Countless studies corroborate the power of images on public perception, the blunt distortions created by the media editors and their reporters who crop, photoshop and alter pictures to their heart's content. The media wants the public to react in a particular manner, it is their way to mold the soft minds of the sheeple.

But sometimes, a pictures is taken and presented as is. And it speaks volumes of the state of mind of a particular person, society, or country. Two days ago, a Jew, a father of five was stabbed to death on a street corner by an Arab who he had never met before, wielding a knife, looking for a Jew to kill. After this Arab murdered this poor fellow, he engaged in a shoot out with border police officers. During the struggle, the Arab was injured and subsequently arrested.

Most international media outfits would rather ignore such a story since it is very hard to find the right words to present the incident. The Muslims and Muslim sympathizers that diligently work for Reuters and AP would have to scramble to come up with something like: "An Arab man was seriously injured by Israeli Border Police after and incident involving a Jewish settler." Yet, the pictures that did make it to the few media outlets that reported the story revealed a sadder state of affairs. For starters, a picture of a woman and a child weeping over a coffin while many religious men and women in the background are seen accompanying the family in their grief. The picture, nothing too out of the ordinary, reflects the sense of community and collective pain over the senseless killing of a father of five.

The second picture, taken at the scene shows two Israeli soldiers carrying the Arab murderer on a stretcher. One of the handling and IV bag over the injured man. This picture speaks volumes of something dark and sinister that has plagued Israeli society as a whole. What would posses Israeli Jewish young men to provide medical help to a n Arab who woke up that morning, took the biggest knife he could find and set out to kill the first Jew he encountered. This Arab monster stabbed to death a man standing at a street corner. Five children will continue to live now without their father. A Jewish woman, now a widow, had her life destroyed for no other reason than religious hatred. This Jewish woman and these Jewish children will forever know that the Arab that murdered their father in cold blood was rescued and saved by Jewish soldiers, who quickly and swiftly provided this murderer with medical care.

These soldiers have been brainwashed for so long they are convinced it is their duty to assist Arab murderers! Shimon Peres who turned 180 degrees shortly after the Yom Kippur war of 73, insisted that giving toilets and microwave ovens to Arabs would cause them to like us. So he gave and gave without limits. Today, Arabs in what thanks to Peres and his ilk is referred to as PA territory, enjoy free water, free electricity and free financial services, courtesy of Israel's taxpayers. 'Palestinians' receive free medical care in our hospitals; they are given free access and enjoy protection even as they chant 'death to Jews' and 'death to Israel'. For over forty years Israel adopted the policy of giving to Arabs unilaterally. For forty years we have been brain-washing our youth into thinking we must treat Arabs with love, respect and equality, and thus, they will respect us back, and they will love us back, and will treat us as their equals.

This pathological approach to Islamists has driven this country to a very dark place. Politicians of today continue to believe that giving in to Arab murderers is our duty. Not only deranged lunatics like Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak, but countless others are blinded by their own stupidity. Dorit Beinish and the lemming judges of Israel's Supreme Court. Tzippy Livni, Yossi Beilin, Avi Dichter, Carmi Gillon and countless others that are not fit to run a falafel stand continue to perpetuate this state of insanity that drives Israeli soldiers to act as zombies and puppets in their sick political show.

The lunatics took over the asylum. Or maybe it is I who have gone insane. What worse way to desecrate the name of God, the goodness of our country, the glory of Israel, than to capture a terrorist? Think about this for a moment: Capture a terrorist. Words that turn my stomach upside-down. And granted, there could be an exception as in the case were capturing a terrorist can lead us to information about other terrorists. But a knife-wielding Arab who seconds before killed a Jew in the street, that deserves capturing? And for what? So that he can get three meals a day, his teeth fixed, a college diploma from Open University, and shortly thereafter be released in exchange for a political concession?

It is time to clean our political and justice institutions, reform our education system and take a moment to reflect on our actions. Today thousands gathered in the center of Gaza to burn Israeli and American flags and chant for our death. 'Palestinian' leaders lauded the killer as a hero, and children were given candy to celebrate the killing of a Jewish father. Just remember that later today, they will go home and enjoy a nice warm meal, using electricity and water that we, the sheeple Jews, are paying for. But don't worry, Shimon says they will love us one day.

Zeev Shemer is the writer and the author of "Israel and the Palestinian nightmare", "Israel Redeemed" and "The Answer". He lectures for Bar Ilan University at the college's branches in the north of Israel, specializing in Zionism and comparative religion. Contact Zeeve Shemer at israel@zeevshemer.com

I made aliyah in 1984 to an Israel in many ways so different from today's that to remember is almost like time travel. Socialist Israel was, comparatively, an almost sleepy country. The bloated bureaucracy made things happen three or four times more slowly than they needed to. Indeed, not a few people told us, "You'll like it here, you won't really have to work." The job I found—English-publications editor at an institute of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem was soft and easy; "workdays" were in part drink-coffee, hang-around, shoot-the-breeze days.

In December 1987 on precisely the same day that I finished a shortened form of military training the First Intifada broke out. Even for realistic people it was a stunning display of raw, tribal, murderous hatred after twenty years in which Israel had vastly improved the economic, health, and educational levels of the Palestinian population. But it was also if one can put it this way a godsend to leftists, who now found more receptive, disconcerted, despairing ears for their message that "the occupation" was the greatest evil and ending it the key to happiness.

And it was six years later in 1993 that Israel descended into the dreadful appeasement episode known as Oslo. I guess my reality-testing mechanism was always reasonably strong; I shuddered at the sight of a storied Israeli leader, Yitzhak Rabin, shaking the hand of Arafat. Very soon the streets of the cities I'd come to love turned into a slaughterhouse. It got horrendously bad—and then, by the start of the new millennium, it got even worse, a lot worse.

And today, in 2013, as Israel turns sixty-five, both socialist Israel and appeasing Israel are for the most part blessedly memories. Let's give credit to the one figure not perfect, but indispensable most responsible for both turnabouts, Binyamin Netanyahu. For his key role in bringing about the thriving, hi-tech, powerhouse startup nation, see George Gilder's The Israel Test. And on security, while he makes verbal concessions to the left, Israel, as Netanyahu starts his third term, is a country much more realistic and unified. A leftist opposition leader like Shelly Yachimovich talks dinosaur, populist socialism but doesn't even bother polluting the airwaves with junk about peace with terrorists.

Yes, grave security threats remain in part just a function of the nasty surroundings, no different than two thousand or three thousand years ago except that meanwhile the tribalism has been further inflated by a flawed religion. And yes, dinosaurs of socialism still stalk the land cartels, robber-baron workers unions in some sectors. But overall, the joy of living in proud, self-affirmative, capitalist Israel is, well, inexpressible. If I were to concretize it in an image, I'd think of sitting by the Mediterranean at dusk in one of the coastal towns, filled with an immense sense of both vitality and peace.

David Hornik is an investor at August Capital, the author of VentureBlog, & the executive producer of The Lobby Conference. Contact David Hornik at hornikd@actcom.co.il

This is beyond belief!

Does anyone remember Barack Obama's great promise of the campaign of 2012? He did not make a promise to America nor to Americans. He did not make a promise to fellow politicians. Unlike so many of his promises, he is keeping this one. His promise was to Vladimir Putin of Russia.

What is Obama doing to keep his promise to Putin? Everyone remembers the hot mike incident in 2012 when Barack Obama pleaded with Russian President Dmitri Medvedyev to give him time until after the election. After the election, he promised Vladimir Putin, through Medvedyev, he would be more "flexible."

Now we have seen this flexibility.

Barack Obama is going to spend almost $700 million dollars of taxpayer money to buy Russian helicopters for the Afghan Air Force. But wait. Just like those TV commercials, this gets better. When Congress passed the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, it had an interesting provision. Congress included, as a part of that law a prohibition on the United States buying helicopters from Rosoboronexport, the Russian manufacturer of the Mi-17 helicopter.

Unfortunately as always happens, when such laws are passed, Congress always gives the Regime an escape hatch. The law stated that Obama could buy from Rosoboronexport if the Secretary of Defense certified it was in the interest of National Security. And of course, the Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, a man committed to destroying the US military immediately signed off on that certification.

Where do we even start with this one? (MY NOTE: Where is Hannity, Rush, Levin, O'Reilly, Megan, etc. etc. etc. on this the 'umpteenth Obama scandal???)

Congress is outraged over this with Senators and Representatives from both parties writing letters about this. Of course, this is Congress' fault for allowing a law to be written with such an escape hatch. More importantly, Americans need to be asking just what the hell the Obama Regime is doing.

Why are we spending $700 million dollars with a Russian arms manufacturer? Why are we even giving the Afghans these helicopters?

If we are going to give them helicopters, which we really shouldn't, then why not give them American made helicopters and put Americans to work? (MY NOTE: Dereliction of duty, aid and comfort to the enemy, and I am certain you can add other charges to bring against OBAMA.)

Even if we are going to give the Afghans Russian helicopters, the ones we are giving them are an old Cold War design. There are hundreds of used MI-17 helicopters floating around the world. Why are we paying to give the Afghans brand new helicopters?

In the era of the Sequester, isn't there something better we can do with $700 million? American Medicare cancer patients are being turned away from hospitals and are being denied life saving treatment because of budget cuts. The American military is being gutted to the point of ineffectiveness because of budget cuts.

Or consider this. The United States Air Force is grounding 17 squadrons because of $591 million dollars in budget cuts. Our Air Force is not able to do its mission because it lacks the money to fly but we have the money to give Afghanistan $700 million dollars in Russian helicopters.

And this is where Barack Obama thinks we should spend our money? Most people reading this story will not have heard about it. Why?

Because the Obama Propaganda Media is moving in lock step to make sure there is no bad news that might damage Obama's presidency.

This is a story that should damage him and outrage every American.

Ask your Senator or Congressman why this outrage is being allowed and take a moment to share this story with your friends.

The only way we will ever stop Obama is if the American people know what he is doing. (MY NOTE:and STOP CONGRESS, the bureaucrats from their self-appointed tyrannical despotism & corruption is to find out and then tell others what they are doing holding them accountable to the Constitution for the united States, and working to dissolve the UNITED STATES CORPORATION, replace the facade of justice under the color of law with the Law of the Land, Common Law, and voting out all incumbents for the next 5 - 6 election 2 year cycles, which will restore the 'public servant' attitude, and left those elected know WHO IS THE BOSS!!!)

HELLO Are you with me, and a few million other Americans on this.? Tell, talk with, and show others what you now know.

Contact Midenise at midenise@zahav.net.il

Sometimes it's impossible not to weep.

Yesterday morning, Evyatar Borovsky, 31, was knifed to death by a terrorist at the Tapuach Junction in Samaria. Borovsky, who lived in near by Yitzhar, was the father of five, the eldest of whom is seven.

Borovsky was praised at his funeral which was attended by thousands as an exemplary son, husband, and father, an actor, an intellectual, and a medical clown who loved to make people laugh.

"My righteous son was killed just for being Jewish," said his father, "and now five children have no father."

In this picture, you see one of his sons mourning him.

~~~~~~~~~~

Borovsky's murderer, Salam Al-Zaghal, a Palestinian Arab resident of a village near Tulkarem, approached Borovsky from behind; after stabbing him, he grabbed his gun and attempted to escape. He was apprehended following a gun fight.

According to reports, he had been released from prison just six months ago, after serving time for throwing rocks as well as Molotov cocktails.

~~~~~~~~~~

Speaking of throwing rocks...

Remember little Adelle Biton? She, her mother and two sisters were all injured in March when her mother lost control of her car after rocks were thrown at its windshield, breaking it. Adelle was the most seriously injured and remains unconscious.

At first doctors believed her head injury was a result of the car accident, but it has since been determined that a heavy rock hit her head directly.

Just days ago, Adelle reached her third birthday, and the family held a party for her at her bedside, singing to her. May she have a good life, her mother prayed, "and may she know that there are miracles."

Sometimes it's impossible not to weep.

Pray for her recovery, please: Adelle bat Adva.

~~~~~~~~~~

Times of Israel reports that the Fatah Facebook page has information about Borovsky's murderer, above. The terrorist is referred to as, "the hero, the released prisoner."

http://www.timesofisrael.com/fatah-tapuah-junction-stabber-a-hero/

"Israeli security officials estimated that Zaghal's attack may have been carried out in order to establish his credentials as a loyal Palestinian after his brother was tried by a Palestinian Authority court Monday for allegedly collaborating with Israel."

Please note this well: "A loyal Palestinian."

~~~~~~~~~~

While from Israel National News we have this:

"Samaria Regional Council head Gershon Mesika criticized the Israeli government following the fatal terrorist attack Tuesday at a junction in Samaria (Shomron).

"'This despicable murder was the direct result of inadequate action on rock-throwing terrorism, of opening the checkpoints, and of treating daily terrorist attacks as "disturbances,"'Mesika accused. [Note: checkpoints are taken down as "good will" gestures — and I choke even as I write this.]

"One month ago Mesika urged the IDF to begin responding to rock attacks with live fire, and warned that the lack of a harsh response was creating 'anarchy.'

"Sources in the Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) Knesset faction joined Mesika in calling Tuesday for a tougher response to terrorism.

"...'When terrorists with blood on their hands are released after just a short time in prison, they understand that murdering a Jew is OK...

"'We call on the government of Israel to start taking the threat of terrorism seriously. Don't play with terrorists. The murder of Israeli citizens is not a game.'"

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167606

~~~~~~~~~~

There was a very tempered response by the Israeli government to the offer by the Arab League to "possibly" consider "minor" land swaps as part of its "Peace Plan."

It is significant that Netanyahu released no personal statement; the statement came, instead, from his office:

While it said that Israel welcomed the support given by the Arab League delegation and the US Secretary of State to the diplomatic process, it clarified that Israel was prepared to start negotiations immediately without pre-conditions, and expected the PA to similarly refrain from placing pre-conditions on the process.

Netanyahu would not be overtly obstructionist would not say that the Arab League plan is not acceptable in any terms because it fails to recognize Israeli rights. That would simply not be his style, as he prefers to appear to be a player. But the statement from his office is anything but a wholehearted endorsement of the League position.

In fact, it represents no change in Israel's position: Yes to going to the table, but without pre-conditions.

And keep reading for more.

~~~~~~~~~~

Today, speaking at a meeting of the National Public Diplomacy Forum at the Foreign Ministry, Netanyahu — who is acting foreign minister said (emphasis added):

"Our top public diplomacy mission is to explain that the root of this conflict is not territorial. It is over our very existence in any borders whatsoever.

""Day in, day out, and hour by hour, they have been preaching [that Israel has no right to exist]. So certainly the lie has taken root, and there is no way to fight a lie except with the truth."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167627

He made no explicit reference to the Arab League proposal in his statement here, but the implication is clear.

Abbas refuses to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

What is more, the Arabs persist in their demand that so-called "refugees" now numbering over 4 million because of the bogus way that UNRWA tracks them "return" to Israel. Understand this: If (Heaven forbid) there should be a Palestinian state, these "refugees" would not be counted among its citizens. This has been made clear repeatedly on the record. The demand that they should return to Israel which, it is claimed, is their "rightful" place would be sustained. There is absolutely no reason for this other than a desire to overwhelm the Jewish population of Israel and destroy Israel from within.

In the face of these bitter realities, what the hell is an offer not even for Israel to retain land that is rightfully hers but for a square-meter-by-square-meter exchange of land?

~~~~~~~~~~

Netanyahu's statement on public diplomacy is thus very welcome. Everyone who cares about Israel, not just Israeli diplomats, must take it to heart. Day in and day out, hour by hour, the truth must be told.

The mainstream media in the US certainly doesn't talk about these matters. But people must learn about the terrorists who murder innocents, and about Fatah (the predominant party of the PA!) that praises those terrorists. They should be told as well that "Palestinians poll highest among world's Muslims favoring suicide bombings."

See: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=8987

Peace? A peace process?

I speak for many Israelis, when I say that my heart is heavy with the injustices, and that I am not in a conciliatory mood. We must pursue our rights and keep our people safe. Period. Anyone who imagines we "owe" the Arabs anything is morally skewed.

~~~~~~~~~~

And there are good people working for the interests of Israel. Housing and Construction Minister Uri Ariel (HaBayit Hayehudi) has told the prime minister that his party will not support the 2013 budget if funds are not included to cover construction in Judea and Samaria, particularly construction that was agreed upon after the PA's unilateral move at the UN General Assembly last year.

This, he said, would be seen by his party as going back on promises "and we will oppose the approval of the budget until a solution to the promised funding is found."

Bravo for this!

It's easy for Netanyahu to make a dramatic statement of intentions in the midst of a political challenge, and then to let it slide by when time for actualization comes. Ariel is attempting to prevent this from happening.

Said Ariel, yesterday:

"I turned to the prime minister today and warned him that if the 2013 budget doesn't include full funding for building projects in Judea and Samaria...Bayit Yehudi will consider its coalition agreement as having been violated, and it won't support the budget unless a solution is found for the promised funds."

Most controversial is the issue of building in E1, which runs between Ma'aleh Adumim and Jerusalem, and which the PA claims (erroneously) is necessary for a contiguous Palestinian state.

Coalition chairman Yariv Levin (Likud) said that "Likud Beitenu is obligated to the settlement enterprise. We will insist that the new budget strengthens the settlements and ensures their development."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4374504,00.html

~~~~~~~~~~

And then there is the legislation that is being moved along that would require approval in a national referendum and a super-majority in the Knesset before any land could be relinquished in a "peace deal."

The original legislation was promoted in 2010 by MK Ofir Akunis (Likud), and is now being shepherded by Coalition Chairman MK Yariv Levin (Likud), who has drafted a new amendment to the proposed bill. Naftali Bennett (Habayit Hayehudi) and Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) are expected to be for this proposal, which was addressed in their coalition agreements.

And...Prime Minister Netanyahu supports this legislation as well: "A peace deal is not just any move, and a peace deal cannot be decided by a simple majority when it affects everyone. We will support it." His support is a major factor in seeing this pass.

Avigdor Lieberman (Yisrael Beitenu) was opposed in coalition discussions, but I have since read he would go along.

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=8965

Not surprisingly, Tzipi Livni is adamantly opposed. This tells us, clearly, that she does not believe any deal she would be instrumental in striking with the PA would receive public and Knesset sanction. She is a bit of a hypocrite on this score. For in 2000, when she was still a Likud member of the Knesset, she supported a bill that would have required a public referendum on any agreement with the Palestinian Authority.

~~~~~~~~~~

The urgent matters I have written about here have again trumped the analysis (such as it will be) of the situation in Syria that I had hoped to offer, as well as other matters to be mentioned.

There is, please Heaven, always the next posting.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

'The Jews have the greatest powers of sorcery' and are 'subjecting us,' says close associate of supreme leader

As if freak explosions and sneaky computer viruses weren't enough, Iranian public figures have recently accused Jews and Israelis of wielding magic and sorcery against the Islamic Republic. But not against the country's suspicious nuclear program. No, no: Those sneaky Jews just wanted to rig the Iranian elections, with magic.

In a speech to religious students on April 20, Mehdi Taeb, who heads a think tank and is considered close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said that Jews are powerful sorcerers who have used their abilities to attack Iran. He noted that while "the Jews" had yet to unleash their full powers, their abilities were negated after they tried to use magic to interfere with the Iranian elections of 2008 and 2009.

"The Jews are currently subjecting us to an unprecedented trial," Taeb said, according to a translation provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute. "As you read in the Koran, [King] Solomon ruled the world and God ordered a group of sorcerers to come out against him. The Jews have the greatest powers of sorcery, and they make use of this tool.

"All the measures that have been brought against us originate with the Zionists," he continued. "The US is a tool in their hands. So far, they have not used the full [scope of] their sorcery against us. Sorcery was the final means to which they resorted during the [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad era, but they were defeated. This ability of the Jews was eliminated by Iran. Five years ago they tried to oust Ahmadinejad [by this means]."

An article on Jewish mysticism and numerology published in March on Rasanews.ir, an Iranian Islamic news site, alleged that "the Jews have always tended to resort to divination, [a practice] that has its roots in astronomy, astrology and sorcery, [which they picked up] when they consorted with various peoples in the course of history. They cherished this [knowledge] like a treasure, generation after generation. The [Jewish] people think that ruling over man, nature, and divine traditions can be achieved only by means of sorcery. They believe that it is possible to conquer nature and control the world, and even to control God's decisions, by using sorcery methods."

Contact UCI at voices@unitycoalitionforisrael.org

Some lessons for Israel as it contemplates an attack on Iran's nuclear program.

When and it is most probably now a question of when, rather than if Israel is forced to bomb Iran's uranium enrichment facilities, the Israeli government will immediately face a cacophony of denunciation from the press in America and abroad; the international left; the United Nations General Assembly; 20 secretly delighted but fantastically hypocritical Arab states; some Democratic legislators in Washington, D.C.; and a large assortment of European politicians. Critics will doubtless harp on about international law and claim that no right exists for pre-emptive military action. So it would be wise for friends of Israel to mug up on their ancient and modern history to refute this claim.

The right, indeed the duty, of nations to proactively defend themselves from foes who seek their destruction with new and terrifying weaponry far pre-dates President George W. Bush and Iraq. It goes back earlier than Israel's successful pre-emptive attacks on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 (not to mention other pre-emptive Israeli attacks like the one on the Syrian nuclear program in 2007). It even predates Israel's 1967 pre-emption of massed Arab armies, a move that saved the Jewish state. History is replete with examples when pre-emption was successful, as well as occasions when, because pre-emption wasn't employed, catastrophe struck.

