takes the risk of killing innocent Puerto Ricans in order to kill innocent Jews.

Leftists support women's rights and gay rights. They don't know that Israel's Golda Meir was the first woman to be head of government in history who was neither the widow (like Sirimavo Bandarinaike) nor the daughter (like Indira Gandhi) of a previous head of government. They don't know that Israel has never had restrictions against gays in its armed forces, nor that Tel Aviv has an annual gay rights parade. They don't seem to know about honor murders of women nor about the imprisonment or even execution of homosexuals in Islamic countries. Ignorance is bliss.

Anti-Semitism is another political movement that is stronger than anyone can explain. Before Hitler, Germany, the land that gave us music and higher education, was arguably the most civilized country on earth. Anti-Semitism changed all that. Anti-Zionism doesn't have to be anti-Semitism, but it is the child of anti-Semitism. Its mysterious power is inherited from the equally mysterious power of anti-Semitism. Is it possible that Pakistan's meeting with an Israeli official is evidence that things are changing? Will Pakistan ever acknowledge that it is accepting aid from Israel? Perhaps there is hope.

George Jochnowitz was born in New York City, in 1937. He became aware of different regional pronunciations when he was six, and he could consciously switch accents as a child. He got his Ph.D. in linguistics from Columbia University and taught linguistics at the College of Staten Island, CUNY. His area of specialization was Jewish languages, in particular, Judeo-Italian dialects. As part of a faculty-exchange agreement with Hebei University in Baoding, China, he was in China during the Tiananmen Massacre. He can be reached at

To Go To Top


Posted by Barbara Sommer, June 12, 2012

David Frankenthal requests:


Please write to the State Attorney General to request she impose California State Law and remove the Boycott Israel website from CSUN's computers. For full details please check out AMCHA at california-attorney-general-regarding-anti-semitic-web-pages/

Below is my letter. Please feel free to copy it with your own name or write your own letter.

Kudos to the AMCHA founders Tammi Rossman-Benjamin and Leila Beckwith for their brave and determined struggle to fight anti-Israel extremism and anti-semitism on UC campuses.

Thanks and B'Hatzlacha.


Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Subject: Removing Boycott Israel Site from Taxpayer Funded CSUN Computers

Dear Attorney General Harris and Deputy Attorney General Haytayan:

I was very disappointed to see that you have ignored the deep concerns of California's Jewish students and the State's huge Friends of Israel community by refusing to impose the State's laws on extremist anti-Israel academic Prof. Klein at CSUN who is misusing mine and other taxpayers' funds by disseminating extremist anti-Israel propaganda and advocating a boycott of Israel, a US ally, on CSUN computers. Prof. Klein's activities are clear violations of Education Code 89005.5 and California Government Code 8314.

California Education Code 89005.5 provides that no one shall use the name of any California State University campus for political activity, including "propaganda" and "boycott."; and

California Government Code 8314 states that it is unlawful for any state employee to use public resources for "personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law." Furthermore, you have apparently given no reason for doing so.

I respectfully request that you state on what basis you have refused to determine that Prof. Klein's CSUN-hosted "Boycott Israel Resource" is not a violation of California law?

Thank you.


David Frankenthal

Los Angeles, CA

Contact Barbara Sommer at

To Go To Top


Posted by Alexander Dymshits, June 12, 2012

In an unprecedented display of bi-partisanship, a "Dear Colleague" letter is being circulated in the U.S. House of Representatives in support of clemency for Jonathan Pollard. Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY) and Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ), both of whom are veteran members of the House of Representatives, are soliciting signatures on a letter to President Obama, which urges the President to commute Pollard's sentence to time served.

Pollard has spent more than 26 years of an unprecedented life sentence languishing in a federal prison for passing classified information to Israel, an ally of the United States. The median sentence for this offense is 2 to 4 years. No one else in the history of the United States has ever received a life sentence for this offense.