When it became clear that the Emperor Napoleon was about to commandeer the large and formidable Danish navy stationed at Copenhagen in 1807, the British Royal Navy attacked without a declaration of war and either sank, disabled or captured almost the entire fleet. No one screamed about "international law" in those days, of course, any more than statesmen would have cared if they had. Neither did Winston Churchill give any warning to the Ottoman Empire, a German ally, when he ordered the bombardment of the Dardanelles Outer Forts in November 1914, also without a war declaration.

Similarly—though there were plenty of warnings given—Britain was formally at peace with her former ally France in July 1940 when Churchill ordered the sinking of the French fleet harbored near Oran in French Algeria, for which he was rightly cheered to the echo in the House of Commons. The sheer danger of a large naval force falling into Hitler's hands when Britain was fighting for its survival during the Battle of Britain justified the action, and the exigencies of international law could rightly go hang.

Looking further back, and thinking counterfactually, as historians are occasionally permitted to do, there have been several wars in which devastating new weaponry spelled disaster for the victims of the power developing them, and the victims would have been much better off using pre-emption.

In the Middle Eastern context, Goliath ought to have charged down David long before he was able to employ his slingshot and river pebbles to such devastating effect. The Egyptians should have attacked the Hittites as soon as the Egyptians suspected they were developing the chariot as a weapon of war. Had the Mayans and Incas assaulted the conquistadores as soon as they stepped ashore and thus before the Spaniards could deploy their muskets, horses, metal armor, hand-held firearms and smallpox to crush them they might not have seen their civilizations wiped out.

The Mamelukes and Janisseries shouldn't have waited to be slaughtered by Napoleon's cannon at the battle of the Pyramids; the Khalifa needed to hit Kitchener on his way to Omdurman in the River War of the late 19th century, not once he'd set up his machine guns on the banks of the Nile; and so on.

Often in history, massive pre-emption has been the only sensible strategy when facing a new weapon in the hands of one's sworn enemy, regardless of international law the sole effect of which has been to hamper the West, since those countries that break it can only be indicted if they lose, whereas civilized powers generally have to abide by its restrictions.

Consider a counterfactual analogy that will weigh heavily on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he struggles with his historic decision. If the French Defense Minister André Maginot, instead of investing so heavily in his defensive line in the mid-1930s, had thought offensively about how to smash the German army the moment it crossed the Versailles Treaty's "red lines" in the Saar and the Rhineland, some six million Jews might have survived.

The slingshot, chariot, musket, cannon, machine-guns: All were used to devastating effect against opponents that seemed to be stronger with conventional weaponry but were overcome by the weaker power with new weapons that weren't pre-emptively destroyed. Since President Obama's second inaugural address has made it painfully obvious that the U.S. will not act to prevent Iran from enriching more than 250 kilos of 20% enriched uranium, enough for a nuclear bomb, Israel will have to.

Mr. Netanyahu might not have international bien pensant opinion on his side as he makes his choice, but he has something far more powerful: the witness of history.

Contact John Cohn at john.r.cohn@gmail.com

Last month, in a five-thirty a.m. vote that followed ten hours of speeches and deliberations, the University of California Berkeley student government passed a momentous resolution calling upon the university to divest from three companies that help Israel defend itself against Palestinian terrorism. One might well ask how this could be considered momentous. Doesn't the Berkeley student government divest from this or that every other day? And hasn't the university administration nullified all such calls to divest within hours of their passage?

Yes and yes, but this particular bill stands apart in one significant way. In the past, all efforts to divest from companies doing business with Israel (the only state against which University of California students are calling for divestment) were authored by the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanction) movement, an international organization that rejects Israel's existence and seeks to replace it with a Palestinian state. At Berkeley, astute student leaders recognized BDS as the true author of the bill and refused to pass it unless the resolution explicitly denounced that movement.

And so it came to pass that radical anti-Israel students, at Berkeley of all places, were forced to insert into their bill, at five different places, language saying the resolution "does not support Omar Barghouti, the leader of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS), and his end goal of a one-state solution that would replace the state of Israel." His movement, they proclaimed, "calls on a cultural and academic boycott, which hurts more people than just policymakers, is counterproductive to academic and cultural growth, and is an inherently different tactic than divesting from companies." And they reiterated that their actions "should in no way be misconstrued as support for any other goals or beliefs related to the BDS movement."

This comprehensive rejection of BDS characterized not just the bill but also the speeches that preceded the vote. Amazingly, speakers from both sides of the aisle joined in condemning BDS. Even divestment supporters realized that distancing themselves as much as humanly possible from the widely-reviled movement was key to persuading voters. Student government president Connor Landgraf later echoed these sentiments in his wholesale denigration of the bill. In an official statement, he cautioned: "The international BDS movement, which has been known to attach itself to this legislation, cannot and should not take this as its victory. In no way do I endorse the movement's call for cultural and academic boycotts."

For years now, the BDS movement in the United States has failed to enact any boycott against, or divestment from, Israel. Not once has it harmed Israel's pockets or stature. Not once has it benefitted Palestinians, let alone the cause of peace, because it rejects entirely the concept of peace between a Jewish state of Israel and an Arab state of Palestine. Two weeks ago, the student government of America's most radical student body rejected it outright, explicitly and repeatedly. If it cannot succeed at Berkeley, how can it ever hope to succeed elsewhere? It cannot. Berkeley killed BDS.

Contact Barbara Sommer at sommer1-98@yahoo.com

Under Muslim Brother Morsi's inept economic team more than 4,500 factories have shut down. Egypt's unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of 2012, have reached 13%, most of which, (77.5%) is among the 15-24 years old. Inflation has climbed much above the official 7.5% (March 2013), and foreign currency reserves declined to US $ 13,424 billion. The country spends about $14.5 billion subsidizing fuel and $4 billion subsidizing food each year. Nearly half of Egypt's 90 million people live at or below the poverty line of $2 per day. The Egyptian Centre for Economic and Social Rights (ECESR), reports of "3,817 labor strikes and economically motivated social protests" following Morsi's election, and more than 2,400 "between January and March" 2013.

Campuses all over the country are rocked by violent demonstrations, and "it's getting worse by the day," a student is quoted saying by Al-Hayat. Bloody clashes between students affiliated with Brotherhood and independent and opposition groups have been reported in Cairo's Ain Shams University, and ongoing demonstrations in Al-Azhar University have gotten more violent after tainted food made dozen of students ill.

After spending a 12-day visit to Cairo in April, the IMF team left again without an agreement that would provide Egypt with the badly needed $4.8 billion loan. Discussion are supposed to continue this month. However, the latest revelation is that the only economic expert who was able to negotiate with the IMF, formerdeputy finance minister, Hany Kadry Dimian, resigned last December. That the Egyptian kept it secret is not surprising. But why did the IMF?

Morsi's last fall deal with the European Union to receive $6.5 billion over the next two years, mostly in loans won't be forthcoming unless the IMF deal is cut. But Morsi's seems unable and unwilling to cut fuel and food subsidies as required by the IMF. Removing the subsidies, would lead Egypt further down the slide into complete political turmoil. But Morsi and his Cabinet are unlikely to cut subsidies before the elections, which have yet to be scheduled, to avoid jeopardizing the Brotherhood at the polls.

Yet, without the IMF loan and the EU and U.S. funds Morsi's government would be a goner.

Even if the IMF ends up giving away $4.8 billion, the government needs at least a $30 billion in loans from someone somewhere, and fast.

Last March, Morsi asked Iraq for $4 billion, but was turned down.

He didn't do much better with Russia; During a recent meeting with Putin at a Black Sea resort, Morsi importuned Putin for a sizable loan. The Russian media reported that Morsi appealed to Putin, "recalling how the former Soviet Union stepped in to finance the building of the Aswan High Dam in the 1950s after the United States abruptly withdrew from the project." But Putin refused to discuss a loan, responding they'll talk about it some other time.

Qatar, however, responded to Morsi's begging in April, with a promise of $3 billion (on top of the $5 billion it already gave Egypt). Libya has also helped, depositing $2 billion in Egypt's Central Bank. Last September, Turkey promised $2 billion in loans, about half of which have been delivered by now, and Saudi Arabia came up with $1.5 billion in loans and grants.

Meanwhile, the incompetence of the government rapidly increasing the plight of Egyptian people. The Brothers have sent supporters to the streets to demand the "cleansing" of Egypt's judiciary. This caused Justice Minister Ahmed Mekky to resign. Mekky opposed a new bill that would force the resignation of a quarter of Egypt's 13,000 judges by lowering the retirement age to allow the replacement of secular judges with Brotherhood sympathizers. Morsi's legal adviser, Mohamed Fouad Gadallah, has also resigned. He's the 12th of Morsi's original 17 presidential aide appointees to quit.

The Egyptian press continues to be attacked by the Brotherhood, and the government is increasing its suppression of free expression. On April 19, 2013, the oppositionist English languish Egypt Independent was shut down. Online, the paper wrote that its print edition, the 50th and final, "was banned from going to press...[it] was shuttered by the self-censorship of its sister paper the Arabic-language Al Masry Al Youm, which had blocked its publication in the past over criticism of the government."

Egypt's economic crisis has driven the Brotherhood's erstwhile allies, the Salafi Islamists, into more active opposition. Violent Salafi harassment of Egyptian Copts and secularists has significantly increased. The Brotherhood decided that it could no longer ignore the Salafi challenge when they attacked the home of a senior Iranian diplomat in Cairo, attempting to put a Syrian rebel flag on the gate. They were unsuccessful in storming the building thanks to Morsi's riot police. In a slightly ironic twist, it turns out that Morsi's attempt to create Shari'a financing has been blocked by the Salafis. They oppose sukuk for Egyptbecause it might "become a back-door route to selling off Egyptian state assets to foreigners." So much for Egypt's investment climate.

Just in case anyone feels sorry for Egypt's Brotherhood because of the subsidy regime they inherited from Mubarak, there has been a startling revelation showing what's really important to the Brotherhood is not the welfare of the Egyptians, but the power to rule country.

To increase their power base, the MB has increased the hiring of government employees (sounds familiar?) The public sector salary bill has risen by 80 percent since the January 2011 "revolution." Egypt's proposed budget for the year ending June 30, 2014, includes $25 billion for public employees, up from $16 billion in Mubarak's day.

While IMF is ready to negotiate the loan with the government, both the Salafis and the Left are opposing the reforms required for the loan. Aharam online reported leftist leader Hamdeen Sabbahi, saying: "If you look at any country the IMF has gone into, you will find that poverty has increased...Talk about plugging a budget deficit does not get food to the people."

Nonetheless, it seems that Egypt will get the $4.8 billion from the IMF, despite the fact that there is absolutely no way Egypt could meet reasonable requirements for a loan. Egypt will get the loan because the IMF is under tremendous pressure by the U.S. and others to bail the Brotherhood out.

Moreover, despite the growing opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood's government oppression of civil rights and devastation of country's economy, the U.S. is determined to assist the Brotherhood.

On April 30, in Cairo, Morsi was given the opportunity to flaunt the latest "advances" "in Egypt's process of democratic transition," to a Congressional delegation, headed by Chairperson of Intelligence Committee Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Instead of calling his bluff, the delegation reiterated the "strength and depth of Egyptian-American relations." The Americans further ensured Muslim Brother Morsi that the U.S. will not let him down, because "Egypt's stability is key to the stability of the region. They went on to praise "Egypt's efforts to consolidate the cease-fire and to achieve Palestinian national reconciliation." Was this the reason for the visit?

Dr. Ehrenfeld is the Director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy (ACD) and the Center for the Study of Corruption & the Rule of Law, www.acdemocracy.org). She is an authority on the shadowy movement of funds through international banking systems and governments to fund terrorism. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Ken Jensen host the ACD Economic Warfare Institute website. Contact them Email at info@acdemocracy.org. This article appeared May 02, 2013 on the American Center for Democracy (ACD) website and is archived at
http://acdemocracy.org/egypts-economy-the-muslim-brotherhood-the-u-s-exclusive/

We, Jews, that includes Israel, must adopt the line from the movie Gone With The Wind: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn [what the world thinks]," spoken by actor Clark Gable, as Rhett Butler [as Israel], to Scarlett O'Hara [as the world].

Remember the Sabra and Shatilla follies, where the Arabs killed Arabs and Ariel Sharon took the fall for it? And Israel created an "investigation"? Why did Israel take the fall?

In an old Woody Allen movie, Mia Farrow played Mafia moll and she said her motto was "screw them before they screw you..." Now, that has a much better ring than all the handwriting on the wall!

A day will not go by without Israel being in the news. It seems as if the Jewish State is the foot on which the planet stands.

Nations and individuals come at Israel from all sides, giving her advice, she did not ask for, and worse tell her what to do as if she is this or that nation's vassal state.

And the worst, Israel is held to a standard that applies to no other nation in the world.

As an advocate for Israel I see it a war of attrition against the Jewish state. That is simply the continuation of the persecution of Jews that has been going on since the Romans expelled the Israelites from their homeland some 2000 years ago.

Time for Israel; and Jews ; to decide to take a different route and act along, if I am not for myself, who will be there for me?

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at nurit.nuritg@gmail.com. Visit her blog: http://ngthinker.typepad.com

Yesterday I wrote about certain things that PM Netanyahu said at the National Public Diplomacy Forum of the Foreign Ministry. Today I want to look at some other things he said.

What I cited yesterday was what he himself emphasized, and what I felt was most important to share. But I would be remiss if I didn't also allude to this.

What he said was: "I want to solve the conflict with the Palestinians because I don't want a binational state."
http://news.yahoo.com/netanyahu-wants-deal-prevent-binational-state-181450882.html

What this implies is that, if the Palestinian Arabs in Judea and Samaria are not separated from our population via a state of their own, they will ultimately be absorbed into Israel, affecting the Jewish nature of the state.

It is an argument used by some who are promoting a Palestinian Arab state and it is thus disconcerting to hear it coming from our prime minister.

~~~~~~~~~~

What I wish to emphasize is that his position here is simplistic and not well founded. Thinking on this issue remains frozen in that same either/or box and it's unfortunate that he did not offer more creative or dynamic thinking.

There is, first of all, a body of opinion regarding the demographics of the region that indicates that even if Israel were a sovereign state across all of Judea and Samaria, its Jewish population would remain solidly in the majority.

See Yoram Ettinger, on "Defying demographic projections": the area. Ettinger sees the possibility of an 80% Jewish majority by 2035.

~~~~~~~~~~

And there are, as well, other potential ways to deal with the issue, and it's time we began considering the alternatives seriously. One proposal, of many: The Palestinian Arab population might be provided with autonomous enclaves, in which they would determine the parameters of their own civil society electing mayors, running schools, etc. These enclaves would establish significant connections with Jordan which has a Palestinian Arab majority now and via which they would be fully enfranchised.

However it might be ultimately worked out and it's impossible for me to address all possibilities here — the presence of Muslim Arabs in Judea and Samaria is not a valid reason to surrender this area, which represents Israel's heritage.

~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps what struck me as most interesting about the prime minister's statement is that it deviates from his Bar Ilan speech of 2009. Then he spoke about:

"...two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor's security and existence." (Only the violins are lacking here.)

This is the quintessential "two-state" vision, highly idealized and predicated on the notion that the Palestinian Arabs deserve their own flag, their own culture, freedom in their own state, etc. etc. It implies an obligation to the Arabs.

Now Netanyahu talks about giving them a state in order to divest ourselves of them to do it for our sake only. Is this because he knows how impossible is the vision he laid out a mere three years ago? Is it because he's tired up to the top of his head with any notion that we owe these corrupt and terror-supporting people anything?

Whatever his rationale, what he has done is erase any suggestion of obligation to the Arabs. If it can be shown that his argument has holes, there is nothing left for him to stand on.

~~~~~~~~~~

There are, without question, people very nervous about this statement by Netanyahu. They see in this a slide to the left — it's a leftist argument, embraced by Livni, for example — and are afraid that this is meant as a prelude to going to the table.

What mitigates the concern, for me, is my expectation that Abbas is so totally allergic to any notion of negotiating with Israel that, one way or the other, he will sabotage the possibility. This is not exactly the same as saying I fully trust my prime minister to do what's right for our nation. But I'll take what I can get. Heaven works in many ways.

I refer to an article by The Tower. It says that, while the PA assured Kerry that they would postpone any initiatives regarding taking Israel to the International Criminal Court or applying to UN agencies for full membership — actions which Kerry feared would interfere with his initiative — they have now reconsidered. They are telling US officials that this applies only until June 3, and in the interim they demand (demand?) that the US pressure Israel into accepting the 1949 armistice line as the basis for negotiations and submitting a map verifying that understanding.
http://www.thetower.org/palestinians-issue-new-negotiation-ultimatum-despite-u-s-objections/

I have checked this with a highly reliable source who tells me it is true, and that the PA stance may yet change many more times.

We can only ponder what Kerry must be thinking about all of this.

~~~~~~~~~~

Consider this, as well: The seven Arab nations present as the delegation representing the Arab League in Washington has just agreed to the possibility of minor land swaps in a "peace deal." But there 21 nations in the Arab League and my information is that this tentative offer still must go back to an Arab League Summit for a final decision. And if that decision is negative, as is likely the case, then nothing will have changed, no matter the hoopla.

~~~~~~~~~~

Now, Syria. What I offer is my own brief, tentative assessment, based on much reading, communication with Arabic-speaking persons in the know, and my own understanding of the situation.

It's a modest attempt to provide a bit of clarity in a situation that is a political morass. A horror in which there are no good guys and it's quite a trick to figure out who is the least bad.

~~~~~~~~~~

I believe there are certain factors that stand out as givens, all the confusion notwithstanding:

The most obvious is that Obama is all talk and no action. US forces are not going into Syria, his statements about the "red line" that would be crossed if Assad's troops used gas notwithstanding. What he's now done is to up the definition of the "red line" with requirements of tangible evidence beyond intelligence so that it will never be crossed.

From this, we can readily extrapolate with regard to what Obama means when he says he will never let Iran acquire nuclear weapons. Consider the difference of opinion between Israel and the US with regard to how late in the process it would be possible to stop Iran. Netanyahu says it must be during the enrichment process. Obama says it can go longer, until the stage at which a weapon is about to be assembled. Imagine him saying, well, we don't really know for sure yet that they are going to assemble a weapon.

~~~~~~~~~~

While we want to imagine we feel compelled to believe that moral considerations should play a role in how the international community makes decisions regarding Syria, and while there have been many calls for moral action here, the reality is something very different. Over 70,000 Syrians, including women and children, have been killed in the last two years, and the international community chooses not to intervene.

~~~~~~~~~~

Israeli interests here are not the same as US interests. This is a critical point. Israel by itself, sitting at the border of Syria, cannot assume the position of moral arbiter in Syria intervening to stop the loss of life. Whatever our own exceedingly high moral standards in warfare, we are unable to do this and will not do this. This is properly a US and international responsibility.

Thus, the Israeli red line is not Assad's use of such weapons against his people but the transfer of non-conventional weapons to terrorist groups that might use them against us. I cannot certify this with absolute certainty, but I do believe the Israeli military will act in this regard if it is perceived as necessary, even if it means going in and it is certainly being watched very closely.

~~~~~~~~~~

Obama's indecision regarding whether to intervene and, if so, how without actually going in means that he has missed an opportunity to affect the outcome of the civil war positively. The rebel forces known as the Free Syria Army, actually a coalition of groups that are reasonably secular and might have secured a somewhat saner and more democratic regime are overwhelmed by radicals now.

When strengthening the Free Syria Army might have made a decisive difference, Obama dithered, providing some intelligence via the CIA and some training outside of Syria, but withholding arms. Now, in the face of evidence of use of gas by Assad, Obama is thinking about but had not yet decided on providing arms to the rebels.

There is huge concern about this, particularly among the Israelis. If such armaments being referred to as "lethal supplies" are provided to rebels without extreme caution, they will likely end up in the hands of the al-Qaeda associated radicals Jabhat al-Nusra, or the Nusra Front who are fighting intensely in Syria and are often mingled with the Free Syria group. It may be too late.

~~~~~~~~~~

My own absolute conviction is that the fierceness, deviousness and motivation of the radical group is such that it is likely to assume control of the anti-Assad forces, or to push its way into control of a new regime, should Assad be toppled.

This, my friends, is what concerns Israel the most. Assad is evil to the core with regard to how he has conducted himself towards his own people. But he has kept his border with Israel quiet actually, I'm being told, taking care that shooting across the border is kept to an absolute minimum. I'm also being told that it is not his intention to use his non-conventional weapons against Israel.

The al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists would be thrilled to do just that, and would have no compunctions about moving across our border at the Golan to challenge us.

~~~~~~~~~~

This is also what I'm being told: Assad is not losing the war such predictions were premature.

Actually, if Obama supplies weaponry now to the Free Syria rebels, what this may accomplish is a prolonging of the war, with more fatalities, when, in the end they are likely to lose anyway.

What is more, Assad is now still in control of his cache of non-conventional weapons. There have been rumors to the contrary, but I'm being told that Hezbollah does not have them. Russia has a major presence in Syria, which is likely a significant factor in assuring Assad's strength. I'm being told that they are watching to be certain that WMD are not transferred to the wrong hands.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il. And visit her website at www.arlenefromisrael.info

The annual May Day parade of losers turned violent in Seattle, much as it did last year. It's a thematically appropriate way to commemorate world socialism, although rather rough on the innocent bystanders. In addition to the violence, you've also got the rich irony of Starbucks patrons wearing designer labels using high-end smartphones to organize a rally "against capitalism, all nation states, and borders," as their recruiting poster declared. No one could parody this pathetic "movement" more effectively than it satirizes itself.

Not that there's much point in trying to have a rational discussion with these people, but it's amusing that they don't seem to understand that anarchy is the harbinger of the centralized domination they fancy themselves protesting. Anarchists are merely the roadies who set the stage and hook up the equipment for the big-name totalitarian bands, whose sets always run long past the point where the audience is ready to die trying to escape. Anarchy isn't "total freedom," as the banner held aloft in the post declares; it is the prelude to total submission.

In Seattle, "total freedom" turned out to mean smashing a lot of windows and throwing rocks at the police. Oddly, there doesn't seem to be much U.S. media coverage of the festivities yet, but the Independent of Ireland filed a report:

Protesters threw rocks, bottles and chunks of asphalt at officers, officials said, smashing store and car windows, overturning trash cans and lining up newspaper display racks to block streets.

Police in riot gear, some riding in armored SWAT vehicles, responded by repeatedly firing "blast ball" grenades, which emit smoke tinged with pepper spray.

"We're a bigger, better city than this," Mayor Mike McGinn said at a news conference. "I'm disappointed that this is the picture the world sees of us."

Most of the 150-200 protesters who had stayed on the street after darkness fell for a "non-permitted" protest had dispersed by midnight.

"We did not start to take action until that group itself started to act violently towards the officers and the community at large," Assistant Police Chief Paul McDonagh said.

150 to 200 people? The Glorious Peoples' Revolutionary Army is looking pretty sad these days. Next year, if they want to draw a bigger crowd of like-minded supporters, they should consider holding their "demonstration" in North Korea. They would have their socialist brothers and sisters eating from the palms of their hands! (Literally, if they bring food.)

KING 5 News in Seattle has more details, including a tally of the arrests and injuries:

Protesters threw rocks and bottles at police officers and news crews. As they moved through downtown Seattle to another neighborhood, they flung construction street barriers, trash cans and newspaper bins on the streets in an attempt to stop police officers. Windows of businesses were broken and vehicles with people in them were banged around.

Police used their bikes to shield businesses and eventually began to use pepper spray and "flash bang' grenades releasing a flash of light, smoke and a loud noise to disperse the crowd. But that pushed the group to another nearby neighborhood, and they left a wake of overturned trash cans and debris on the street.

In the aftermath, 17 people were arrested, said Seattle Police Department spokesman Captain Chris Fowler said, and eight police officers were injured.

Here's a little sample of the mental caliber of the great socialist vanguard:

Olivia One Feather of Covington joined the crowd Wednesday night because she wanted to see how police handled the protest. She said she wasn't impressed, adding that she was pepper sprayed in the face while trying to video record officers.

"They don't have any manners. They don't say please or give you time to get out of the way," she said.

Of the protesters, she added, "They're doing what we need to do to stand up to ourselves. These are our streets and we have the right to take them."

Were American flags burned? You betcha! (More photos and video at Breitbart News and Gateway Pundit.)

By the way, misguided Republicans who think supporting amnesty for illegal aliens will somehow win them political support should note that Commie Day was also a big day for amnesty shills, who staged demonstrations in Seattle and elsewhere:

The violence marred a May Day that immigrant-rights activists hoped would put a focus back on immigration reform. Thousands of people marched about 2 ½ miles from the Central District toward Seattle's downtown Jackson Federal Building after a May Day rally supporting immigrant rights and labor.

Many carried signs, with messages such as "We are America," and "There are no illegal humans." One sign suggested forgetting about marijuana and instead asking the United States to "Legalize my mom," a reference to Washington's recent legalization of marijuana.

If we pass those Gang of Eight "comprehensive immigration reforms," soon every day will be May Day. Won't that be fun?

The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org

As a child, I really enjoyed candy and gum. Admittedly, I occasionally wax nostalgic about Marathon Bars, Bub's Daddy Green Apple bubble gum, Regal Crown Sours, Swiss Colony Whiskey Sours, and Red Hot Dollars. Sadly, these products are no longer available even in specialty stores. And this is not only because the items from my childhood are no longer marketed. Candy that has withstood the test of time has gone through many incarnations. Gum does not have the same texture and I find it tiring to chew. So much of what is sold as chocolate does not pass my personal taste test. Unless I can find a good Belgium chocolate retailer, I may as well find a good pastry shop to satisfy my sweets craving because what is being passed off as chocolate is awful. I have to qualify my generalization because Snickers and Hershey kisses still give a person a lot of bang for their buck, though they are not premium items. Unfortunately, children of today will never know the meaning of candy as defined in my formative years. It is not just candy that has gone through a negative transformation, though.

In the five decades that I can categorize my lifetime, we've stopped referring to our system of government as a constitutional republic and instead speak of it as a democracy with no consideration of the fact that our Framers despised democracy. As Walter Williams explains so succinctly in Are We A Republic Or A Democracy?

The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"

Why does it matter? It matters a great deal. William's continues...

So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

The Framers understood that they could not expect a population made up of different ethnic groups and belief systems to merge their ideas and opinions into one common faith. James Madison famously explained that the variety of factions could unite on the idea that our government was limited and existed to protect and defend their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, that because there were so many different groups, they would balance each other out. Only if one group's rights were infringed was the government expected to respond. The government role was never to assign a set of politically correct beliefs.

To be honest, I no longer believe that my freedoms are protected. This is because the very citizen who ordains and establishes our constitution and is expected to have the capacity to govern as well as be governed, in neither capacity understands the history, economics, nor philosophy considered during the writing of our rule of law. A populace that understood this idea would never expect our government to legislate beliefs but would understand that people are to be considered equally under our system of justice.

If those expected to have the capacity to be ruled and rule actually understood the rule of law, they would be granted standing to demand that candidates for president be properly vetted according to Article II, Sec I of the U.S. Constitution. There would outline for government explained in Article I in particular, section 7.

The "Sequester" was crafted and pushed by the White House and a bipartisan group of senators and representatives voted on it and passed it into law. How can a law originate in the Executive Branch? The fiscal cliff agreement to fund government originated in the Senate even though all budget bills are to begin in the House.

Those expected to rule and be ruled should understand the president takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. President Obama has allowed Attorney General Eric Holder to abuse the power of his office to dismiss a case of voter intimidation. The jury is out as to whether Janet Napolitano is lying or just completely incompetent, yet she still holds her appointment. Certainly, I feel less safe from the threat of terrorism under her watch.

Like candy, freedom no longer tastes or feels the same as it did when I was a child. Once my generation passes, I wonder if anyone will recognize that what passes for the freedoms for which the colonists so bravely fought, is not the real thing.

"A referendum will be called before Israel surrenders any land to a PA state," Prime Minister Netanyahu said.

At a meeting Thursday with Swiss Foreign Minister Didier Burkhalter, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said that if a peace deal was worked out with the Palestinian Authority, Israelis would have a chance to voice their opinions of it in a referendum. "In Hebrew there is a saying, that 'Israel is not Switzerland.'" Netanyahu told his guest. "The point is that we live in very different neighborhoods. Your neighborhood is more calm and less challenging, but I don't know one Israeli who would change his country for any other."

With that, Netanyahu told Burkhalter, "there are a number of things we could learn from you, and one of them is the referendum." Unlike Switzerland, however, Israel would conduct a referendum on just one issue a potential agreement with the PA that would entail Israel surrendering a portion of Judea and Samaria to a PA state.

In response, Burkhalter said that he was happy to be in Israel, and that if Netanyahu visited Switzerland, "to which you are invited, we will be happy to present to you our referendum system, which we have been conducting for many years. It doesn't matter when you come, there will be a referendum going on."

Contact Arutz Sheva at news@israelnationalnews.com

Robert "Bob" Whitsitt, former general manager of three professional sports teams, was apparently defrauded by Neman when he sent him $2 million to buy pre-IPO Facebook shares.

Shervin Neman, the Los Angeles man arrested last year after allegedly targeting Iranian Jews and other investors in a Ponzi scheme, was found guilty on May 16 of defrauding two people out of a total of $3 million one of the victims being a former NBA and NFL executive, according to the defendant's attorney.

The sentencing, currently scheduled for Oct. 20, could result in a 60-year term in federal prison on two counts of wire fraud and one count of mail fraud. Each of the three counts carries a maximum 20-year sentence.

On May 30, Neman's new counsel, Anthony Brooklier, of the law firm Marks & Brooklier, filed a motion for a retrial on the grounds that Neman's trial lawyer did not present evidence that, among other things, Neman has had the funds all along to pay back his victims.

Indicted by a grand jury in 2012, Neman, 32, also known as Shervin Davatgarzadeh, was detained at his home by FBI agents in April 2013.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) argued in a 2012 civil suit that Neman raised more than $7.5 million from investors in California, Florida and Texas since 2010 by claiming to be a professional investor. That case, Brooklier said, is currently on hold pending the completion of the government's criminal case.

The SEC's complaint alleges that Neman used the investments to flip foreclosed residential real estate, promising returns of 11 percent to 18 percent, payable within one to six months. Promissory notes issued from "Neman Fund," the complaint alleges, were signed by Neman as the fund's president and CEO.

Yet, after the SEC filed its complaint, Neman allegedly solicited $2 million from another investor, identified in the criminal indictment as "R.W." Neman said that through his connections to a stockbroker with access to private shares in Facebook, he could invest his funds before the initial public offering, increasing the chance of quick returns, the criminal indictment states.

In the end, the indictment charged Neman with defrauding two victims, identified simply as "R.W." and "S.W." Although officials with the local office of the Department of Justice declined to reveal the full names of the victims, Brooklier told the Journal that "R.W." is Robert "Bob" Whitsitt, a former general manager for two NBA teams the former Seattle SuperSonics and the Portland Trail Blazers and former president of the Seattle Seahawks. Brooklier said Whitsitt testified at the trial.

A July 2013 article out of the Seattle bureau of the Courthouse News Service said that Whitsitt and his wife, Jan, sued the Santa Monica financial advisory firm Allen & Associates for encouraging them to invest in Facebook through Neman.

Whitsitt and his wife run a consulting firm in Washington state. They did not respond to multiple calls from the Journal.

The indictment said that with the $2 million received from "R.W.," Neman paid his legal team and earlier victims, who he asked to send him emails stating that he no longer owed them money. He then attempted to use those emails in his defense against the SEC.

So as not to leave "R.W." in the cold on his fabricated Facebook stock purchase, Neman sent him a $2.2 million check, according to the indictment. That check bounced. (Brooklier said Neman disputes that he mailed a fraudulent check.)

The only real investment Neman actually made, according to the SEC, was a $66,000 purchase of pre-IPO shares in General Motors Co.

According to the SEC's civil complaint, Neman used the bulk of the $7.5 million he originally raised to pay existing investors and more than $1.5 million to finance his lifestyle and the appearance of his fictitious business, which included office space in a Century City building and two assistants. Neman's wife, Cassandra, was named as a "relief defendant" she was not charged with any wrongdoing but did receive extensive benefit from her husband's Ponzi scheme.

"Among other things," the complaint read, "Neman used investor funds to pay for his wedding and honeymoon, his wife's engagement ring, luxury cars, VIP tickets to entertainment venues, jewelry, hotels, and restaurants."

In April 2012, Barack Obama's re-election campaign placed in escrow a $35,800 donation Neman had made, which was the maximum allowable contribution under campaign finance laws.

Arutz Sheva is an Israeli media network identifying with Religious Zionism. It offers online news in Hebrew, English, and Russian.

At first blush, it appeared that the Obama administration finally agreed with the intelligence assessments of its allies Britain, France, and Israel namely, that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against the opposition. After all, on April 25 the White House sent a letter to Congressional leaders stating: "Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin." This would mean that the regime has violated President Obama's "red line", where if the Syrian government began moving or using chemical weapons, it would constitute a "game-changer" for U.S. policy that would be met with "enormous consequences." But no sooner had the letter been delivered did the administration begin walking away from its own assessment.

"There is much more to be done to verify conclusively that the red line that the president has talked about has been crossed," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday. "We are continuing to assess what happened when, where," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel agreed separately. "I think we should wait to get the facts before we make any judgments on what action, if any should be taken, and what kind of action."

Ever the consummate law professor-in-chief, Barrack Obama elaborated during the White House press conference on April 30:

"[T]he use of chemical weapons would be a game-changer not simply for the United States but for the international community. And the reason for that is that we have established international law and international norms that say when you use these kinds of weapons you have the potential of killing massive numbers of people in the most inhumane way possible, and the proliferation risks are so significant that we don't want that genie out of the bottle. So when I said that the use of chemical weapons would be a game-changer, that wasn't unique to that wasn't a position unique to the United States and it shouldn't have been a surprise."

So the "enormous consequences" Obama was referring to means sending the International Criminal Court after Assad? When? After Assad takes Obama's advice from August 2011 to "step aside"? It's hard to imagine that the Syrian dictator is shuddering in fear as he ponders that scenario. One may imagine that after butchering 80,000 of his countrymen, a certain steadiness of the nerves sets in as Assad has managed to escape any robust form of international punishment since the conflict began. And never mind the fact that President Obama appears to be speaking for the world when it comes to his own self-proclaimed "red line." America's allies had to practically drag last week's intelligence assessment out of the White House after they had already come to rest on the conclusion that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons.

If Bashar Assad breached the "red line," then Barrack Obama stands ready to draw a new one. As the President said last week, "We cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations." Apparently the red line that was originally drawn at "seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around", was moved to "not tolerat[ing] the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people," and has now been redrawn at "the systematic use" of chemical weapons. Never mind how cynical a pronouncement it was that a year and a half into the conflict, the President drew a line with chemical weapons. That message was received in Damascus as a cart blanche to use tanks, helicopters, and fixed-wing aircraft to massacre and rape at will. But now that the moment of truth has predictably arrived, the White House is in full-scale retreat.

The administration is now laying the groundwork to remain on the sideline. Obama said during his press conference, "if we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we can find ourselves in a position where we can't mobilize the international community to support what we do." Yet, so far the Obama administration has hardly lifted a finger to bring the conflict to an end not withstanding the humanitarian aid the U.S. delivers that bears no mark or flag of the United States that might counter the perception that Washington is literally doing nothing. Lost in the administration's urge to cajole the international community is the reality that there is only one country that matters, that we have diplomatic relations with, that it is blocking Assad's departure: Russia, whose military complex has been arming Assad to the teeth. It's hard to imagine how Barrack Obama intends to "mobilize" Vladimir Putin "to support what we do." Perhaps another rousing speech with an oratory flair, or pounding that "reset" button again?

Instead, Mr. Obama is ensuring that he will never have the kind of definitive proof he claims to require by setting the bar so high it will never be reached. The prescription? He "called on the United Nations to investigate." The inconvenient truth is that a UN team of weapons inspectors has not and will not be allowed by the Assad regime to enter Syria. That team has already been assembled; they have been cooling their heels in Cyprus since March.

The issue isn't just about the reality that America's credibility in foreign affairs is at stake. Obama's waffling has made further escalation of the conflict a near certainty. Iran and North Korea will surely take note of the White House's fuzzy red lines. And states like Israel and Saudi Arabia will undoubtedly question the value of America's security guarantees. The real problem is that the Obama administration lacks a coherent policy in Syria now—over two years into the Syrian civil war. Absent a clear policy, no clear strategy to end the conflict has emerged, and the tactics employed have been dilatory and procedural.

While the White House keeps drawing lines with its own Etch-A-Sketch, The Telegraph is reporting that Jabhat al-Nusra, the opposition Salafi terrorist group that has pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda, is closing in almost a mile from al-Safira home to Syria's largest chemical weapons production facilities. Among its chief products is the sarin nerve agent. But never mind that scenario where al-Qaeda gets its hands on weapons of mass destruction. And never mind that the Assad regime might well transfer those kind of weapons to Hezbollah—an equally nefarious script. After all, the Obama administration can always redraw the red line.

Contact Policy Center at list@jewishpolicycenter.org

The recycled Arab League peace proposal based on the Palestinian claim of return and the1967 lines with mutually agreed land swap attempts to sell oceanfront property in Arizona. If Israel would buy it, the Arab League would throw the Golden Gate in free.

Those who welcome the Arab League proposal demonstrate suspension of disbelief. They subordinate reality to wishful-thinking, urging Israel to assume tangible lethal risks in return for an intangible agreement. They ignore the lessons of the 1993 Oslo Accord replete with intensified Palestinian hate education, terrorism and the abrogation of agreements as well as the last three years on the tumultuous, boiling, seismic Arab Street.

Fans of the Arab League proposal ignore fundamental Middle East constraints, which are highlighted by the non-existence of a single Arab democracy, the AWOL of intra-Arab comprehensive peace, the lack of intra-Arab ratification of all intra-Arab borders and the absence of compliance with most intra-Arab agreements for the last 1,400 years. Why would anyone assume that Arabs would shower upon the "infidel" Jewish State that which they have never shared among themselves a long-term comprehensive peace carved in stone?!

Western policy-makers and public opinion molders call upon Israel to commit to "painful concessions" in the most conflict-ridden region in the world. They would never assume such concessions in their own less violent regions. However, they expect Israel to accept an Arab League peace proposal, in a region which has not tolerated non-Moslem sovereignty since the seventh century. They provide a tailwind to a recycled Arab League "peace" proposal in a region where Christians, Jews and other non-Moslem minorities are systematically oppressed, persecuted and annihilated.

Western promoters of the Arab League initiative are oblivious to inherent features of intra-Arab relations, which have been underscored during the last three years from North Africa to the Persian Gulf: Violent intolerance of the other Moslems/Arabs (let alone of the "infidel"); flaming fragmentation along tribal, ethnic, religious, ideological and geographic grounds; shifty, unpredictable, unstable and unreliable regimes, policies and alliances; and the tenuous nature of agreements, which are usually "written on ice."

Contrary to the worldview of Western policy-makers who embrace the Arab League proposal, the Arab Street has not experienced an Arab Spring, a transition to democracy, Facebook or youth revolution, the reincarnation of Gandhi and MLK or a quest for dignity. The tide on the Arab Street independent of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been predominantly anti-democratic, anti-US, violently Islamist and therefore dramatically more threatening.

A Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria would import the tempestuous Arab Street into the Judean and Samarian suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. It would establish another rogue/terrorist state, doom Jordan's pro-US Hashemite regime, add another anti-US vote at the UN and enhance the Russian, Chinese and North Korean profile in the eastern flank of the Mediterranean. The establishment of a Palestinian state would reward those who triggered the flight of Christians from Bethlehem, Beit Jallah and Ramallah.

Palestinian Arabs have systematically attempted to annihilate the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel since the anti-Jewish pogroms/terrorism of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, through the 1948/9 War and the sustained campaign of terrorism since 1949. The Palestinian track record also highlights their alliance with Nazi Germany, the USSR, Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden and other enemies and adversaries of the Free World. Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat and their allies were expelled from Egypt (1950s), Syria (1966), Jordan (1970), Lebanon (1982/3) and Kuwait (1991) for subversion, hence the limited Arab support of the Palestinians.

The violent Palestinian track record reaffirms that Palestinian Arabs have never been preoccupied with the size but with the existence of Israel.

The Arab League proposal distorts, once again, the positive elements of Land-for-Peace, which was displayed at the end of the Second World War: deterring future aggression by punishing the aggressor (Nazi Germany) and rewarding the intended victims (France, Poland and Checkoslovakia) with land. Land-for-Peace as promoted by the Arab league, and Western political-correctness, fuels aggression by punishing the intended Israeli victim and rewarding the Arab aggressors.

In order to survive, the Jewish State must control Judea and Samaria, the cradle of Jewish history. In order to withstand the Middle East challenges, Israel must control the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, which tower over pre-1967 Israel a 9-15 mile sliver along the Mediterranean. Judea and Samaria are "the Golan Heights" of Israel's soft belly: Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and 80% of Israel's population and infrastructures. The higher the level of Middle East violence, unreliability, unpredictability and intolerance, the more intensified the threat, the stricter must be the security requirements, most especially the irreplaceable value of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria.

The Arab League proposal for Israel to depart from Judea and Samaria is not a peace plan; it is a suicidal proposition.

Shabbat Shalom and have a pleasant weekend,

Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is an editor and consultant who lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il

Thirty out of 31 of the FBI's most wanted terrorists are not Vietnam or Iraq War veterans. They're not Christian fundamentalists, nor are they NRA gun nuts. Those 30 are in actuality Muslims, waging their own particular war of terror against the American way of life.

Topping the list is Abd Al Aziz Awda who was indicted on 53 counts in a federal court in Tampa stemming from racketeering activities such as bombings, murders, extortions, and money laundering. Like all on the FBI's list, he should be considered armed and dangerous.

Also included is Hakimullah Mehsud, wanted for his alleged involvement in the Dec. 30, 2009 bombing of a U.S. military installation in Afghanistan.

There are 29 other terrorists on the FBI's list, 28 of whom are Islamic extremists bent on waging jihad against the United States. President Obama appears oblivious to this, however.

Americans knew which way the wind was blowing in the earliest days of the Obama administration. There was no more "War on Terror." It was now an overseas contingency operation, whatever that means, and this fact alone should tell us all we have a president looking at the world through rose-colored glasses lacking a firm grip on reality.

What's worse, he could not, and cannot to this day use the terms "Islamic" or "Muslim" to describe the words, "terrorist" or "extremist."

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was a quick study and picked up on this theme and ran with it.

In April of 2009, she distributed a document warning law enforcement agencies to be especially wary of "rightwing extremist activity" supplemented by disgruntled war veterans, according to The Washington Times.

""t may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning said.

Also on her list were those Bible-thumping Christian fundamentalists.

Political correctness is, in and of itself, problematic. When one is prevented from accurately describing thoughts, ideas and events out of fear of hurting someone else's feelings either real or imaginary brings the free exchange of information to a standstill. When one carries political correctness to an extreme where reality is distorted, if not wholly discounted, society is in real trouble.

And what about that single terrorist on the FBI list who is not Muslim. Is he a returning war vet, Christian fundamentalist or "end of the world" survivalist? He's none of the above.

His name is Daniel A. San Diego, and he's an extreme "green weenie" environmental terrorist. That's right he's an Al Gore acolyte.

Read the FBI's list of its most wanted terrorists at:

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/@@wanted-group-listing

Dr. Rich Swier is Publisher of www.DrRichSwier e-Magazine. He holds a Doctorate of Education from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, CA, a Master's Degree in Management Information Systems from the George Washington University, Washington, D.C., and a Bachelor's Degree in Fine Arts from Washington University, St. Louis, MO. Richard is a 23-year Army veteran who retired as a Lieutenant Colonel in 1990. He was awarded the Legion of Merit for his years of service.

Don't miss the few comments after the pictures...

Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000 FOR LIFE

Salary of House/Senate .......................$174,000 FOR LIFE, This is stupid

Salary of Speaker of the House .............$223,500 FOR LIFE This is really stupid

Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ....... $193,400 FOR LIFE Ditto last line

Average Salary of a teacher ............... $40,065

Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN ....... $38,000

I think we found where the cuts should be made!

If you agree ..... pass it on, I just did.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

In an interview on BBC Arabic radio, Dr Walid Phares said, "The ongoing investigation with three more suspects in the Boston Terror attack may lead to serious charges of aiding the main suspects or may not. But what this investigation is showing that more individuals, according to authorities, may have been part of a support network at various levels.

Authorities will inform the public about their findings, but on an analytical strategic level we can project that a wider Jihadi network is operating in the United States." Phares said "to understand the Boston attack, you must link the patterns behind the Ft Hood Terror shooting, the Arkansas killing and dozens of attempts over the past few years. What the Administration and Congress must do is to launch a bipartisan strategic investigation into the Jihadi operations against the US homeland."

Jerome S. Kaufman is Editor of Israel Commentary (www.israel-commentary.org). This article is archived at http://www.israel-commentary.org/?p=6518

Meir Weinstein, head of the Canadian arm of the Jewish Defence League, sponsored the speech to be given at Chabad Flamingo Synagogue by Pamela Geller. The synagogue's Rabbi canceled Geller's appearance after being approached by concerned members of York Regional Police. (Terry Davidson/Toronto Sun)

TORONTO - York Regional Police threatened to remove a rabbi as one of the force's chaplains if he hosted a controversial anti-Islamist speaker at his Thornhill synagogue.

Insp. Ricky Veerappan, of the force's diversity, equity and inclusion bureau, confirmed he and officers from the service's hate crimes unit met with Rabbi Mendel Kaplan of the Chabad Flamingo Synagogue on Tuesday.

They expressed concern about an upcoming talk to be given by Pamela Geller, a vocal critic of radical Islam. She protested past plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City, and has posted anti-Jihad messages in that city's subway system.

Subsequent to his meeting with police, Kaplan cancelled Geller's May 13 talk, which was sponsored by the Jewish Defence League (JDL) a hard-line advocacy group that had rented space in Kaplan's synagogue for the event.

"I think the police are turning a blind eye to who they should be keeping an eye on," said the JDL's Meir Weinstein, referring to radical Islamists. Weinstein said another location will be chosen for Geller's appearance.

Veerappan said he told Kaplan that Geller's speech "would not be endorsed by York Regional Police" and that the rabbi's role as a force chaplain would be thrown into question if he were to permit the event.