The letter from Congressman Engel, who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee and is the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, and Congressman Smith, who serves as a senior member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, is chairman of its Africa, Global Health and Human Rights Subcommittee, and chairs the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, marks the first time Congressional Democrats and Republicans have joined forces in an effort to secure Pollard's release. In November 2010, Congressman Barney Frank spearheaded a letter to President Obama that was signed by 39 members of Congress, all of whom were Democrats, which asked the President to commute Jonathan Pollard's sentence.

The "Dear Colleague" letter comes as Israeli President Shimon Peres visits the United States, where he is scheduled to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Obama. President Peres, who has already issued a formal request to President Obama to release Jonathan Pollard, has pledged to personally raise the issue with President Obama when the two meet. 70,000 Jews in Israel, the U.S. and around the world have signed a petition which urges Peres to use his influence and standing in Washington to ensure that Pollard is immediately released.

The Committee to Free Pollard urges people to contact their Congressional representatives and request that they sign onto this historic bi-partisan letter. In addition, the Committee encourages people to contact Congressmen Engel and Smith and thank them for spearheading this important letter to the President.

Numerous American leaders have called for a commutation of Pollard's sentence, including former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger; former Secretary of State George Shultz; former CIA Director James Woolsey; former Attorney General Michael Mukasey; former National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane; former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb; former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum; former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Senator Dennis DeConcini; former Senator David Durenberger, who served as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time of Pollard's conviction; former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who served as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee at the time of Jonathan Pollard's sentencing; and Senators John McCain and Charles Schumer.

Pollard has repeatedly expressed his remorse publicly and in private in letters to many Presidents and others. His health has deteriorated significantly during his more than two-and-a-half decades in prison.

Despite the fact that Pollard entered into a plea agreement and fully cooperated with the prosecution in his case, he nonetheless received a life sentence and a recommendation that he never be paroled, which was in complete violation of the plea agreement he had reached with the government.

The following is the text of the "Dear Colleague" letter being circulated in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Engel and Smith, as well as the proposed text of the Congressional letter to President Obama.

Grant Clemency to Jonathan Pollard

From: The Committee on Foreign Affairs - Minority Staff

Date: 6/11/2012

Dear Colleague:

We invite you to cosign the attached letter to President Obama asking him to use his power of clemency and commute Jonathan Pollard's prison sentence to time served. Mr. Pollard broke the law and deserved to be punished for his crime. However, his health is reportedly declining - he has recently been hospitalized for kidney and gallstone problems. It is also clear that Mr. Pollard, who has already been in prison for 27 years, has served a disproportionately severe sentence. A number of people convicted of spying for other countries, ranging from the former Soviet Union to South Korea, have been given lighter sentences than Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Pollard has expressed remorse for his illegal actions, and we believe the time has come for the President to grant him clemency. If you would like to cosign this letter or you have any questions, please have your staff contact Jason Steinbaum with the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere at x66684 or Mark Milosch with the Helsinki Commission at x51901.


Eliot L. Engel
Member of Congress

Christopher H. Smith
Member of Congress

Text of Letter follows

The President

The White House

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write to urge you to exercise your power of clemency and commute Jonathan Pollard's prison sentence to time served.

What Mr. Pollard did was wrong. He broke the law and deserved to be punished for his crime. Mr. Pollard has now served more than 25 years in prison, many of which in solitary confinement, for his actions. There is no doubt that he has paid a heavy price, and, from the standpoint of either punishment or deterrence, we believe he has been imprisoned long enough.

Mr. Pollard has expressed remorse for his actions, and his health is reportedly declining - he has recently been hospitalized for kidney and gallstone problems. It is also clear that Mr. Pollard has served a disproportionately severe sentence. A number of people convicted of spying for other countries, ranging from the former Soviet Union to South Korea, have been given lighter sentences than Mr. Pollard. We would not expect that Mr. Pollard would be treated any better than anyone else who has committed similar acts, but we certainly do not believe he should be treated any worse.

For all of these reasons we join our voices to those who see clemency as an act of compassion justified on humanitarian grounds and for purposes of fairness and equity. We, therefore, again urge you to grant clemency to Jonathan Pollard so that he can be released for time served.