"If he did (host Geller), then we'd have to reassess our relationship with (Kaplan)," Veerappan said. "We serve the needs of the entire community. Some of the stuff that Ms. Geller speaks about runs contrary to the values of York Regional Police and the work we do in engaging our communities."

Veerappan said a member of York Region's Muslim community, whom he wouldn't identify, brought Geller's scheduled talk to the attention of police.

York Regional Police enlist eight chaplains of different faiths to counsel police officers and their families. Among them is a Muslim chaplain, Imam Abdul Hai Patel.

A Geller speech scheduled for early April at the Great Neck Synagogue in Long Island, N.Y., was also cancelled.

In March, the University of Toronto hosted controversial Muslim lecturer Tariq Ramadan, who has also spoken in Toronto at the annual Islamic faith conference, Reviving the Islamic Spirit. In October, Pakistani politician Imran Khan, a controversial critic of the U.S. war on terror, spoke in Brampton. Leila Khaled, a Palestinian revolutionary from the 1970s, is set speak at University of British Columbia on May 4.

Contact MAXIJUSTICE at maxijustice@videotron.ca

Tendency in the West, pointedly among liberals, to dismiss realities of Islamic world, Palestinians and direct focus solely on Israel.

There are two main reasons that many leftists who are viscerally supportive of Israel have difficulty understanding and defending the Jewish state today. First, the storyline about Israel is deeply distorted.

For instance, this week, Freedom House released its annual report on press freedom around the world. Israel's ranking was reduced from "free" to "partly free."

Freedom House gave three reasons for downgrading Israel's status: the prosecution of Haaretz reporter Uri Blau for holding stolen top-secret documents; Channel 10's difficulties getting its broadcast license renewed; and the success of the Israel Hayom newspaper. As Jonathan Tobin at Commentary noted Wednesday, all of these reasons are fraudulent.

Uri Blau received thousands of top secret documents from Anat Kamm, who stole them from the office of OC Central Command at the end of her military service. The documents were not mere intelligence analyses. They were operational plans, unit information and other highly sensitive information.

Blau lied to investigators who asked him about the documents. He fled to London for months rather than speak to investigators or return the documents.

Yet because Israel prosecuted Blau for these acts which are felonies Freedom House decided that Israel constrains press freedom.

Then there is Channel 10. Channel 10 is a poorly managed, unsuccessful company that has gone broke. It owes NIS 110 million which it cannot pay back, including NIS 60m. to the state.

Due to its nonpayment of its debt to the state, the Knesset was set to vote down the renewal of its broadcast license again, in accordance with the law. To protect themselves from market forces Channel 10's failed management and staff used their bully pulpit to deflect attention away from their failure and incompetence. They accused the Knesset of trying to silence free speech. Channel 10's allies in the media and the political Left joined their anti-government bandwagon. The Knesset folded.

Channel 10's license was renewed. And its debt to taxpayers remains unpaid.

As for Israel Hayom, Freedom House alleged that the free paper's success in gaining market shares at the expense of other tabloids is part of a nefarious plot by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his friend and Israel Hayom owner Sheldon Adelson to establish a quasi-state-controlled media. Israel Hayom is the first mass circulation Israeli newspaper not aligned with the political Left.

Freedom House's allegations against Adelson and Netanyahu and its championing of bankrupt Channel 10 are based on two guiding notions. First, non-leftist entities the Knesset, Israel Hayom's editorial board — are inherently opposed to press freedom while the motives of leftist institutions like Haaretz and Channel 10 are as pure as the driven snow.

Second, they imply that media in Israel can only be free if not subjected to market forces or the rule of law.

Clearly both of these underlying assumptions are absurd. Yet they form the basis of Freedom House's damaging allegations against the government.

And that's the thing of it.

Over the past generation, we have been inundated by disinformation from an unlimited number of seemingly credible organizations whose aim is to discredit any development related to Israel that does not advance the positions of the Left. And due to the ubiquity of this disinformation, among wider and wider circles today the belief has taken hold that there is something fundamentally illegitimate about non-leftist Israelis and non-leftist supporters of Israel.

Since most Israelis are not leftist, and since the most outspoken supporters of Israel are not leftists, there is a widening belief particularly among liberals that Israelis, Israeli institutions and Israel's supporters are illegitimate.

This brings us to the second reason that it has become so difficult for Americans and particularly liberal American Jews who viscerally support Israel, to defend or even understand the Jewish state today.

There is a Western tendency, most pronounced on the anti-colonialist Left, to ignore the nature of the Islamic world generally and the Palestinians in particular, and concentrate their attention on Israel alone.

Case in point is Harvard Law Prof. Alan Dershowitz.

Dershowitz is rightly considered one of Israel's most outspoken defenders in the US. But like his fellow leftist ideologues, Dershowitz apparently does not think that it is important to focus on the nature of things in the Islamic world. Rather than notice current realities, he places his faith in his power to shape the future through his intellect and his willingness to compromise.

In an interview with New York Jewish Week following his participation at Sunday's Jerusalem Post's conference in New York, Dershowitz said he was astonished by both my remarks on Iran and the audience's response to my remarks.

He told the paper, "She said, 'Bombs away,' and they gave her a standing ovation."

One of the things that distinguish the Post's readers from most other news consumers is that our readers have educated themselves in the realities of Israel and the region and pay attention to those realities.

As a consequence, they are less affected by anti-Israel propaganda presented as human rights reports than the vast majority of news consumers in the US.

When I addressed the conference, I said I would limit my discussion of Iran to two words, "Bombs away." I said that because like the Post's readers, I base my analysis of Iran's nuclear weapons program on the nature of the Iranian regime.

The Iranian regime is a totalitarian regime. It has an uninterrupted record of torturing and massacring its citizens. It has threatened to annihilate Israel. It is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Economic sanctions are only viable against regimes that care about serving their citizenry. A regime that represses its citizens is not going to be moved from its strategic course by international sanctions that embitter the lives of its citizens. Since the Iranian regime does not care about its citizens, it cannot be diverted from its plans to acquire nuclear weapons through economic sanctions, no matter how harsh.

As for reaching an agreement with the Iranian regime that would induce it to end its nuclear weapons program, this aspiration is similarly based on a denial of the nature of the regime. The first act of the regime was to reject the foundations of the international system. The Iranian takeover of the US Embassy in 1979 was not merely an act of war against America. It was a declaration of war against the international legal system. Since then, nothing the Iranian regime has done, including emerging as the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, has brought it closer to accepting the norms of behavior expected from a member of the family of nations. As a consequence, the notion that this regime would honor any nuclear agreement it may sign with the US or any other international party is ridiculous.

Since traditional forms of statecraft that do not involve the use of force are not viable options for statecraft involving Iran, the only viable option for preventing Iran particularly at this late stage from becoming a nuclear power is force. If Israel is serious when it says that a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to the Jewish state then Israel must attack Iran's nuclear installations.

Because the Post's readers are informed about the nature of the Iranian regime, they appreciated the message I telegraphed in saying "Bombs away." But Dershowitz was astonished.

Jewish Week asked Dershowitz about the Jerusalem Post conference because during a panel discussion he and I participated in about the Palestinian conflict with Israel, he angrily attacked the audience for laughing at his plan for renewing negotiations between Israel and the PLO and I angrily rebuked him for doing so.

Dershowitz told the audience that he had presented a plan to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas that involved Israel abrogating Jewish property rights in select areas of Judea and Samaria through a so-called settlement freeze. In exchange, the Palestinians would agree to suspend their efforts to delegitimize and criminalize Israel at the UN and the International Criminal Court.

In other words, Dershowitz put forth a plan which he said Abbas responded positively to that would require Israel to take a step not required by the agreements it already negotiated with the PLO.

And in exchange, the Palestinians would temporarily suspend actions they are taking in material breach of the agreements they signed with Israel.

By advocating this "bargain," Dershowitz revealed that his conception of the Palestinians is based on willful blindness to their nature that equals his apparent blindness to the nature of the Iranian regime.

Last Saturday, Abbas gave a speech in which he said that Israel's commitment to the peace process will be measured by its willingness to release Palestinian terrorists from its jails. Last month, Abbas sent his representative to visit the families of jailed Palestinian mass murderers to express his solidarity with them and his admiration for their sons' crimes.

As Aaron Lerner from IMRA pointed out earlier this week, by insisting that all Palestinian terrorists be freed from Israeli prisons, Abbas is saying that there is nothing criminal or wrong about murdering or attempting to murder Israelis. This position alone discredits him as a peace partner.

Abbas's steadfast refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist, and his unceasing political warfare against Israel in breach of signed agreements between Israel and the PLO are just further proof that he is not a credible partner for peace.

Then there is the nature of the Palestinian people themselves. Unlike the Iranians, who desperately wish to overthrow their regime, according the results of a new Pew survey of the Arab world, Palestinians want more tyranny.

To the extent they oppose their regime, they do so because it is too open. Among other things, 87 percent of Palestinians say a wife must always obey her husband; 89% want to be ruled by Islamic law, and 62% support the death penalty for leaving Islam.

More Palestinians support terrorism against civilians than do citizens in any other Muslim society polled.

Post readers are apparently as familiar with the nature of Palestinians society as they are with the nature of the Iranian regime. And this is why they laughed at Dershowitz's plan for restarting negotiations.

Angered at the audience's response, Dershowitz lashed out against it. He said the thousand people in the hall were irrelevant, that no one listens to them, and that it is good that no one listens to them.

Dershowitz is rightly respected by Zionists across the political spectrum for his willingness to defend Israel against its detractors. And this makes his contemptuous treatment of an audience of its supporters at the conference more tragic than infuriating.

It is the tragedy of our times that basically decent liberals like Dershowitz dismiss as marginal those who base their assessments of Israel and the Middle East on reality, rather than on policy paradigms that are the stuff of negotiations textbooks at Harvard.

It is the tragedy of our times because the people he holds in greatest contempt are the people who have been right about Israel, and about Iran and the Palestinians, time after time after time.

Americans For a Safe Israel/AFSI is a pro-active pro-Israel advocacy group. AFSI may be contacted by mail at 1623 Third Ave., Suite 205, New York, N.Y. 10128 (Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717); by email at afsi@rcn.com; or by accessing its website: www.afsi.org. Helen Freedman is Executive Director. She writes, "The best way to send a message to the detractors of Israel in the media, the Administration, and the public is by joining AFSI and becoming active with AFSI's work. As a member, you will receive all our email alerts as well as email copies of our renowned monthly publication, The Outpost. See past editions."

People under siege end up blaming themselves for their enemies' hatred toward them, delude themselves about the malicious intentions of their foes.

"There were many cogent critiques of the Oslo process. But none addressed why Israel's leaders, supported by the nation's academic and cultural elites and much of the broader population, were pursuing a course that was demonstrably placing the nation, including their own families, at dire risk given the irrationality of Israel's course, the explanation had to lie in the realm of psychopathology. Israel's Oslo diplomacy reflected a self-destructiveness inexplicable except in psychiatric terms" Prof. Kenneth Levin of the department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School.

"Psychosis: Fundamental derangement of the mind characterized by defective or lost contact with reality especially as evidenced by delusions" Merriam-Webster Online dictionary.

April was a bad month for level-headedness, least as far as the debate on Israel was concerned, and particularly in reference to the Palestinian issue.

Common sense and rational thinking were abandoned in favor of feverish flights of far-fetched fancy, totally divorced from recalcitrant realities down here on Planet Earth.

Fanatic, frenetic, frantic

As the evidence against the feasibility of any two-state outcome to the conflict with the Palestinian Arabs continually accumulates, the rhetoric of evermore desperate two-staters is becoming increasingly fanatic, their behavior increasingly frenetic and their policy proposals increasingly frantic.

Forced to concede that virtually all the assumptions upon which the land-for-peace approach, and its derivative two-state paradigm, were founded, have been demonstrated to be totally without foundation, two-staters refuse to acknowledge error.

Rather than relinquish the conclusions they had drawn on the basis of disproven premises, they cling to them as if they were some divinely ordained dictate, preferring to find alternative arguments to justify them — even if these happen be to diametrically contradictory to those previously invoked.

The latter part of last month saw a flurry of some of the more fanciful expositions/exhortations of the two-state principle being aired on several prominent public platforms.

Perverse, pernicious prescriptions

The perverse procession of pernicious prescriptions began on April 23, with the presentation of the bizarre notion of "constructive unilateralism" (a.k.a. "the independent option") at the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. As I pointed out in my previous columns, this is a policy proposal championed by "a nonpartisan political movement" known as Blue and White Future and endorsed by INSS, and the two organizations cooperate intimately to promote it domestically and abroad.

Since I have critiqued the idea of "constructive unilateralism" over the past two weeks, I will limit myself to reminding readers that this is an approach that advocates a policy of "preemptive surrender," prescribing not only that Israel acquiesce a priori to virtually all Palestinian demands for statehood, in return for absolutely nothing, but shoulder the burden of financing much of their implementation.

Despite its misleading rhetorical wrappings, it is much like the 2005 disengagement clearly an initiative whose immediate focus is far more on ensuring the dismantling of settlements rather than attaining and sustaining a durable peace.

Dershowitz's feckless formula

Next in line came Prof. Alan Dershowitz's feckless formula for two states, which he originally touted in The Wall Street Journal last summer (July 3) and was given an opportunity to re-espouse on April 28, at this year's Jerusalem Post conference in New York.

Dershowitz seems to suggest we should go about solving the issues in dispute by well, solving them; or at least by declaring the major issues solved, and negotiating in "good faith" of course those that remain "reasonably in dispute."

Thus he proclaims with cavalier abandon that "the first issue on the table should be the rough borders of a Palestinian state," apparently unaware that this has been the heart of the dispute for almost a quarter century if not considerably longer depending on your historical point of departure.

He then goes on to declare blithely: "Setting those [borders] would require recognizing that the West Bank can be realistically divided into three effective areas:

• Those relatively certain to remain part of Israel, such as Ma'aleh Adumim and other areas close to the center of Jerusalem.

• Those relatively certain to become part of a Palestinian state, such as the heavily populated Arab areas beyond Israel's security barrier.

• Those reasonably in dispute, including some of the large settlement blocs such as Ariel.

Just how "realistic" this division is, can be gauged by the recent uproar over the prospect of Israel developing the E1 region which lies considerably closer to the center of Jerusalem than the rest of Ma'aleh Adumim, which Dershowitz deems "relatively certain to remain part of Israel," and in fact comprises the territorial link between them.

Puerile, prejudicial and paradoxical

Putting aside the thorny question as to which Palestinian leader would agree that communities such as "Ma'aleh Adumim and other areas close to the center of Jerusalem" are "to remain part of Israel," and that Ariel is "reasonably in dispute" indeed, would even survive making such a publicly binding commitment there are many reasons why Dershowitz's proposal should be dismissed as puerile, prejudicial and paradoxical.

I have given a detailed analysis of the flaws and fallacies of Deshowitz's proposal elsewhere see "Disputing Dershowitz again" (July 12, 2012); "Mad hatters, flat-earthers and two-staters" (July 19, 2012). Accordingly, I will spare readers a detailed repetition of my critique and confine myself to perhaps the most glaring defect, which illustrates why the harsh epithets are indeed justified.

This relates to his attitude to the "disputed" areas. He says the "freeze [on Israeli construction] would continue in disputed areas until it was decided which will remain part of Israel and [which will be] part of the new Palestinian state."

However, he then proceeds to prejudge the outcome of the "reasonable dispute," by refraining from placing a similar freeze on the Palestinians. To eliminate any doubt about how he really sees the fate of the these "disputed" areas, Dershowitz declares: "An absolute building freeze would be a painful but necessary compromise. It might also encourage residents in the West Bank to move to areas that will remain part of Israel, especially if the freeze were accompanied by financial inducements to relocate."

Clearly, if the Palestinians are permitted to build in these areas where the Jews are not only barred from doing so, but "induced" to leave, deeming them "disputed" is little more than a disingenuous ruse. For if Palestinian development is allowed, while Jewish development is not, the obvious intention is for them to be eventually transferred to the Palestinians.

See what I mean by "puerile, prejudicial and paradoxical?" While I might disapprove of the disrespect displayed toward Dershowitz personally at the Jerusalem Post conference, I can understand the derision with which his proposal was greeted.

'Age of intellectual absurdity'

Then, on April 30, Intelligence Squared staged its first debate in Israel, featuring two zealous two-staters, Peter Beinart and Michael Melchior, former MK and currently chief rabbi of Norway.

In the past, I have pointed to the ignorance and arrogance that characterize Beinart's self-righteous pontifications on Israel's conduct, and the perversions, prevarications and platitudes that comprise his proposals for Israel's policies see "Perfidious Pete, treacherous Tom" I & II (April 11 and April 20, 2012); "Richard Beinart and Peter Goldstone" I & II (May 31 and June 7, 2012).

But I cannot resist inserting here a caustic comment made by Prof. Barry Rubin in an article titled "Betrayal Glorified: The Bizarre Jewish Movement to Destroy Israel by Pretending to Save It."

In it he dismisses Beinart, and the positions he espouses, with a withering barb: "We live in an age of intellectual absurdity in which someone who has no notion of Israeli reality and who is, at best, decades... out of date is treated as if he could possibly be of some relevance."

As for Melchior, in a September 2012 interview, headlined "Islam is ready for peace with Israel," he condemned Israeli rejectionism or at least reluctance for obstructing peace between Judaism and Islam, including the more radical extremist elements, thus, as one popular website observed, "placing the onus for lack of peace with extremist Islamic movements on Israel."

One can only wonder whether the good rabbi realizes that by expounding such wildly unfounded indictments of the Jewish state, he is merely providing more grist for the mill of the Judeo-phobic elements that harass his ever-diminishing Nordic congregation.

Preserving democracy by promoting tyranny?

Both Beinart and Melchior espoused the well-worn theme that if Israel does not facilitate the establishment of a Palestinian state, it will "impair not only its democratic character but ultimately its Jewish character" (Beinart) and "empty the real content of what it means to be a true Jewish state" (Melchior).

We are thus asked to believe that the only way to preserve Jewish democracy is to facilitate Muslim tyranny.

After all, the Israeli withdrawals whether negotiated or unilateral have made Sinai a lawless jihadi no-man's land; resulted in Gaza becoming a Hamas-dominated theocracy; and allowed the ascent of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Even dedicated two-staters, such as Dershowitz, concede it is not "out of the question that someday Hamas might gain control over the Palestinian government, either by means of a coup, or an election, or some such combination of both. Israel cannot be asked to accept a fully militarized Hamas state on its vulnerable borders."

The only way the putative Palestinian state will not become a haven for Arab terror organizations is for the Palestinians to behave in a manner entirely different indeed, diametrically opposed to the manner in which they have behaved for seven decades arguably even longer.

But two-staters have yet to produce persuasive arguments rather than fervent hopes as to why this is at all likely. Until they do, they should not be surprised that many relate to their proposal at best as a wildly irresponsible gamble.

Or is it that two-staters believe that being nice is more important and more Jewish than being?

The Oslo Syndrome: Explaining the inexplicable?

How then can we account for this proclivity for self-destructive irrationality? Prof. Kenneth Levin of the department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, has ventured an intellectually audacious explanation that should not be hastily discounted.

Apart from his MD degree Levin, who has hugely impressive and diverse academic credentials, including degrees in mathematics (University of Pennsylvania) an MA in English literature (Oxford), a PhD in history (Princeton), was at a loss to explain Israel's behavior in rational terms.

Accordingly, in his book The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege, he turned to the psycho-pathological.

In it, he drew on his experience with children, chronically abused by their parents, who typically blame themselves for their fate, since this sustains a fantasy that if they reform, if they become "good," their parents will treat them differently. To look at their situation more realistically would force them to acknowledge their inability to change their circumstances.

Adults, as well as children, prefer to fend off acknowledging such bitter realities and to preserve the illusion of control even when no such possibility exists.

Likewise, people under chronic siege tend to deny the severity of the threat, to blame themselves or others within their community, for the danger or their enemies' hatred toward them, and to delude themselves about the malicious intentions of their foes. Placing the onus on themselves, rather than on their adversaries, creates the hope that there is something they can do to end the enmity against them.

The distasteful alternative

Levin has come up with an original and, in many ways, compelling, thesis that is becoming ever-more relevant.

As he notes, "Israel has, at best, a capacity to respond effectively to attacks by its neighbors; it does not have the capacity to end the Arab siege, to force peace upon the Arabs."

Indeed, it is becoming increasingly evident that Arab/Muslim hostility towards the Jewish state is not a result of what it does but of what it is Jewish. It can thus only be placated by the Jewish state ceasing to be Jewish.

Accordingly, the Oslo Syndrome theory is one that deserves indeed requires urgent and widespread debate. Its validity needs to be carefully, but expeditiously, explored, for the only alternative is highly distasteful.

It is to assume that two-staters prefer to imperil the country, rather than admit the error of their politics, that they are willing to forgo the nation's security rather than their personal and professional standing.

Dr. Martin Sherman is in the Department of Political Science at Tel Aviv University. He has written extensively on water, including "The Politics of Water in the Middle East," London: Macmillan, 1999. He was a senior research fellow at the Interdisciplinary Institute in Herzliya and Academic Coordinator of the Herzliya Conference in 2001 and 2002. He is currently Academic Director of the Jerusalem Summit. This article appeared May 02, 2013 in the Jerusalem Post and is archived at
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/The-two-state-psychosis-The-Oslo-Syndrome-revisited-311914

The Pentagon has redesigned its biggest "bunker buster" bomb with more advanced features intended to enable it to destroy Iran's most heavily fortified and defended nuclear site.

The Pentagon has beefed up its "Bunker Buster" bomb, designed to destroy Iran's Fordow nuclear facility. Julian Barnes has exclusive details.

U.S. officials see development of the weapon as critical to convincing Israel that the U.S. has the ability to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb if diplomacy fails, and also that Israel's military can't do that on its own.

Several times in recent weeks, American officials, seeking to demonstrate U.S. capabilities, showed Israeli military and civilian leaders secret Air Force video of an earlier version of the bomb hitting its target in high-altitude testing, and explained what had been done to improve it, according to diplomats who were present.

In the video, the weapon can be seen penetrating the ground within inches of its target, followed by a large underground detonation, according to people who have seen the footage.

The newest version of what is the Pentagon's largest conventional bomb, the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, has adjusted fuses to maximize its burrowing power, upgraded guidance systems to improve its precision and high-tech equipment intended to allow it to evade Iranian air defenses in order to reach and destroy the Fordow nuclear enrichment complex, which is buried under a mountain near the Iranian city of Qom. The upgraded MOP designed for Fordow hasn't been dropped from a plane yet.

The improvements are meant to address U.S. and Israeli concerns that Fordow couldn't be destroyed from the air. Overcoming that obstacle could also give the West more leverage in diplomatic efforts to convince Iran to curtail its nuclear program.

"Hopefully we never have to use it," said a senior U.S. official familiar with the development of the new version. "But if we had to, it would work."

Fordow has long been thought to be a target that would be difficult if not impossible for the U.S. to destroy with conventional weapons. In January 2012, U.S. officials disclosed they didn't think their largest bomb could penetrate to the centrifuges within the complex, where Iran refines fuel it maintains is intended for civilian use but the U.S. and its allies believe is destined for a nuclear-weapons program.

At the time, the Pentagon had spent about $330 million to develop about 20 of the bombs, and sought additional funding to make them more effective. That money came through; so far, the Defense Department has now spent more than $400 million on the bombs, which are built by Boeing Co., BA +1.56%according to government officials.

U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Iran's nuclear sites are so well fortified that Israel's military alone can't deliver what a U.S. official called "a knockout blow." Even if Israel were able to obtain its own MOP—and U.S. officials said they haven't offered it to its ally—U.S. officials said Israel doesn't have stealth aircraft capable of carrying the bomb to its target deep inside Iran.

U.S. officials said they believe the enhanced U.S. bunker-busting capability decreases the chances that Israel will launch a unilateral bombing campaign against Iran this year and possibly next year, buying more time for the Obama administration to pursue diplomacy after Iran holds elections in June. Israeli officials declined to comment. Israeli officials maintain they reserve the right to attack Iran.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and other senior American officials have told their Israeli counterparts in recent weeks that the Obama administration will look more closely at military options to deal with Iran's nuclear program after assessing the impact of those elections on Tehran's intentions.

The White House wants to find a diplomatic solution but hasn't ruled out military action. In part to increase pressure on Tehran, both President Barack Obama and Mr. Hagel have used recent visits to Israel to stress Israel's right to decide for itself whether to strike Iran.

Pentagon press secretary George Little declined to comment on the changes made to the MOP or the contents of Mr. Hagel's meetings with Israeli officials.

The changes made to the MOP reflect a close U.S. analysis of what it would take to destroy Fordow. On the bomb itself, the detonator fuse has been adjusted specifically to withstand impact with layers of granite and steel that encase the nuclear facility, officials said.

The newest version is also designed to operate in "contested environments." It is equipped with capabilities designed to counter Iran's air defenses and keep the bomb on target if the Iranians try to knock it off course. Iran has invested heavily in recent years in air defenses and electronic warfare.

Officials said they believe the enhanced bomb would be even more effective against North Korea's nuclear bunkers, which the U.S. thinks aren't as heavily fortified as Iran's.

The new version of the weapon also includes changes to the guidance system to improve precision. U.S. officials say precision is important because, if the U.S. decides to strike Iran, the Air Force may need to drop more than one MOP on the exact same spot to thoroughly destroy Fordow.

The idea is to create a crater with the first strike and then send other bombs through the same hole to reach greater depths.

Israeli officials remain skeptical that the Obama administration is prepared to strike Fordow and other nuclear sites, according to current and former U.S. and Israeli officials. That skepticism, officials say, has fueled calls within Israel's government for a unilateral strike on Iran, even if Israel is capable of only setting back the nuclear program by a couple of years.

Israel still thinks its Air Force can do substantial damage to Fordow, according to Israeli and U.S. officials. U.S. intelligence agencies concur with that assessment. Mr. Hagel, during a visit to Israel last week, announced steps to supplement Israel's military capabilities, though it is unclear how soon the new weapons systems and aircraft will arrive.

U.S. officials see Iran's June vote as a critical test of whether the current Obama administration approach using economic sanctions to try to shape Iranian public sentiment and bring the country's hard-liners to the negotiating table is having the desired effect.

U.S. officials said the U.S. and Israel have reached an understanding that they will assess the intentions of Iran's leaders after the election, and then, barring progress on the diplomatic track, shift to a detailed discussion of military options.

U.S. officials said the elections won't trigger an automatic shift from the diplomatic to the military track but would be a critical juncture in American and Israeli deliberations.

"The election is a milestone to determine whether or not Iranian intentions will shift," a senior U.S. official said. The official said the review would take "some time" but declined to say how many months the U.S. and Israel have agreed to wait.

White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden declined to discuss private U.S. Israeli deliberations but said "the United States and Israel coordinate very closely on the issue of Iran."

"We are committed to trying to resolve concerns about Iran's nuclear program diplomatically. But, as President Obama has made clear: the U.S. will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. The onus is on Iran and it knows that time is not unlimited," she said.

U.S. and Israeli officials say they believe that Iran has stayed below an enrichment threshold set by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a bid to avoid a conflict with the West going into the elections.

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

The gang estimates presented in the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment (NGTA) represent the collection of data provided by the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) through the National Drug Threat Survey, Bureau of Prisons, State Correctional Facilities, and National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) law enforcement partners. An overview of how these numbers were collected is described within the Scope and Methodology Section of the NGTA. The estimates were provided on a voluntary basis and may include estimates of gang members as well as gang associates. Likewise, these estimates may not capture gang membership in jurisdictions that may have underreported or that declined to report. Based on these estimates, partial maps were prepared to visually display the reporting jurisdictions.

The data used to calculate street gangs and outlaw motorcycle gang estimates nationwide in the report are derived primarily from NDIC's National Drug Threat Survey. These estimates do not affect the qualitative findings of the 2011 NGTA and were used primarily to create the maps highlighting gang activity nationally. After further review of these estimates, the maps originally provided in 2011 NGTA were revised to show state-level representation of gang activity per capita and by law enforcement officers. This maintains consistency with the 2009 NGTA report's maps on gang activity.

During the years the NGTA is published, many entities news media, tourism agencies, and other groups with an interest in crime in our nation use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings, however, do not provide insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region, or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with residents.

The FBI and the NGIC do not recommend that jurisdictions use the estimated gang membership totals as exact counts for the numbers of gang members. These numbers are not used by the FBI or NGIC to rank jurisdictions on gang activity. The FBI and NGIC recommend contacting state and local law enforcement agencies for more information related to specific gang activity.

Preface

The National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) prepared the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment (NGTA) to examine emerging gang trends and threats posed by criminal gangs to communities throughout the United States. The 2011 NGTA enhances and builds on the gang-related trends and criminal threats identified in the 2009 assessment. It supports US Department of Justice strategic objectives 2.2 (to reduce the threat, incidence, and prevalence of violent crime) and 2.4 (to reduce the threat, trafficking, use, and related violence of illegal drugs). The assessment is based on federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement and corrections agency intelligence, including information and data provided by the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) and the National Gang Center. Additionally, this assessment is supplemented by information retrieved from open source documents and data collected through April 2011.

Scope and Methodology

In 2009, the NGIC released its second threat assessment on gang activity in the United States. The NGIC and its law enforcement partners documented increases in gang proliferation and migration nationwide and emerging threats. This report attempts to expand on these findings. Reporting and intelligence collected over the past two years have demonstrated increases in the number of gangs and gang members as law enforcement authorities nationwide continue to identify gang members and share information regarding these groups. Better reporting and collection has contributed greatly to the increased documentation and reporting of gang members and gang trends.

Information in the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment-Emerging Trends was derived from law enforcement intelligence, open source information, and data collected from the NDIC, including the 2010 NDIC National Drug Threat Survey (NDTS). NGIC law enforcement partners provided information and guidance regarding new trends and intelligence through an online request for information via the NGIC Law Enforcement Online (LEO) Special Interest Group (SIG), which is now NGIC Online. Law enforcement agencies nationwide continuously report new and emerging gang trends to the NGIC, as the NGIC continues to operate as a repository and dissemination hub for gang intelligence. This information provided by our law enforcement partners was used to identify many of the trends and issues included in this report.

Reporting used to quantify the number of street and outlaw motorcycle gangs and gang members was primarily derived from the 2010 NDIC NDTS data and some supplemental NGIC reporting from our law enforcement partners. NDIC annually conducts the NDTS to collect data on the threat posed by various illicit drugs in the United States. A stratified random sample of nearly 3,500 state and local law enforcement agencies was surveyed to generate national, regional, and state estimates of various aspects of drug trafficking activities including the threat posed by various drugs, the availability and production of illicit drugs, as well as the role of street gangs and outlaw motorcycle gangs in drug trafficking activity. Weighted national, regional, and state-level statistical estimates derived from NDTS 2010 data was based on responses received from 2,963 law enforcement agencies out of a sample of 3,465 agencies.

In previous iterations of the NDTS, survey responses were validated through targeted outreach to jurisdictions. In the 2010 NDTS, the key assumption was that individual respondents provided estimates on gang members for their jurisdictions only and did not include other jurisdictions. However, NGIC acknowledges that there may be some duplication or underreporting of gang members because of variations in each jurisdiction's process to estimate gang activity.

In calculating the number of street and outlaw motorcycle gang members, respondents in each region were asked to select from a series of ranges of numbers. The median numbers of each range were aggregated to generate an estimate for the total number of gang members. In calculating the number of street and outlaw motorcycle gangs, the low end of each range was aggregated to generate an estimate for the total number of gangs and gang members. Prison gang member estimates were derived directly from the US Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and state correctional institutions across the country.

About the NGIC

The NGIC was established by Congress in 2005 to support law enforcement agencies through timely and accurate information sharing and strategic/tactical analysis of federal, state, and local law enforcement information focusing on the growth, migration, criminal activity, and association of gangs that pose a significant threat to communities throughout the United States. The NGIC is comprised of representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), US Bureau of Prisons (BOP), United States Marshals Service (USMS), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), US Department of Defense (DOD), National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). This multi-agency fusion center integrates gang intelligence assets to serve as a central intelligence resource for gang information and analytical support.

To assist in the sharing of gang intelligence with law enforcement, the NGIC has established NGIC Online, an information system comprised of a set of web-based tools designed for researching gang-related intelligence and sharing of information with federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement partners. The system's Request for Information (RFI) portal encourages users to contribute new data as well as conduct gang research through custom threat assessments and/or liaison with NGIC's network of national subject matter experts. NGIC Online functions include RFI submissions and responses; Gang Encyclopedia WIKI; General Intelligence Library; and a Signs, Symbols, and Tattoos (SST) database with user submissions.

Executive Summary

Gangs continue to commit criminal activity, recruit new members in urban, suburban, and rural regions across the United States, and develop criminal associations that expand their influence over criminal enterprises, particularly street-level drug sales. The most notable trends for 2011 have been the overall increase in gang membership, and the expansion of criminal street gangs' control of street-level drug sales and collaboration with rival gangs and other criminal organizations.a

Key Findings

Gangs are expanding, evolving and posing an increasing threat to US communities nationwide. Many gangs are sophisticated criminal networks with members who are violent, distribute wholesale quantities of drugs, and develop and maintain close working relationships with members and associates of transnational criminal/drug trafficking organizations. Gangs are becoming more violent while engaging in less typical and lower-risk crime, such as prostitution and white-collar crime. Gangs are more adaptable, organized, sophisticated, and opportunistic, exploiting new and advanced technology as a means to recruit, communicate discretely, target their rivals, and perpetuate their criminal activity. Based on state, local, and federal law enforcement reporting, the NGIC concludes that:

• There are approximately 1.4 million active street, prison, and OMG gang members comprising more than 33,000 gangs in the United States. Gang membership increased most significantly in the Northeast and Southeast regions, although the West and Great Lakes regions boast the highest number of gang members. Neighborhood-based gangs, hybrid gang members, and national-level gangs such as the Sureños are rapidly expanding in many jurisdictions. Many communities are also experiencing an increase in ethnic-based gangs such as African, Asian, Caribbean, and Eurasian gangs.
• Gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90 percent in several others, according to NGIC analysis. Major cities and suburban areas experience the most gang-related violence. Local neighborhood-based gangs and drug crews continue to pose the most significant criminal threat in most communities. Aggressive recruitment of juveniles and immigrants, alliances and conflict between gangs, the release of incarcerated gang members from prison, advancements in technology and communication, and Mexican Drug Trafficking Organization (MDTO) involvement in drug distribution have resulted in gang expansion and violence in a number of jurisdictions.
• Gangs are increasingly engaging in non-traditional gang-related crime, such as alien smuggling, human trafficking, and prostitution. Gangs are also engaging in white-collar crime such as counterfeiting, identity theft, and mortgage fraud, primarily due to the high profitability and much lower visibility and risk of detection and punishment than drug and weapons trafficking.
• US-based gangs have established strong working relationships with Central American and MDTOs to perpetrate illicit cross-border activity, as well as with some organized crime groups in some regions of the United States. US-based gangs and MDTOs are establishing wide-reaching drug networks; assisting in the smuggling of drugs, weapons, and illegal immigrants along the Southwest Border; and serving as enforcers for MDTO interests on the US side of the border.
• Many gang members continue to engage in gang activity while incarcerated. Family members play pivotal roles in assisting or facilitating gang activities and recruitment during a gang members' incarceration. Gang members in some correctional facilities are adopting radical religious views while incarcerated.
• Gangs encourage members, associates, and relatives to obtain law enforcement, judiciary, or legal employment in order to gather information on rival gangs and law enforcement operations. Gang infiltration of the military continues to pose a significant criminal threat, as members of at least 53 gangs have been identified on both domestic and international military installations. Gang members who learn advanced weaponry and combat techniques in the military are at risk of employing these skills on the street when they return to their communities.
• Gang members are acquiring high-powered, military-style weapons and equipment which poses a significant threat because of the potential to engage in lethal encounters with law enforcement officers and civilians. Typically firearms are acquired through illegal purchases; straw purchases via surrogates or middle-men, and thefts from individuals, vehicles, residences and commercial establishments. Gang members also target military and law enforcement officials, facilities, and vehicles to obtain weapons, ammunition, body armor, police gear, badges, uniforms, and official identification.
• Gangs on Indian Reservations often emulate national-level gangs and adopt names and identifiers from nationally recognized urban gangs. Gang members on some Indian Reservations are associating with gang members in the community to commit crime.
• Gangs are becoming increasingly adaptable and sophisticated, employing new and advanced technology to facilitate criminal activity discreetly, enhance their criminal operations, and connect with other gang members, criminal organizations, and potential recruits nationwide and even worldwide.

Current Gang-Related Trends and Crime

Gang membership continues to expand throughout communities nationwide, as gangs evolve, adapt to new threats, and form new associations. Consequently, gang-related crime and violence is increasing as gangs employ violence and intimidation to control their territory and illicit operations. Many gangs have advanced beyond their traditional role as local retail drug distributors in large cities to become more organized, adaptable, and influential in large-scale drug trafficking. Gang members are migrating from urban areas to suburban and rural communities to recruit new members, expand their drug distribution territories, form new alliances, and collaborate with rival gangs and criminal organizations for profit and influence. Local neighborhood, hybrid and female gang membership is on the rise in many communities. Prison gang members, who exert control over many street gang members, often engage in crime and violence upon their return to the community. Gang members returning to the community from prison have an adverse and lasting impact on neighborhoods, which may experience notable increases in crime, violence, and drug trafficking.

Gang Membership and Expansion

Approximately 1.4 million active street, OMG, and prison gang members, comprising more than 33,000 gangs, are criminally active within all 50 US states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (see Appendix A). This represents a 40 percent increase from an estimated 1 million gang members in 2009. The NGIC attributes this increase in gang membership primarily to improved reporting, more aggressive recruitment efforts by gangs, the formation of new gangs, new opportunities for drug trafficking, and collaboration with rival gangs and drug trafficking organizations (DTOs). Law enforcement in several jurisdictions also attribute the increase in gang membership in their region to the gangster rap culture, the facilitation of communication and recruitment through the Internet and social media, the proliferation of generational gang members, and a shortage of resources to combat gangs.

More than half of NGIC law enforcement partners report an increase in gang-related criminal activity in their jurisdictions over the past two years. Neighborhood-based gangs continue to pose the greatest threat in most jurisdictions nationwide.

• NGIC and NDIC data indicates that, since 2009, gang membership increased most significantly in the Northeast and Southeast regions, although the West and North Central regions particularly Arizona, California, and Illinois—boast the highest number of gang members.
• Sureño gangs, including Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), 18th Street, and Florencia 13, are expanding faster than other national-level gangs, both in membership and geographically. Twenty states and the District of Columbia report an increase of Sureño migration into their region over the past three years. California has experienced a substantial migration of Sureño gangs into northern California and neighboring states, such as Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon.
• Law enforcement reporting indicates a significant increase in OMGs in a number of jurisdictions, with approximately 44,000 members nationwide comprising approximately 3,000 gangs.c Jurisdictions in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia are experiencing the most significant increase in OMGs, increasing the potential for gang-related turf wars with other local OMGs. The Wheels of Soul (WOS), Mongols, Outlaws, Pagans and Vagos have expanded in several states.

Law Enforcement Actions and Resources

Gang units and task forces are a vital component in targeting gangs and have played a substantial role in mitigating gang activity in a number of US communities. The majority of NGIC law enforcement partners report that their agency has or participates in a gang task force, and most utilize a gang database to track and monitor gang members in their jurisdictions. There are 168 FBI Violent Gang Task Forces in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. In addition, ATF operates 31 Violent Crime Impact Teams (VCIT) and ICE operates eight Operation Community Shield (OCS) Initiatives nationwide (see Appendix C). The collaboration and coordination of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies has resulted in a number of successes involving gang suppression efforts.

NGIC law enforcement partners in at least 107 jurisdictions report that law enforcement action has resulted in a decrease of gangs or gang activity in their region.

• In March 2011, officials from DHS, CBP, ICE, ATF, and local San Diego police were involved in the arrest of over 67 gang members and associates for drugs and cross-border crimes in the San Diego, California area. Operation Allied Shield III, a part of a San Diego County initiative to focus on prevention, detection, and suppression of crimes in areas impacted by border-related crime, aimed to seize drugs and weapons and to identify and observe gang members in a proactive way.
• In March 2011, 35 leaders, members, and associates of the Barrio Azteca gang in Texas were charged in a federal indictment for various counts of racketeering, murder, drug offenses, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. Ten subjects were charged with the March 2010 murders of a US Consulate employee, her husband, and the husband of another consulate employee, in Juarez, Mexico.
• In February 2011, FBI, ATF, ICE, and DHS, and numerous state and local officials charged 41 gang members and associates from several different gangs in five districts with multiple offenses, including racketeering conspiracy, murder, drug and gun trafficking. The indictment involved members from the Click Clack gang in Kansas City, Missouri; the Colonias Chiques gang in Los Angeles; the Sureno 13 and San Chucos gangs in Las Vegas; MS-13 in Washington; and 13 Tri-City Bomber members and associates in the McAllen, Texas area.

Outlook

Street, prison, and motorcycle gang membership and criminal activity continues to flourish in US communities where gangs identify opportunities to control street level drug sales, and other profitable crimes. Gangs will not only continue to defend their territory from rival gangs, but will also increasingly seek to diversify both their membership and their criminal activities in recognition of potential financial gain. New alliances between rival gangs will likely form as gangs suspend their former racial ideologies in pursuit of mutual profit. Gangs will continue to evolve and adapt to current conditions and law enforcement tactics, diversify their criminal activity, and employ new strategies and technology to enhance their criminal operations, while facilitating lower-risk and more profitable schemes, such as white-collar crime.

The expansion of communication networks, especially in wireless communications and the Internet, will allow gang members to form associations and alliances with other gangs and criminal organizations both domestically and internationally and enable gang members to better facilitate criminal activity and enhance their criminal operations discreetly without the physical interfacing once necessary to conduct these activities.

Changes in immigrant populations, which are susceptible to victimization and recruitment by gangs, may have the most profound effect on street gang membership. Continued drug trafficking-related violence along the US Southwest border could trigger increased migration of Mexicans and Central Americans into the United States and, as such, provide a greater pool of victims, recruits, and criminal opportunities for street gangs as they seek to profit from the illegal drug trade, alien smuggling, and weapons trafficking. Likewise, increased gang recruitment of youths among the immigrant population may result in an increase in gang membership and gang-related violence in a number of regions.

Street gang activity and violence may also increase as more dangerous gang members are released early from prison and re-establish their roles armed with new knowledge and improved techniques. Prison gang members, already an ideal target audience for radicalization, may expand their associations with foreign gang members or radical criminal organizations, both inside correctional institutions and in the community upon their release.

Gang members armed with high-powered weapons and knowledge and expertise acquired from employment in law enforcement, corrections, or the military may pose an increasing nationwide threat, as they employ these tactics and weapons against law enforcement officials, rival gang members, and civilians.

Globalization, socio-political change, technological advances, and immigration will result either in greater gang expansion and gang-related crime or displace gang members as they search for criminal opportunities elsewhere. Stagnant or poor economic conditions in the United States, including budget cuts in law enforcement, may undercut gang dismantlement efforts and encourage gang expansion as police agencies redirect their resources and disband gang units and taskforces, as reported by a large number of law enforcement agencies.

Link and read more to this site:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat- assessment

Contact Donald Hank at zoilandon@msn.com

Roger Waters of Pink Floyd raged when he testified to discredit and delegitimize the State of Israel, at the UN, aired on YouTube. He adamatly denied the Jews their only homeland, where they've been a steady presence since 1300 BCE, amid proof of their monarchy, culture, ethics, morality, and religion, established by 1000 BCE.

Waters comes by his biases naturally. He is from the England that blamed the Jews for the Black Plague and expelled them for 350 years; the England that established and then violated the British Mandate in capitulation to Arab pressure; the England that turned thousands of Jewish immigrants away from Palestine to their death; the England that the Manchester Guardian paper chastised for doing nothing to advance partition, and wrote, "has turned heavily against the Jews who cannot arm or train their soldiers as the Arabs have been able to do in the states bordering Palestine."[*] Add to this, the Archbishop of Canterbury who welcomed oppressive Sharia to compromise English law.

Scheduled to speak on April 30th in support of BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) of Israel at Manhattan's 92St Y, financially supported by the UJA Federation, Waters then cancelled. Did he or the Y fold to opposition, or is this a sign of conscience? Will this four-flusher actually reconsider his position that Israel is to blame for the stagnated peace process and much more?

Unable to compete with modernity and modern warfare, the Muslim Brotherhood devised the strategy of keeping their brethren isolated to win global support this is apartheid. "To the vanquished go the spoils!" Did the Brits welcome back the vanquished Nazis or the Argentineans to the Falklands? Yet Israel has often returned captured land with the hope of peace, but jihadists cannot acknowledge Israel as a Jewish State.

Waters had been boiling at the security measures for those who travel between Israel and Gaza. Is he oblivious to the exploding-Muslim phenomenon? Would he have simmered with the routine questioning and searches between peaceful America and Canada? Might he have better tolerated discovering the bodies of the Fogel family, the baby's head virtually severed, when Israel's security failed?

He called the security barrier an "appalling edifice to behold," this barricade with a mere 10% consisting of concrete, the rest wire, Israel's protection from her lethal neighbors, yet disregards the many walls, thicker, higher, sturdier, some electrified, that exist worldwide the latest being the 1116 miles-long edifice between Saudi Arabia and Yemen. How about the numerous walls throughout the UK, and 44 stone-and-steel "Peace Walls" in Belfast alone?

Waters was also immersed in Israel's housing developments, yet the land was legally obtained in several ways: land purchased from absentee landlords at high prices; the formal birth of the independent, sovereign State of Israel; and winning territory in wars begun by five Arab armies. Great Britain remained a major obstacle to Jewish self defense, barred entry to new immigrants, refused the Jews the right to form a militia and removed weapons wherever possible, yet Brits signed a treaty with Transjordan that armed the Arabs; and the US imposed an arms embargo on the entire region. Still, the Arab war to destroy Israel failed and Arabs lost land they would have had if they'd accepted the partiion.*

If he esteems the Palestinians, can Waters define them? They regarded themselves Syrians in 1939, but they are descendants of Afghans, Algerians, Arabs, Armenians, Bohemians, Bosnians, Bulgarians, Circassians, Copts, Egyptians, Georgians, Germans, Greeks, Italians, Kurds, Latins, Maronites, Persians, Ruthenians, Samaritans, Syrians, Sudanese, Tartars, Turks, and more, and they took the name in an effort to invent a link to the land where there was none before. The Ancient Romans'political strategy was to destroy the Jewish connection to the area by calling it Syria Palestina, referencing the Aegean Philistines, the sea people of Ancient Greece, but the connection to the Philistines is mere terminology. Today's Gaza is occupied by an illegal population calling itself Palestinians, forsaken by a war strategy of their own making.

Never a distinct people, Palestinians have no specific history, language, culture, or antiquities; their commonality is the Koranic command to usurp a history and dominate the inhabitants. In Britain, there are already 85 sharia courts and an Islamist campaign to turn several British cities into independent Islamic states, the beginning of a UK transformation, with Buckingham Palace as their Caliphate. US Imams are already claiming that Muslims preceded Christopher Columbus and the Native Americans. This is warfare by historic revisionism and propaganda and it feeds on the prejudiced and uninformed. Their assertions hold no water, but revisionism can deceive. Fourteen centuries of persistence and success suggest they need not step into modernity. Hamas is now training students to use weapons to kill Jews, and Waters and the UN will have a new generation of jihadist deaths to blame on Israel.

Waters also tapped into the Islamists accusation of Israel's ethnic cleansing, but not Arabs' ethnic cleansing of Jews! According to his thinking, Israel, the size of, say, Wales, is appropriating land from the Islamic landmass a thousand times its size. Is this the same Israel that is home to every national origin, race and color, including Arab Jews who fled the threat of extinction? Israel, of which 20% of the population is Arab, with 12 Arab Knesset members? Where is this ethnic cleansing?

Ethnic cleansing creates a decline in population, but the neighboring Palestinians are thriving and increasing due to Israel's improved healthcare. There is now longevity and a decrease in the Palestinian birth-mortality rate. The only "cleansing" appears to be Israel's providing cleaner, healthier environs. The accusation doesn't hold water. Ethnic cleansing was Hitler's deeds, and what the Jews are experiencing from Muslim threats of worldwide genocide, their fleeing Scandinavia, Germany and France, and constant barrage of Hamas rockets from Gaza. And while Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh was calling for Israel's destruction, his relative was receiving life-saving heart surgery in Israel.

Ethnic cleansing is also when Muslims kill seven million black Africans in Southern Sudan, while the UN and Waters maintain silence. Muslims capture, enslave, brutalize and dehumanize their captives, while the world looks away. The new Republic of South Sudan has spoken in gratitude for the safety and humanitarian aid offered the children who managed to escape to Israel.

The Palestinians declined every chance at statehood; their raison d'etre is Israel's destruction. True occupation is the Palestinians in Judea (Judea = Jews) and Samaria, and Muslim control over the entire continent that was once inhabited by non-Muslims.

Finally, the musician launched an attempt at accountancy, but battles are not waged for proportionality. He did not dispute five Arab armies' attacking the new State of Israel or, for that matter, the Muslim multitudes raping, pillaging, killing the unarmed in Africa. England and Germany did not war for congruence. Arabs terrorize, and accuracy is considered inconsequential; the more dead they have, the more pity they elicit. The UN has finally acknowledged that Hamas positions women and children as human shields at rocket sites to increase the death toll for outpourings of compassion. Former British Army Colonel Kemp has time and again testified that the IDF operates in exemplary fashion, with more precautions to safeguard civilians than "any army in the history of warfare." He called to task the lies of the media, the fallacious Goldstone report, and the evil propaganda war waged by the Arabs, the media, and organized supporters. Mr. Waters is "all wet."

Radical Islam is intolerant. Over 1400 years, they extinguished Jews, Christians, Copts, Buddhists, Hindus, Pharoans, Zoroastrians, and others. That's ethnic cleansing. Where is his voice against this destructive Religion of Peace? Where is his voice against their inhumane treatment of even their own women and children?

May Roger Waters begin a true investigation and a return to honesty and integrity, and leave behind the causes of tyrannical regimes that create only misery for their people and the world.

Tabitha Korol began her political writing with letters to the editor, earning an award from CAMERA (Committee on Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) "in recognition of outstanding letter-writing in 2009 to promote fair and factual reporting about Israel." Her op-eds have appeared in Arutz Sheva (Israel National News), and she posts at Right Truth, NewMediaJournal, RenewAmerica, JewishIndy, NeverAgainIsNow, and others.

In Menachem Begin: A Life, a new biography of one of Israel's more multifaceted leaders, Avi Shilon succeeds in portraying a fervent and uncompromising Zionist whose political brilliance usually compensated for his lack of military experience. Shilon shows that for Begin, anti-Semitism was at the root of everything. It was Begin's realization of the threat that posed by anti-Semitism that motivated his actions and led to his political career. When the Holocaust destroyed the Polish-Jewish world from which he had emerged, the need for Jewish independence became clearer to him than ever before. Ensuring that another Holocaust would never take place was his paramount concern, even when he was Prime Minister of Israel, pursuing Yasir Arafat in the PLO leader's Beirut bunker. While many of Begin's critics have deplored the ways in which this frame of mind led him to take what they consider politically inappropriate actions, Shilon's biography focuses not on criticizing the man in this respect but in showing the reader where Begin "came from."

Shilon also shows just how important symbolism was to Begin. In the 1940s, when he was the leader of the underground Etzel, an acronym for Irgun Zvai Leumi, or National Military Organization, his operations against the British rulers of Palestine always included symbolic elements that stressed the importance of Jewish sovereignty and self-determination. For example, Etzel's "Operation Wall" was a response to a British prohibition against blowing a shofar at the Western Wall on Yom Kippur. This action, Shilon observes, "was not the most important in the history of Etzel, but it emphasized Begin's main approach in the organization's initial operations: symbolic declarative acts, not necessarily with any real military content."