Aaron Troodler
Paul Revere Public Relations, LLC
Aaron Troodler

This article is archived at

To Go To Top


Posted by Steven Plaut, June 12, 2012

The world media and the Israeli media are all a-buzz about a Forbes magazine (Hebrew) report about the supposed super-wealthy Rabbis of Israel, the Rabbinic tycoons and Kabbalistic Plutocrats. Leftwing media, from Haaretz to the Forward, are having a field day mocking the "Rabbi multi-millionaires." At the top of the Forbes list is Rabbi Pinhas Abuhatzeira, supposedly having 1.3 million shekels in wealth. A second different Abuhatzeira is said to have 350 million shekels. Eleven other people (including two other Abuhatzeiras) appear on the Forbes list of "Rabbi Multi-Millionaires," at least two of whom are not rabbis at all. One is a widow of a rabbi and one is a notorious pseudo-rabbi.

The Forbes story and the feeding frenzy by the anti-Orthodox media is providing enough anti-Semitic fodder to feed the world's haters of Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jewry for many generations to come, and I imagine that every Neo-Nazi web site on earth already carries the story of the Rabbinic Tycoons.

The first thing to emphasize is that the entire Forbes story is fiction. While the internet is filled with citations of the "findings" in the report by the Israeli local offices of Forbes, almost no one has read it. The report is available in Hebrew only here: and although the web is filled with English language "summaries" of the findings. And the entire report fails to describe the sources for its data and information. That is correct — study the report as you will but you will not find a single stipulation of the sources for the data in the story.

Clearly Forbes and its writers did NOT have access to the tax returns within Israel or from other countries for the Rabbis in question. Those are all confidential and protected by privacy laws. One can get data on wealth holdings of individuals in Israel when it is in concentrated form in terms of stock holdings. That is, if a person holds more than 5% of the shares of a company, this is public information. But I doubt any of the rabbis in the Forbes list own much, if any, shares of stock, so this cannot be the source for the numbers.

SO where did the Israeli Forbes reporters get their data? The answer seems to be that they made them up. I suspect the Forbes numbers have no source at all other than the imagination of some Forbes writers. Any partial data they might have stumbled across were not for the personal incomes or wealth of the rabbis in question but for the entire network of religious institutions with which those rabbis are associated or whose resources they oversee.

Some of the more charismatic rabbis in Israel are associated with dozens of schools, yeshivas, charity funds, funds of contributions that they oversee for purposes of distributing support payments to yeshiva students and other members of their "courts," and so on. To represent these funds as the personal property of the rabbi in question is a bit like claiming that the entire multi-trillion dollar budget of the United States is all Barack Obama's property. The Lubavitch movement does not appear in the Forbes list; but because its global movement budget is enormous, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe must be one of the wealthiest people in the world (and I do not want to debate those fringe Chabadniks who insist he is not even dead).

Forbes evidently never bothered to try to seek out evidence that the rabbi "owners" of the "wealth" in its tables were leading lives of splendor and luxury. In fact, I suspect that many of the rabbinic tycoons on the list live in Spartan simplicity and modest accommodations.

The writer of the Forbes fiction is one Shimon Ipergan, who is a minor scandal-chasing journalist with no credentials in business or economics. He has himself been the target of criticism for biased and misleading journalism, including by the Latma web site (see this, albeit in Hebrew: He gained a bit of notoriety when his own home in Ashkelon was damaged by a Hamas rocket ( Because he lives in Israel's south he seems to have had a special animosity and passion for painting some of the Negev's more charismatic rabbis as crooks.

Ipergan seems to have composed his list in part as a part of some personal vendetta. One of the supposedly super wealthy rabbis on his list is himself named Ipergan, Rabbi Yaakov (Yisrael) Ipergan (sometimes spelled Ifergan), a mystic of sorts based in Netivot, better known by his nickname "The Rontgen" or Xray Rabbi. (Wilhelm Rontgen was the fellow who invented the Xray machine in 1895.) His nickname comes from the claims that he has a sort of magical Xray vision and can see through things and predict the future. I do not know how the Forbes writer is related to the Rontgen or if he is. But I suspect his entire "report" was motivated by some sort of personal score he wanted to settle with this other Ipergan or this Rabbi's followers or opponents. For the record, I myself consider this Rontgen a charlatan. I have seen his center in Netivot. There is a nice yeshiva and synagogue he has built there. I did not see any fancy mansion in which he himself is housed. The main spending extravaganza by the Xray rabbi was to build a shrine around the grave of his own father in Netivot. His father's name was (drumroll) Shimon Ifergan.