Begin had a gift not only for symbols but for words. According to Shilon, his oratorical skills were in part responsible for his emergence as Jabotinsky's successor. The Revisionists, the members of Jabotinsky's movement, were captivated by Begin's ability to express their ideology and deeply impressed by his honesty and integrity. Yet "more than anything else," Shilon rightly observes, Begin "will be remembered for putting his stamp on the Jewish character of the Israeli state." He "saw himself as part of the Jewish nation across the ages, a kind of new modern prophet, a link in a chain stretching across the generations whose hard-line view were inspired by the Jewish Holocaust and who restored to the public debate images and views from the Diaspora."

Begin's Diaspora experience imbued him with a profound sense of Jewish solidarity. Even when the Haganah was hunting down his rebel forces and turning them over to the British, he would not lash out against his fellow Jews. We did not teach our fighters, he wrote in The Revolt, "to hate our political opponents," for "mutual hatred brings almost certain civil war." Subsequently, during Israel's War of Independence, when the Israeli Army attacked the Altalena, an Etzel ship carrying weapons to the new state in apparent defiance of Ben-Gurion's orders, Begin defused the threat of civil strife. "I call on my brothers not to open fire," he declared. "There will be no fraternal war. The enemy is at the gate." At the time, some of Begin's Etzel comrades regarded the response as cowardly. Only much later, Shilon notes, did Begin receive due credit for it.

After becoming Prime Minister of Israel in 1977, Begin similarly defied accusations of cowardice from some of his associates. He had his own misgivings about paying a high territorial price for a peace treaty with Egypt, but he overcame them for the sake of what he considered to be the greater good. And no one accused him of cowardice when he dared to order the attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981.

If Begin wasn't a coward, neither was he a warmonger. The war in Lebanon in 1982 was something that had been thrust upon him, and it broke him. As Shilon makes clear, Begin "knew that he had not led his government properly and that he had become embroiled in a war he did not desire, and he knew it was his responsibility. Furthermore, he knew that those around him had witnessed his deterioration, yet none of them had dared say a word and actually had helped him to retire with dignity."

Shilon's comprehensive biography of one the most important Zionists and leaders of the State of Israel elucidates the whole course of Begin's life, from his youth in Poland, when he was afflicted by a sense of powerlessness, to his performance in positions of power in the Jewish state. It helps us understand the greatness of the man, his very real and sometimes surprising achievements, and the factors that led to his demise. Shilon provides a clear picture of a leader whose steadfastness can serve as an example to all of us, even those who do not share every one of Menachem Begin's commitments.

Asaf Romirowsky, a Philadelphia-based Middle East analyst, is an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Forum. This article appeared May 03, 2013 in the Jewish Ideas Daily and is archived at
http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/6431/features/menachem-begin-a-new-life/

President Ahmadinejad's policy of Holocaust denial has become one of the bones of contention in the Iranian presidential elections, slated for June 14. In recent days it has been criticized by the president's political rivals, who said that it causes damage to Iran's foreign policy and plays into Israel's hands. On the other hand, radical right-wing elements in the conservative camp have expressed support for the Holocaust denial policy, arguing that it is in line with the legacy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic revolution, and with the statements made by Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran.

The president's political rivals and the Holocaust denial policy

The debate surrounding the policy of Holocaust denial resumed following an interview given to the press by Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, the mayor of Tehran, on April 23. Qalibaf, considered one of the president's strongest political rivals, is one of the most notable potential election candidates in the conservative camp. In the interview given to the Tasnim News agency, Qalibaf said that denying the Holocaust has not served Iran's interests, and that it has only given its Zionist enemies an excuse to mobilize broad-based international agreement against the Iranian policy, including the nuclear policy. He stressed that while supporting the Palestinians is one of the principles of Iran's foreign policy, denying the Holocaust is not. The Iranians have never been opposed to Jews, only to Zionists, Qalibaf said. Iran has supported the aspirations of the Palestinian people for 30 years, but thanks to the wisdom of Khomeini and Khamenei, it has never been accused of anti-Semitism. The president's bringing up the Holocaust issue has contributed nothing to the revolution or to the Palestinians (www.tasnimnews.com/Home/Single/45881).

The criticism was echoed by other potential candidates for president, including former Majles Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad Adel, former Revolutionary Guards Chief and Expediency Discernment Council Secretary Mohsen Reza'i, Deputy Majles Speaker Mohammad Hassan Abu-Torabi Fard, and Mohammad Shariatmadari, the former minister of commerce in Mohammad Khatami's government.

Haddad Adel, who has partnered with Qalibaf and the Supreme Leader's International Advisor Ali-Akbar Velayati in the conservative Coalition for Progress, formed for the presidential elections, announced at a meeting with students in Tehran that he did not agree with the president's policy of Holocaust denial because it allowed the Israelis to use it as an excuse to act against Iran

(http://www.mehrnews.com/detail/News/2042506). Abu-Torabi Fard, member of the Coalition of Five, another conservative coalition formed for the elections, defined the Holocaust denial policy as "ill-considered" and argued that it did not do any good for the revolution (http://fararu.com/fa/news/147914). Mohsen Reza'i, who will likely run as an independent candidate in the coming elections, said at a student conference held at the Orumiyeh University in north Iran on April 18 that if he was president, he would choose another way to contend with Israel and would not be talking about the Holocaust (http://khabaronline.ir/detail/287756). Mohammad Shariatmadari, who is considered to be close to the reformist faction, also argued that bringing up the issue of the Holocaust has done no good for Iran, and that Ahmadinejad himself regretted the statements he had made on the issue, which is why he did not reiterate them later on. He noted that the argument according to which the Zionists occupied Palestine because of the Holocaust is incorrect, and that the occupation of Palestine has nothing to do with the Holocaust (http://www.etemaad.ir/Released/92-02-11/204.htm#237090).

Media affiliated with the president's political rivals also criticized his policy of Holocaust denial, which he has promoted since assuming office in 2005. An article published in Tehran Emrooz, a daily affiliated with the mayor of Tehran, said that Iran has to pursue its struggle against its enemies in such a way that will not give them excuses to hit the main objectives of the revolution. The article, written by poet and journalist Mohammad Hossein Ja'farian, said that the manner in which the president brought up the issue of the Holocaust did not help the Palestinians and only damaged Iran's vital interests. The Israelis themselves admitted, according to Ja'farian, that the Holocaust denial helped Israel win international support against Iran. The aspirations of the Palestinian people are to be supported by providing assistance to Hezbollah and Hamas, not by parroting perfectly useless remarks made by advisors:
(http://tehrooz.com/1392/2/7/TehranEmrooz/1154/Page/16).

Farda News, a website affiliated with the pragmatic wing of the conservative camp, also argued that Holocaust denial has galvanized public opinion. In addition, not only it did not step up pressure on Israel, it also gave legitimacy to its illegal claims in Europe and the United States. The website noted that while pre-Ahmadinejad Iranian leaders also brought up the issue of the Holocaust, they did so to point out the hypocrisy of the Western countries when it comes to the freedom of expression, not to start a historical debate on the subject.

The website stressed that the criticism of Ahmadinejad bringing up the issue isn't targeted at the substance of his claims about the reality of the Holocaust but rather at the use of bringing up the issue and the heavy price Iran had to pay as a result. Bringing up the issue was a contributing factor for the resolutions passed by the U.N. Security Council on the anti-Iranian sanctions. It also strengthened the anti-Islamic school of thought in the Western media. Israel, on the other hand, benefited greatly from it. The U.N. General Assembly approved the decision to put Holocaust deniers on trial and Israel took advantage of Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial to mobilize the Western countries and a considerable part of world public opinion to support its military threats against Iran (http://www.fardanews.com/fa/news/259097). However, the president's critics did not question the validity of his arguments and views, or bring up a moral and value-based argument that the Holocaust did happen.

Support for the Holocaust denial policy from the radical right

On the other side of the debate, the criticism of the Holocaust denial policy drew strong reactions from the radical right-wing faction of the conservative camp. The Bibak News website argued that Qalibaf's remarks go against the position of the Supreme Leader. The website listed several examples from speeches given by Khamenei these past several years in which he supported questioning the reality of the "Holocaust myth", attacked the Western countries for their policy towards Holocaust deniers, and referred to the Holocaust as an excuse used by the Zionists to justify their aggression against the Palestinians (http://www.bibaknews.com/shownews.php?idnews=2681).

Rasa News, a news agency close to the religious establishment in the city of Qom, also strongly criticized the position taken by the president's rivals on the issue of Holocaust denial. A commentary article published by the agency said that the Supreme Leader defined the offensive foreign policy pursued by Ahmadinejad's government, including the policy of denying the Holocaust, as one of its strong points and expressed clear views on Israel and the Holocaust. The issue of the Holocaust is one of the most important factors underpinning the establishment of "the artificial regime of Israel", and by bringing it up, the president helped erode the foundations of the Zionist regime and strengthen its critics across the globe. The presidential hopefuls would be advised to look into the statements made by Khomeini and Khamenei before expressing their opinions on various issues, the article said. Pertinent criticism of the government's policy is acceptable, but attacking its successes is a strategic mistake that could hurt the regime. The candidates had better not play the game played by Iran's enemies, but rather present programs aimed at solving the problems facing Iranians, raising the banner of Islamic pride and struggle against imperialism (http://rasanews.ir/NSite/FullStory/News/?Id=163850).

Raja News, a website affiliated with the radical right, lashed out against Qalibaf and argued that his views are baffling and go against those held by Khamenei. It is unclear, the website said, how he can claim that bringing up the issue of the Holocaust is intended to give an excuse to Iran's enemies, when the founder of the Islamic revolution clearly expressed the need to eliminate Israel and the Supreme Leader refers to the Holocaust as a "myth". Raja News mocked Qalibaf, and wondered whether it is too hard for technocrats like him to understand the foreign policy principles of a conflict with the "world arrogance":
(http://www.rajanews.com/detail.asp?id=155852).

Presidential candidate Kamran Bagheri Lankarani also justified the policy of denying the Holocaust. Lankarani has recently been announced as a candidate for the Steadfast Front (Jebhe-ye Paydari), which is affiliated with the radical right wing of the conservative camp and is supported by radical cleric Ayatollah Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi. Speaking at a press conference held last week, Lankarani rejected the claim that the president's bringing up the issue of the Holocaust was one of the weak points of his foreign policy. Denying the Holocaust and "criticizing Zionist thought", he said, are based on the revolution founder's principles, and these are the principles on which the Iranian diplomacy needs to be based:
(http://www.rajanews.com/Detail.asp?id=155866).

Hojjat-ol-Eslam Mehdi Ta'eb, chairman of the central council of the Ammar Headquarters, a think tank affiliated with the radical wing of the conservative camp, also spoke out against those who criticize the Holocaust denial policy and said that bringing up the issue of the Holocaust is "Ahmadinejad's strong point". Ta'eb, who is affiliated with the Steadfast Front, voiced reservations about the president's messianic views and his relationship with his controversial ally Rahim Masha'i, but argued that those who criticize his policy of Holocaust denial are mistaken (http://rasanews.ir/NSite/FullStory/News/?Id=164121).

The Holocaust denial policy as a controversial topic in the 2009 elections

The Holocaust denial policy also became a controversial topic in the 2009 presidential elections. Ahmadinejad's opponents, particularly the reformist candidates Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, strongly condemned the policy, claiming that it was isolating Iran on the international scene and serving Israel's interests. On the other hand, Ahmadinejad and his supporters argued in favor of the Holocaust denial policy, and said that questioning the validity of the Holocaust and its extent was the way to undermine the Zionist identity and the very legitimacy of the State of Israel. Of all the presidential candidates, reformist cleric Mehdi Karoubi expressed particularly strong views on Holocaust denial. However, he, too, attempted to play down the Holocaust.[1]

Then, as in the current election campaign, the criticism of the Holocaust denial policy could be seen as an inseparable part of a larger attack mounted by the president's opponents against his provocative foreign policy, rather than as authentic criticism of making political use of the Holocaust to advance the regime's objectives and delegitimize Israel.

The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) opened in 2002. It is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center (IICC), a national site dedicated to the memory of fallen of the Israeli intelligence community. The ITIC is located near Gelilot, north of Tel Aviv, and is directed by (Col. Ret.) Dr. Reuven Erlich. The objective of the ITIC is to collect, study and disseminate information about terrorism. Contact Terrorism Information Center at newsleter@terrorism-info.org.il

Reports suggest that Syria's embattled dictator, Bashar al-Assad, is shortly set to declare war on Israel after interventions against the regime

Following evidence of chemical warfare and an increasinly reticent US position, Israel has in recent days taken widely reported steps to neutralise threats emanating from within civil war-torn Syria.

While strikes from Lebanese airspace this weekend are not thought to have been on chemical weapons caches, the recent Israeli intelligence regarding the use of such weaponry is thought to have spurred on a round of strikes, including the latest just hours ago.

The Syrian state news agency SANA, citing initial reports, said early Sunday that Israeli missiles struck a military research center near the capital Damascus.

Syrian state television has reported that a major strike on an ammunition depot in Qassiyoun mountain shook Damascus, while Hezbollah's Al-Manar station claimed the explosion may have been a downed Israeli jet.

Rumors are surfacing online that following the latest volley of attacks on the Syrian regime, President Bashar al-Assad will soon officially declare war on Israel, with speculators pointing to 5am local time for official confirmation. This information continues to persist despite the technical state of war that currently exists between the two states.

Many however, have been quick to dismiss these reports as strictly rumour, with various commentators claiming that such a move would be sure to end Assad's reign of terror in Syria "within a week".

The news of an Israeli intervention in Syria has caught the Obama administration on the back foot, with the US president refusing to comment at length about the strike. Obama said, "The Israelis, justifiably, have to guard against the transfer of advanced weaponry to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah."

The US president made no mention of supposed "red lines" being crossed, despite evidence of Syria's used of chemical weapons against rebel forces. Critics have hit out at Barack Obama in recent days for failing to put forward any coherent strategy to bring the violence in Syria to an end. The inaction, according to some, is another example of Obama's "lead from behind" strategy, the same tactic he employed during the intervention in Libya.

UPDATE 03:15am GMT: 5am local time in Syria has passed without comment from military authorities or the Assad regime. Speculation continues about the nature of the attack with some insisting that Israel's weaponry was "nuclear-like", that chemicals can be "smelt" in the air, and that the attack was co-ordinated by Israel with help from Syrian rebel forces.

UPDATE: 04:36am GMT: Sources suggest that Qassiyoun mountain was the home to many stationed Assad forces, with some projections claiming over 10,000 could have been stationed in and around the area.

UPDATE: Sunday morning: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is to call a cabinet meeting for 3pm today to discuss the ongoing situation.

Contact Yaacov Levi at ylevi1993@gmail.com

Iran is ready to help "train" the Syrian army if Damascus seeks such assistance, said commander of Islamic republic's army ground forces.

Iran is ready to help "train" the Syrian army if Damascus seeks such assistance, the commander of the Islamic republic's army ground forces, General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, said Sunday, according to reported.

"As a Muslim nation, we back Syria, and if there is need for training we will provide them with the training, but won't have any active involvement in the operations," he said in remarks reported by the official IRNA news agency.

"The Syrian army has accumulated experience during years of conflict with the Zionist regime (Israel) and is able to defend itself and doesn't need foreign assistance," he added.

His remarks came as a senior Israeli source said on Sunday that the Jewish state carried out an air strike near Damascus overnight, targeting Iranian missiles destined for Lebanon's Shiite Hizbullah movement.

"The target was Iranian missiles which were destined for Hezbollah," he told the AFP news agency, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Iran has remained a steadfast ally of President Bashar al-Assad's regime throughout the Syrian conflict, which according to figures released by the United Nations, has killed more than 70,000 people since it erupted in March 2011.

The article was written by Arutz Sheva staff. Arutz Sheva is an Israeli media network identifying with Religious Zionism. It offers online news in Hebrew, English, and Russian. This article appeared May 05, 2013 in the Arutz Sheva and is archived at
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167723#.Vh55hLyVsWM

A CLOSER LOOK at Franklin Roosevelt's attitudes toward Jews may help explain the tepid U.S. Response to the Holocaust.

IN MAY 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called "the best way to settle the Jewish question."

Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) "to spread the Jews thin all over the world." The diary entry adds: "The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that."

Roosevelt's "best way" remark is condescending and distasteful, and coming from anyone else it would probably be regarded as anti-Semitism. But more than that, FDR's support for "spreading the Jews thin" may hold the key to understanding a subject that has been at the center of controversy for decades: the American government's tepid response to the Holocaust.

Here's the paradox. The U.S. Immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.

Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.

Every president's policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt's case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.

In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions "should be definitely limited" so as to "eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany."

There is evidence of other troubling private remarks by FDR too, including dismissing pleas for Jewish refugees as "Jewish wailing" and "sob stuff"; expressing (to a senator) his pride that 'there is no Jewish blood in our veins"; and characterizing a tax maneuver by a Jewish newspaper publisher as "a dirty Jewish trick." But the most common theme in Roosevelt's private statements about Jews has to do with his perception that they were "overcrowding" many professions and exercising undue influence.

This attitude dovetails with what is known about FDR's views regarding immigrants in general and Asian immigrants in particular.

In one 1920 interview, Roosevelt complained about immigrants "crowding" into the cities and said "the remedy for this should be the distribution of aliens in various parts of the country." In a series of articles for the Macon (Ga.) Daily Telegraph and for Asia magazine in the 1920s, he warned against granting citizenship to "non-assimilable immigrants" and opposed Japanese immigration on the grounds that "mingling Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results." He recommended that future immigration should be limited to those who had "blood of the right sort."

FDR's decision to imprison thousands of Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II was consistent with his perception of Asians as having innate racial characteristics that made them untrustworthy. Likewise, he apparently viewed with disdain what he seemed to regard as the innate characteristics of Jews. Admitting significant numbers of Jewish or Asian immigrants did not fit comfortably in Roosevelt's vision of America.

Other U.S. presidents have made their share of unfriendly remarks about Jews. A diary kept by Harry Truman included statements such as "The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish." Richard Nixon's denunciations of Jews as "very aggressive and obnoxious" were revealed in tapes of Oval Office conversations.

But the revelation of Franklin Roosevelt's sentiments will probably shock many people. After all, he led America in the war against Hitler. Moreover, Roosevelt's public persona is anchored in his image as a liberal humanitarian, his claim to care about "the forgotten man," the downtrodden, the mistreated. But none of that can change the record of his response to the Holocaust.

Contact Ester Green at eil100@zahav.net.il

Did you read about the Arab riots in the French Hill neighborhood or suburb of Jerusalem and in the Arab town of Issaya? Not in my U.S. newspapers. Not on U.S. TV. Western media does not report Arab crimes unless they result in deaths or are of a unique type.

The Arabs were rioting over Israeli demolition of an illegal house.

My source was forced to sit in a car for three-quarters of an hour. It was 95% outside (4/29/13).

The Left is confused over who has what rights. Alan Dershowitz defends Israel against the Arabs, because he doesn't understand who has what rights and he doesn't understand how fanatical the Muslim Arabs are.

Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post faulted Alan Dershowitz' proposal for what he called a compromise, that Israel suspend building in the Territories in exchange for the P.A. suspending efforts to get UN recognition as a state. Israel would be curbing its right that the PLO recognized in the Oslo Accords, while the PLO would be suspending its violation of Oslo in seeking unilateral change of the Territories' legal status. Israel shouldn't have to give up its rights to stop Arab violations (Caroline B. Glick The Jerusalem Post 05/02/2013 http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Column-One-Dershowitz-and-tragedy-311890 via IMRA,5/3).

Mr. Dershowitz is naïve about the Palestinian Arabs. He must be unaware that they violate all their agreements, that they don't want peace, and that they want to take over Israel. He misapplies his philosophy of diplomacy, which reaches agreement by compromise, and which works in the U.S., to the Arab jihad against Israel, which is absolutist. His diplomacy has been applied by Israel, to its regret. It only strengthened jihad.

Note that in Jerusalem, Arabs were occupying a house illegally. Israel gives much legal opportunity to contest a motion for demolition or evacuation of illegally occupied housing. The order was issued, and Muslims took to violent protest. They often do. It often works. Israeli police are reluctant to enforce orders of evacuation, because of anticipated violence against which too energetic measures then get criticized and even punished. This happens whether the government is called left wing or right wing. Those designations often are misleading.

The impression abroad is that Israel constantly demolishes Arabs' houses. Actually, very few. The foreign media does not inform people that illegal Arab housing, occupation of houses owned by Jews, and theft of land is widespread. These illegalities are part of jihad. But Jewish assertion of property rights and defense of retaining their own country is widely criticized. Muslim Arabs are on the offensive and are wrongful, but the media makes Israel seem to be on the offensive and to be wronging the Arabs. Jews have to realize that most of the criticism of them is based on ignorance or antisemitism.

Israeli notion of law enforcement is opposite that of the New York City Police Dept. NYPD enforced the law against minor infractions, and thereby cleared the atmosphere that thugs could get away with more crimes and more serious ones. Israel's notion is to lay low, ignore the usurpation of Israelis' rights, and hope the Arabs won't disturb the peace. The result is an atmosphere that Arabs can act almost with impunity. Considering that Arabs feel religiously empowered to fight and seize land, their jihad crime rate gets facilitated.

An example of this is the Bedouin. Bedouins seize large tracts of public land. The Left supports them in this. The government is afraid to remove and punish the Bedouin. It even legalizes the theft and provides municipal services. Who respects Israel's vaunted rule of law? Not the Muslims, not the left, and not the government. Understandably, more Bedouin seize more land. Jewish nationalists who try to preserve Jewish control of their own country, which is to say, to preserve their lives, are thought ill of, abroad and even in Israel. Leftists fail to see far enough ahead to see the threat to their own lives.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses are a regular feature on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

The government of India's July, 2012 issue of India Perspectives depicts Sufi poet, Amir Khusrau (1253-1325) favorably. [Sufi's are characterized in the West as a tolerant, tiny Muslim sect. They are being attacked by jihadists now, but the poet lived in the Middle Ages.]

Who were the so-called "Sufi saints?" They were attached to the Muslim invaders as missionaries, spies, and subversives, pretending to be protectors of the natives.

In the Middle Ages, at least, Sufis supported jihad, which sought to convert Hindus and Sikhs to Islam. The Sultans raped, murdered, looted, and destroyed Hindu temples in order to terrorize Hindus [and to sap their power and the will to fight]. The Sufis, pretended to be the persecuted Hindus' saviors, but preached Islam as if it were Vedantic philosophy. This is the Islamic tactic of using deception to advance the faith. The Sufis found the Hindus gullible.

Amir Khusrau accepted absolutely the prophet, Quran, and Shariah, which considers proselytizing holy. A fanatic Islamist, Khusrau was so contemptuous of Hindus that he described murderers of Hindus as holy warriors: "The whole country by means of swords of our holy warriors has become like a forest denuded of its thorns by fire. With the stroke of our swords Hindu infidels have been vaporized. The strong men of the Hindus have been trodden under feet. Islam is triumphant, idolatry subdued." Tarikh-i-Alai: (Eliot & Dowson. Vol. III)

"Amir Khusrau considered India as a land of infidels (Kafirs) and impure. He expressed jubilation when the Somnath Temple was destroyed by Sultan Allauddin Khilji. 'The tongue of the sword of the Khalifa of the time, which is the tongue of the flame of Islam, has imparted light to the entire darkness of Hindustan by the illumination of guidance. On the other side, so much dust arose from the battered temple of Somnath, that even the sea was not able to lay it; and on the right hand and on the left hand the army has conquered from sea to sea and several capitals of the gods of the Hindus, in which Satanism has prevailed since the time of the Jinns, have been demolished. All the impurities of infidelity have been cleansed by the Sultan's destruction of the idol-temples, beginning with his first holy expedition against Devagiri.' (Tarikh-i-Alai of Amir Khusrau: Eliot & Dawson Vol-iii, p. 85.)" [Flowery wording, but vicious.]

Another Sufi-saint, Khwaja Muinddin Chisti of Ajmer Sharif had invited Mohammad Gori to attack India. He expressed joy at the Muslim defeat of Hindu King Prithviraj Chauhan. Chisti converted 9 million Hindus to Islam.

India's Ministry of External Affairs should verify material on Islam before publishing it (Narain Kataria, head of Indian American intellectual Forum, July 2012).

What is going on here? Having a large minority in India, and backed by terrorists from Pakistan, Muslims still are conducting Jihad by stealth and violence. They still find Hindus naïve. Hindus are not united to resist, and some of the Hindu nationalists act too wild to persuade the people to follow them in proper resistance to jihad. Many of India's leaders are Christians, Muslims, and leftists in the media. Hindus, normally tolerant, are led by people who are "politically correct" and think that tolerance means acceptance and accommodation.

Not all Muslims are fanatical, but most approve of jihad. A large presence of Muslims in a non-Muslim country harbors a core of jihadists who get much support from within and without and radicalize more and more of their co-religionists. After all, Muslims even in the U.S. donate sizable funds for jihad. Radical Islam is Islamic, but with more emphasis on militancy and action now.

Why should one be accommodating and accepting of Nazism, Communism, or Islam, all of which sought to conquer and impose intolerance? One can no more make peace with them than with a mad dog. Against imperialistic, intolerant, fascistic ideologies such as those, one has to bar and defend.

The U.S. and other Western countries try to be welcoming, but face increasing hatred, demands, imposition of ideology, and terrorism from domestic Muslims, even though many Muslims are not activist. But the U.S. mosques mostly are radical. They conduct a war, sometimes by propaganda that depends on misunderstanding of what tolerance is. Radical Muslims have much influence in the Obama administration, which keeps the public from realizing how serious is the menace of jihad internally and externally.

Obama limits his scope of terrorism to al-Qaida and contends that that al-Qaida is weakened and war is receding. Actually, al-Qaida is expanding and so is jihad. Obama has been instrumental in that expansion. He also has reinforced the political correctness that gets our military to ignore budding Islamists in its ranks, until they murder fellow soldiers.

There are signs of Americans' disillusionment with political correctness and with the abuses of multi-culturalism. That is hopeful. On the other hand, the coming to power of Radical Islam in Egypt, which was assisted by Obama, seems to be ending the birth control policies that helped tamp down the birth rate in Islamic countries, a birth rate that propelled emigration and threatened to swamp non-Muslim countries.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses are a regular feature on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

And thank Heaven that we do

Israel officials government and military have repeatedly said that we will not permit a situation in Syria in which "game changing" weaponry whether WMD or missiles is passed to terrorist forces. And we have shown, again and again that we do mean what we say and are willing to act on it. In the last few days, we've apparently (shall we say, "allegedly") demonstrated this not once, but twice.

Because as would be expected! there is no official report from Israeli sources, I cannot provide precise information on what was (allegedly) entailed. Along with everyone else, I am relying on secondary sources — US and other foreign media which secure their information in a variety of ways; and an unnamed Israeli official speaking off the record, after the news broke in foreign media. Many of these sources are referenced in Israeli media. Not all agree on particulars.

However, while it cannot be confirmed, that we have hit in Syria seems fairly certain.