There is a lot of bad blood between the Ipergans/Ifergans and some of the other Moroccan Jewish "kabbalist" charismatic rabbis, some of whom also are on the Forbes list, and it is possible that the Forbes team accumulated their "data" just by asking each of these opponents to bad-mouth the finances of their rivals. In particular the Xray Rabbi is involved in a Sicilian-style vendetta with the Abuhatzeiras, a rival dynasty of Moroccan Jewish "kabbalists." (See this delicious
story: The fact that no fewer than four Abuhatzeiras appear on the Forbes list might indicate that the entire list was invented by Ipergan as part of this vendetta of the Ipergan clan against the Abuhatzeiras.

So how do we really know the story is fiction? Because Forbes and Ipergan provided no information at all about the sources for their data regarding the wealth of these rabbis and "rabbis." .

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is

To Go To Top


Posted by Midenise, June 12, 2012

This article comes from the Bare Naked Islam website and is archived at expose-obama-for-the-liar-he-is-about-stuxnet/

It isn't exactly a secret that the Israelis have been behind the Stuxnet computer worm from the start. Israeli officials who were placed at risk by the Obama administration's leaks about the Stuxnet virus are refuting Barack Obama's lies that the cyber-weapon was jointly developed by the U.S. and Israel. Rather, they say, Israeli intelligence first started developing cyberspace warfare against Iran, only convincing the U.S. — with some difficulty — to join in. The Israelis allege that Obama claimed credit for Stuxnet to boost his re-election campaign.

The source for the new claim is Yossi Melman, a journalist for Israel's left-wing Ha'aretz daily (via Israel Matzav).

The Israeli officials actually told me a different version. They said that it was Israeli intelligence that began, a few years earlier, a cyberspace campaign to damage and slow down Iran's nuclear intentions. And only later did they manage to convince the USA to consider a joint operation — which, at the time, was unheard of. Even friendly nations are hesitant to share their technological and intelligence resources against a common enemy...

Yet my Israeli sources understand the sensitivity and the timing of the issue and are not going to be dragged into a battle over taking credit. "We know that it is the presidential election season," one Israeli added, "and don't want to spoil the party for President Obama and his officials, who shared in a twisted and manipulated way some of the behind-the-scenes secrets of the success of cyberwar."

The Obama administration's pattern of leaks to mainstream media outlets — of which the Stuxnet virus is only one example--prompted bipartisan outrage from Congress and the appointment of two special prosecutors. While the leaks jeopardized U.S. national security — allegedly for the political purpose of burnishing President Obama's image as commander-in-chief — they may also have been exaggerated, if the new reports from Israel are accurate.

Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav.

To Go To Top


Posted by Jewish Policy Center, June 12, 2012

 This article was written by Shoshana Bryen and is archived at

Amid the Arab upheaval of past 18 months, a question has crept among the speeches, demonstrations, riots, elections, battles and massacres — Is Israel better off, or worse off, for the revolution among its neighbors?

Certainly Wael Ghonim of Google and the positive nature of the short-lived "Arab Spring" raised people's hopes. The West convinced itself that education and modern social media had created an Arab body politic ready for democratic governance. Very quickly, however, what we got was:

  • "Moderate" Islamists — looking less moderate every day — ruling Tunisia
  • A split in the Egyptian Parliament between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists (with "Google people" barely noticeable in the constellation)
  • A horrific war in Syria where Saudi Arabia and Qatar are arming an increasingly Islamist-looking opposition (which is what you get when they are armed by a Wahabi regime)
  • Sectarian fighting in an increasingly fragile Lebanon
  • Turkey looking increasingly stridently Islamist
  • Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations on a regular basis in Jordan
  • Governmental gridlock in Iraq with an increase in violence
  • Factional fighting in Yemen, with an overlay of al Qaeda activity and American drone strikes
  • Factional fighting in Libya and the spread of Gaddafi's arsenal across North Africa
  • A simmering rebellion in Bahrain; and, of course,
  • Iran, which is both the same as and different from, the other threats.