~~~~~~~~~~

The first hit came very late Thursday night or early Friday morning. It was reportedly accomplished from Lebanese airspace, it is believed without entry into Syrian airspace.

According to Israel National News, pairs of Israeli planes entered Lebanese airspace three times, each time remaining for two to three hours.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167698

According to Reuters, as reported by YNet, Israel's air force possesses so-called "standoff" missiles that, once fired, are able to coast dozens of kilometers across ground to their targets.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4375921,00.html

For more information on Israel's standoff missiles, see Haaretz here:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/the-israel-air-force-s-popeye-and-spice-missiles-a-primer.premium-1.519290/

~~~~~~~~~~

The most specific information which was cited extensively elsewhere came from yesterday's NYTimes, which reported that what was hit were Iranian surface-to-surface missiles Fateh 110 missiles, which carry a 600 kg. warhead, have considerable accuracy, and can reach most of Israel from southern Lebanon that were being stored at the airport in Damascus and were likely due to be transferred to Hezbollah; the warehouse where they were held was believed to be under the control of Hezbollah and Iran's Quds forces.

~~~~~~~~~~

Citing foreign sources, who received information from Syrian rebel intelligence, YNet today also reported that a convoy that was in the process of transferring weapons to Hezbollah was hit on the road between Damascus and Beirut in three separate strikes by Israeli F-16s, pictured below. Again, it is thought that these attacks were initiated from Lebanese airspace. And it may well be that the reference by Israel National News to sets of planes entering Lebanese airspace refers to these attacks, as well as the attack on the airport in Damascus. We might call these two prongs of one attack.

There was some thought that what was hit in the convoy were anti-aircraft missiles, but the best estimate seems to be that in this attack, as well, it was surface-to-surface missiles that were taken out.

~~~~~~~~~~

Now very early this morning, there were media reports of major explosions near Damascus, as a military research center in Jamraya was attacked by rockets, with possible hits on two nearby sites as well an ammunition depot and Republican Guard battalions.

At Jamraya, also, it is believed that Iranian missiles were targeted, but it seems less clear at the moment whether Israeli jets may have entered Syrian airspace.

If the name Jamraya rings a bell it's because Israel hit there in January of this year.

Referred to as a "scientific research center," this is a site of major military significance, where research is done and weapons are stored; its location near the Lebanese border makes transfer of weaponry easier.

For more on Jamraya: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22421732

~~~~~~~~~~

Last night a Cabinet meeting was called to discuss the situation, and for the first time there was official comment of sorts:

In a couple of different venues, Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon said, "The State of Israel is protecting its interests and will continue doing so. I am not confirming or denying the reports. We have said on various occasions in the past that we will do everything anywhere in order to protect those interests."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/live-blog-israel-launches-second-syria-strike-in-two-days-sources-say-1.519250

Another Security Cabinet meeting was held this afternoon.

~~~~~~~~~~

In the end, the precise process by which we accomplished the attacks, and the precise armaments that have been destroyed, are less important than the fact that we did act, and successfully.

The message being sent to Syria and Hezbollah, and by extension to Iran, is considerable. In fact, the most important message is to Iran, with regard to our meaning it when we speak about Red Lines.

At first, I read disclaimers by Syria and Iran saying they had no information on an Israeli attack. That's one way to attempt to handle matters. No need to respond if nothing happened.

But in more recent hours there have been threats from both quarters: Syrian Information Minister Omran Zoabi says Israeli air strikes against targets outside of Damascus "opens the door to all possibilities." And Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al Mekdad told CNN that the attack on a Syrian facility near Damascus is a "declaration of war." While Lebanese media quoted Seyed Hassan Firouzabadi, the chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, as saying: "Resistance forces will respond to the Israeli aggression... Iran will not allow to Israel destabilize the region."

The IAF is carefully monitoring our northern skies, which have been closed to civilian air traffic, and we are on alert more broadly.

But as far as Syria is concerned, I do not believe there will be a direct attack. Assad may be ruthless and amoral, but he's not irrational or stupid. His resources are sorely depleted, and if he wants his regime to survive, he will not take on a new battle with a stronger enemy.