The last time Israel was surrounded by this much hostility was June 1967 — with the hostility directed toward Israel.

As we commemorate the 45th anniversary of the Six Day War (on the English calendar) it is hard to remember now that Israel then faced annihilation. The forces arrayed against it were staggering: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, and Morocco.

Israel, with 240,000 soldiers, 800 tanks and 300 aircraft, was facing 550,000 Arab soldiers with 2500 tanks and 950 planes.

Israel has been threatened since birth by Arab politics in all its forms. Sometimes they send their armies to do battle. Sometimes they use terrorism. Sometimes rockets. Sometimes BDS. Sometimes what threatens Israel is the instability or potential fallout from internecine Arab warfare — as in 1970 when Palestinians threatened King Hussein; and 1991, when Saddam used rockets against Israel during a war in which Israel was not involved.

Yes, concerns in the Gulf about Iran have given rise to a certain level of cooperation between Gulf States and Israel. And yes, Jordan and Egypt signed peace treaties with Israel. But even then, the Arab states have unswervingly refused to create conditions in which Israel could live as a normal neighbor. Mubarak "kept the peace treaty," but allowed rampant anti-Semitism to fester, and ensured that his people would never see peace with Israel as beneficial to Egypt. Egyptians, however, understood that their dictator was kept in place by American military assistance related to keeping the peace with Israel — making Israel and the U.S. perversely responsible for the dreadful dictatorship under which the Egyptian people suffered.

Regime changes in the Arab world are not moving from bad to good, or good to bad. From Israel's point of view, they are merely variations on the theme of Arab unwillingness to accept the State of Israel as a legitimate, permanent state in the region. Unless and until that changes, the "Arab Spring" is just another phase of the Arab war against Israel, against which Israel will have to defend itself.

To Go To Top


Posted by Bryna Berchuck, June 12, 2012

The Beauty And Joy Of Israel's Heart: Jerusalem

Palestinian Islamic Scholar Al-Yaziji: We Hope To 'Raise The Banner Of The Caliphate Over The Vatican'

(This video is archived at we-hope-to-raise-the-banner-of-the-caliphate-over-the-vatican/).

To Go To Top


Posted by Shavei Israel, June 12, 2012

Dancing around a bonfire with the Chinese Jews of Kaifeng

Dancing around Bonfire
Dancing around bonfire on L'ag B'Omer

Hebrew University student Shulamit Gershovich, our correspondent in Kaifeng, visits a traditional Chinese massage parlor every so often. About two weeks ago, her regular masseur realized she was from Israel and shared with her an amazing story: his grandmother was Jewish!

Shulamit told him that there is the small but thriving Jewish community in Kaifeng - he'd never heard of it. Since then, he has come to Shabbat services several times and has even participated in the lessons on Judaism that Shulamit gives via Skype. He has brought his son with him as well.

This is just one of the inspiring stories that emerge all the time in this far away community that is actively seeking to further its Jewish knowledge and commitment.

Bnei Menashe children sing "Guardian of Israel" in India

( videos-bnei_menashe/bnei-menashe-kids-singing-in-india/?lang=en)

Shavei Israel Chairman Michael Freund just returned from a week-long visit to the Bnei Menashe in India. While there, he captured this stirring song from a choir of Bnei Menashe children in the village of Tuila in Manipur, The composition is called "Shomer Israel" meaning "Guardian of Israel." It is even that much more moving now as some of these children may become part of the long-awaiting resumption of aliyah from India later this year.

Shavei Israel reaches out and assists Lost Tribes and Hidden Jews seeking to return to the Jewish people. Visit their website at