~~~~~~~~~~

Nor do I believe that Iran would attempt to hit Israel directly now. But in this instance, use of its proxy Hezbollah is a possibility (the threat by the Iranian chief of staff did come via Lebanon) although I suspect there is only a small possibility with regard to a direct missile attack. Here, too, we are looking at an entity that is somewhat weakened and depleted. Hezbollah forces are in Syria fighting, and Shia/Sunni tensions have generated a downward spiral for Hezbollah.
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/beginning-end-hezbollah

More on Hezbollah soon.

~~~~~~~~~~

President Obama, while saying that it is not his position to verify whether it was Israel that hit in Syria, was quick to say that Israel has a right to act to ensure that sophisticated weapons don't reach Hezbollah.

My own guess is that this man who prefers not to act himself, and still hasn't even decided whether to send arms to the Free Syrian Army, is delighted that Israel is acting.

~~~~~~~~~~

True to form, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who should be shipped out permanently, has taken his standard line: He is "gravely concerned" about the news of possible Israeli strikes in Syria, and he urges respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. The head of the international agency that has turned a blind eye to the deaths of 70,000 Syrians has nothing to say with regard to what Israel does.

What both fascinates and bewilders me (it shouldn't, I know) is that criticizing Israel is so politically correct in certain Muslim/Arab circles that it proceeds even when doing so is counterintuitive. Rebel forces have come out with criticism, when they should be delighted at anything that weakens Assad. But welcome an attack by Israel and appear to be shock! on the same side? Never.

The Arab League has issued a condemnation of Israel's actions and specifically, it should be noted, have Egypt and Turkey, both supporters of Syrian rebel forces, done so.

~~~~~~~~~~

After a delay of some hours generated by the situation with Syria, PM Netanyahu has flown to China, where there will be discussions regarding Iranian issues and economic ones. A visit with major implications.

In his stead, Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon is acting prime minister.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

Following reports of Israeli airstrikes in Syria over the weekend targeting advanced weaponry intended for delivery to terror group Hezbollah, major international publications have commented on Israeli resolve, saying that the Jewish state has shown how serious it is about defending itself.

"As the Obama administration considers how to dissuade Mr. Assad from ordering a chemical weapons attack the use of such weapons, the White House has said, would cross a "red line Israel, by striking the warehouse, is clearly showing that it is prepared to stand behind the red lines it has set," wrote theNew York Times Sunday, referring to the Obama administration's wavering response to reports of chemical weapons use by the beleaguered Assad regime. A scenario that Obama had previously referred to as a game changer.

"There's also a message here for Iran, whose nuclear program Israel has vowed to destroy if the Iranians cross Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's red line," wrote Blake Hounshell for Foreign Policy Magazine Saturday, "the intended lesson here for Tehran (and Washington) is clear: Israel will defend itself when threatened, and we mean what we say."

According to the Jerusalem Post, Israel's former military intelligence chief, Amos Yadlin echoed the sentiment in an interview with Israel Radio Sunday morning, saying that "Iran monitors the resolution of Israel and the United States in regard to red lines, and what it sees in Syria has clarified that, at least some parties when they define red lines, and when those lines are crossed are serious."

An American official told the New York Times on condition of anonymity that the strikes targeted a shipment that included "Iranian-made Fateh-110s a mobile, accurate, solid-fueled missile that has the range to strike Tel Aviv and much of Israel from southern Lebanon, and that represents a considerable improvement over the liquid-fueled Scud missile."

"Two prominent Israeli defense analysts said the shipment included Scud Ds, a missile that Syrians have developed from Russian weapons with a range of up to 422 miles long enough to reach Eilat, in southernmost Israel, from Lebanon," added the Times.

A Syrian official told CNN that the strikes were considered a "declaration of war" by the Assad regime.

Israeli officials have declined to comment on the reports as is customary, and at a cabinet meeting earlier today the subject of Syria was not brought up, according to a Government Press Office communique.

This article was written by the Algemeiner staff. The Algemeiner Journal is a New York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news. This article appeared May 05, 2013 and is archived at
http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/05/new-york-times-foreign-policy-syria-strikes-show-israel-is-serious-about-its-red-lines/

The original expectation that Syria would not retaliate for Israel's hits inside of that country appears to be holding true:

A Syrian government official has indicated that Syria would not be responding "immediately: "Syria will respond to the Israeli aggression and will choose the moment to do so. It might not be immediate because Israel now is on high alert. We will wait but we will answer."

It has been suggested that statements by Israel regarding the need to prevent Iranian weaponry from making its way to Hezbollah provides a possible out for Syria. While indeed, the strikes were on Syrian soil, they weren't intended as attacks on Syria which would require a response.

~~~~~~~~~~

The situation with Hezbollah is somewhat more complex, and there has certainly been some saber-rattling, with talk about responding to aggression. However, according to YNet:

"Lebanese media published Monday that certain circles within Hezbollah say that there is a need to wait before setting any position beyond condemnation."

Said one operative who was cited: "'The situation is sensitive and there cannot be any quick steps against the aggression due to the sensitivity of the matter, and since a response is related to contacts and consultations between Syria, Iran. Hezbollah and Russia."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4376769,00.html

~~~~~~~~~~

Not certain how significant this is, but I found some of the Times of Israel reporting on the Syrian response to the attacks, from a purely non-governmental perspective, to be interesting.

Yesterday I had written that even among people you might intuitively think would be glad that Israel had hit, the need for a politically correct stance was so strong that there was criticism across the board. But the Times has found exceptions to this:

"Israel is still my enemy but when my enemy does a neat job, I admit it," wrote one commentator cited by the Times.

Another wrote: "I'm sorry, but I can't make up my mind between the Syrian army and the Israeli. The latter never harmed me, but the Arab inside me hates it; whereas everything inside me hates the former."

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-strikes-a-blow-to-conventional-arab-thinking/

Dare we derive even a modicum of hope for the future from such messages?

~~~~~~~~~~

Repeatedly I'm seeing analysis suggesting that what Israel has done puts pressure on Obama to also act in Syria. And it is this that I would like to focus on here.

Last Thursday, in "The Flip Side," I wrote:

"Israeli interests here are not the same as US interests. This is a critical point the Israeli red line is not Assad's use of such weapons against his people but the transfer of weapons to terrorist groups that might use them against us."

I expressed confidence then that Israel would act in this regard as it was perceived necessary, and, indeed, that is precisely what happened.

But Obama? Precisely what would be his goal, were he to decide to act in a significant way now?

Would he send in major contingents of ground troops to secure all non-conventional weapons identified by intelligence and currently controlled by Assad troops because his goal is to prevent the use of gas?

Would he seek to bomb Assad sufficiently so that he would be deterred from or rendered incapable of continuing to kill his own people because that would be his essential goal?

That would mean, essentially, taking Assad down. And if he were to do that, what would he then need to do to assure that radicals didn't seize control?

~~~~~~~~~~

My point here, which is essentially the point I made last week, is that there may be little Obama can do now that would be constructive. Even, I wrote last week, providing armaments to non-jihadist rebels from the Free Syria Army might simply prolong the war without providing this Army the means to genuinely secure the country. They are fighting a force that is backed by Iran and Hezbollah and Russia.

What is more, the nature of the rebel forces has changed over time, as they have become infiltrated by Islamists. Thus, if assistance via weaponry and training did make it possible for rebel forces to take down Assad, the net result would not be positive. It is reasonable to expect that the radicals would gain control, probably even seizing weapons meant for secular rebels.

I am not trying to give Obama a pass here. I think he blew it big time and that he has a great deal to answer for. Had he acted decisively early in the civil war, providing significant support to secular rebels, the outcome might have been reasonably constructive. But he dithered, and dithered and we see what the situation is now.

Thus I suggest that, at this point, the pundits who say Obama should finally DO something should first analyze precisely what they think he should be doing and what outcome they might expect from this action.

~~~~~~~~~~

Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah has written a briefing for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs entitled "Stalemate in the Syrian Civil War" (emphasis added):

"On the second anniversary of the Syrian civil war, those who hurriedly announced the demise of the Assad regime realize that the existing power structures are strong enough to endure a war of attrition with the rebels.

"The coalition of minorities around Assad has not disintegrated and the pillars of the regime remain in place. Assad has proved that he has the resolve to conduct effective campaigns against the rebels in a very hostile international environment, while continuing to rule and provide for the daily life of the population under his control.

"The United States and Europe face an impossible dilemma: on the one hand, they would like Assad to fall; on the other, they do not want an Islamist regime that is worse than the ones that succeeded Mubarak in Egypt and Ben-Ali in Tunisia.

"The same dilemma confronts Israel. On the one hand, Jerusalem would like to see an end to the Iranian-led 'axis of evil.' On the other, the prospect of a militant Islamic regime, linked to al-Qaeda and possessing the Syrian military arsenal, is a nightmare Jerusalem cannot live with."
http://jcpa.org/article/stalemate-in-the-syrian-civil-war/

~~~~~~~~~~

This truly is a "no-win" situation. There will be no "Spring" in Syria, with democracy and freedom bursting out all over. There will not even be relative stability for some long time to come.

What we need to keep in mind is that some possible resolutions are decidedly more horrendous than others. Before there is intervention, all parameters and all potential consequences must be seriously considered. As in medicine, the by-word must be, "First do no harm."

~~~~~~~~~~

I recommend "The Fourth Great War," an incisive analysis on this subject, with a different slant, by Shoshana Bryen of the Jewish Policy Center (emphasis added):

She tells us that in this war we are confronting a battle of "Sunni expansionists vs. Shiite expansionists":

"Neither is an appealing partner for the United States in the region, and neither has a natural claim on our politics or our interests. For reasons having to do with Iran itself, the U.S. will not choose to support Iranian-backed Shiites. However, Sunni expansionists are simply no better; Saudi and Qatari-supported Islamists run from the unacceptable Muslim Brotherhood to the even more unacceptable Wahabis, al Qaeda or Jabhat al Nusra it is like a choice between cancer and a heart attack.

"If American policy in Syria seems feckless, it is because it is feckless.

ROOT OF THE CONFLICT NOT TERRITORIAL
http://www.dawn.com/news/795043/israel-pm-root-of-palestinian -conflict-not-territorial

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that an Israeli withdrawal would not bring peace with the Palestinians because the heart of the conflict was their refusal to recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

"You saw what happened when we left the Gaza Strip. We evacuated the last settlers and what did we get? Missiles," he said of Israel's withdrawal of all troops and settlers from the coastal enclave in 2005.

"The Palestinians' lack of will to recognise the state of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people is the root of the conflict," he said, in remarks communicated by a senior government source.

The Saudi-led proposal, which offers full diplomatic ties with the Arab world in exchange for Israel's withdrawal from land occupied in 1967, now includes a reference to the principle of mutually agreed land swaps, in a move hailed by Washington as "a very big step forward."

But Netanyahu has categorically ruled out any withdrawal to the "indefensible" 1967 lines, and on Wednesday said such a move would not solve the conflict, which was not about land but about "the very existence of a Jewish state," the source said.

"If we reach a peace agreement I want to know that the conflict will not continue. That there won't be any more Palestinian claims afterwards," Netanyahu told the diplomats.

"The root of the conflict is Acre, Jaffa and Ashkelon and you need to say it. You don't need to apologise. You need to say the truth," he told them.

(The Saudi plan, with or without land swaps, is a trick to force Israel to take all the so-called refugees and their descendants. Item 1 is a "just solution" based on UN resolution 194, which requires all countries to take all the refugees who want to 'return'. In other words, the idea is to turn Israel into another Arab state.)

Declaration of War or Prevention of Terror
http://www.debka.com/article/22953/Syria-Israeli-attack- equals-declaration-of-war-Iron-Domes-at-Haifa-and-Safed

Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad said the strike at Syria represented a "declaration of war" by Israel. He spoke in the wake of Israel's renewed strikes against Iranian missiles bound for Hizballah and other targets around Damascus. Tehran condemned "Israeli aggression against Syria." Russia Today claimed that strikes killed at least 300 members of the Syrian Army's 501st Unit. This unit operates the chemical weapon facility at the foot of Mt. Qassioun north of Damascus.

Food for Thought by Steven Shamrak

More and more ordinary Europeans - Poles, Ukrainians, Russians etc are mindlessly shouting "Heil Hitler" now! The hate for others, not just Jews, made them ignore the fact that not long ago Nazis killed millions of their own compatriots. How long will it take for governments to join them?

Hamas has No Plan for Peace with Israel
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/05/201353144052527593.html

Hamas movement has rejected a revised Middle East peace initiative put forward by the Arab League. Arab states appeared to soften their 2002 peace plan, acknowledging that Israelis and Palestinians may have to swap land in any eventual peace deal. "The so-called new Arab initiative is rejected by our people, by our nation(?) and no one can accept it," Haniyeh, prime minister of the Hamas government in the coastal enclave, said. "The initiative contains numerous dangers to our people in the occupied land of 1967, 1948 and to our people in exile." He was referring to the partition of British-mandate Palestine in 1948 when the United Nations voted to divide the territory into a Jewish state and an Arab state. (Which Arabs rejected!)

Israel Strikes Syria while US 'Considers'
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/05/03/israel_launches_airstrike_ into_syria_apparently_against_weapons_site.html

Israel launched an airstrike into Syria. Israel has targeted weapons site in the past that it believes are being delivered to the Lebanon-based terror group Hezbollah. In 2007, Israeli jets bombed a suspected nuclear reactor site along the Euphrates River in north eastern Syria.

Arab Enemies in the Knesset
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167609

Member of Knesset Jamal Zahalka has refused to condemn the murder Tuesday of a young father-of-five. A terrorist stabbed actor Evyatar "Napo " Borovsky to death. When asked to condemn Tuesday's attack, Zahalka instead addressed Israelis living in Judea and Samaria. "Get out of there. You're thieves and criminals. You come to steal and to take what belongs to us." ("to us" to recognise it and start working toward removal of this 'cancer' from Jewish land!)

Will She Receive a Life Sentence?
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167500. The United States has indicted a former State Department employee now living in Sweden with conspiracy to commit espionage for Cuba. Marta Rita Velazquez, 55, allegedly helped to "spot, assess and recruit US citizens" in sensitive national security positions to serve as Cuban intelligence agents. (Israeli spy did!)

As long as they are Killing Each Other

Hizballah's elite Al Qods Brigade suffered a grinding defeat since intervening in the Syrian civil war on Monday, April 29. The Al Qods Brigade commander, known as "Abu Ajib" and his lieutenant Hamza Ramloush, were killed along with scores of combatants dead and wounded in a surprise ambush mounted by rebel militias reinforced by radical Salafists from Lebanon. They were newly armed with Grad rockets.

Return of the Temple Mount is a Good Step Forward

MK Moshe Feiglin (Likud-Beyteinu) wrote his party members "I have decided to suspend all of my parliamentary activity and deal with only one issue: The fact that the government has relinquished Israeli Temple Mount sovereignty to the Muslim WAKF. Catering to their threats of violence in case I set foot as an MK on the Mount, the government ordered the police to deny Moshe Feiglin the right to ascend to our most sacred (Jewish) site, abandoning our historic bond of heritage to the Temple Mount. This is an imperative national concern, not a personal crusade. I will do all I can to restore Israeli sovereignty to the Temple Mount."

Another Terrorist Gone

The IAF killed a senior terrorist in Gaza. Mishal, 25, was behind an attack two weeks ago in which rockets were fired at the city of Eilat. He was previously affiliated with the Salafim-Jahadim terrorist group, but in recent years had switched to working with a variety of terrorist groups, helping each with his knowledge of weapons.

Jahadism is without Borders

Italian police arrested four men, who are suspected of planning terrorist attacks in Italy, the US and Israel. One of the arrested men is a Tunisian former imam. The men aimed to train terrorists and send them to fight abroad, and are suspected of conspiracy to commit international terrorism and incite racial hatred.

The Biggest problem for Israel is International Bigotry
http://www.magic-city-news.com/International_45/The_Shamrak_Report_No_2013-18-_printer16927.shtml

Google Replaces "Palestinian Territories " with "Palestine" on its search engine, giving recognition of the PA's unilateral bid at the United Nations. The domain name www.google.ps now brings up a homepage with "Palestine " written underneath the Google logo.

Islamic Terrorism Supported by Muslim Population
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317792/Four-Afghan-Palestinian-Muslims-support-suicide-bombing-survey-claims.html

As many as four in ten (40%) Muslims living in Afghanistan and PA controlled areas support the use of suicide bombing. In Egypt and Bangladesh support for terrorist actions is up to 29 per cent. The worldwide poll of Muslims by the Washington-based Pew Forum found that in most countries (only) three-quarters or more rejected suicide bombing and other forms of violence. (But, how many of them lied?)

Quote of the Week:

"Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you're right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth." - Mohandas (Mahatma) Ghandi

Democracies Cannot Defeat Terrorism

by Maayana Miskin.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167566#.Vh6eMLyVsWM

The Academic College in Tzfat held a conference Monday on the subject, "The Limitations of Democracies War on Terrorism."

Faculty member and terrorism expert Shimon Carmi explained that the way society reacts to terrorism affects the society itself, first and foremost.

States have more means of waging war at their disposal than do terrorist organizations, he said. However, states cannot fully defeat terrorism.

"The state wants to create a certain balance between upholding its democratic values which do not discriminate between citizens based on ethnic or religious identity - and defending the states citizens and its values," he said.

"That means we have to work intelligently. To hold a covert dialog with the other side that is a cornerstone of coping with terrorism," Carmi continued. "We need to learn from the other side in order to counteract it in the most effective, and most just, manner."

"We need to do everything wisely, and not to overreact, because terrorism was, is, and will continue to be. It's easy to use violence but in the war on terror we need to look forward meaning less revenge, and more focus on our future security," he said.

He looked to Israel's neighbours, "In Syria, the Alawi minority is slaughtering its own people in the cities. It is attacking itself to purge the opposition. Do we want to be like Syria?"

"I'm not talking about solving the problem, but about decreasing it, turning down the flames," he explained. "The nature of man is to be violent, there is violence in the streets and in our homes. A violent response is not necessarily the right answer."

"Personally," he added, "I see more importance in the fact that the state of Israel can produce seven or eight Nobel Prizes. That's the direction we should take. Terrorism never dies, but when we, as the opponents of terrorist groups, prove that we are a better, more advanced society, more moral and ethical, we destroy many of their arguments."

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. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com

Oh dear. The Left in Israel is all upset again about yet another "fascist assault against democracy" coming from the non-left. Periodically the Left has conniptions whenever a law is proposed that would rein in the atrocities of the Left. You will recall how upset the Left got when it was proposed that transparency laws similar to those in effect in the US be introduced to require that anti-Israel NGO's reveal the sources of their funding. Another "fascist" proposed laws that upset the Left sought to require a pledge of loyalty to the country by those sitting in the Knesset, Israel's parliament. Another proposed allowing those groups of businesses in Israel injured by the efforts of anti-Israel leftists who organize international boycotts and sanctions against Israel to sue those instigators in Israeli civil court for damages.

In any case, the latest bugaboo of the Fascist Left in Israel is what people are calling the "Jenin Jenin Law." As you recall, a slanderous lying propaganda film was made by Mohammed Bakri, entitled Jenin Jenin, accusing Israeli soldiers of conducting genocidal mass murders in the Battle of Jenin in 2002 (see http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=46&x_review=10). In that face-to-face street battle in which Israel attempted to capture and kill wanted terrorists, numerous Israeli soldiers were killed and some 20 Palestinian civilians were killed in the crossfire. The Israeli army was criticized inside Israel for not using artillery to level the buildings containing the terrorists and thus save Israeli military lives.

Bakri made a Goebbels-like propaganda film, one he himself later admitted was a tissue of lies here. See also here. The soldiers involved in the battle filed a defamation lawsuit against Bakri. Later leftist activist judges on the Supreme Court tossed out their suit as "infringing freedom of speech." That is correct, the same Supreme Court that has upheld rulings that criticizing the public political activities of anti-Israel leftist traitors is "libelous" was unwilling to convict Bakri of libel and slander.

Well, many years too late, the Knesset is now considering a new law that would grant the legal standing to sue people making false defamatory claims about the actions of soldiers. The idea is that if someone claims falsely that Israeli soldiers carried out some sort of atrocity or crime against humanity and it could be proved that the claims are lies and the person making the claims knew they were lies, than the liar could be sued for defamation in civil court. Anyone who has any evidence of actual misbehavior by any soldier would of course be protected from being sued. Any soldier or civilian could file civil suit against the liars. Read more about the law here:
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Knesset-ctee-approves-law-to-ban-defaming-IDF-312235

The Israeli fascist Left of course is up in arms and is screaming to high heavens about this new "assault against freedom of speech and democracy." This from the very same people who spent recent years cheering on the persecution of rabbis and others for endorsing or recommending a book the Left considered to be racist, or who cheered on the denial of freedom of speech to the Kahanists.

The Left insists that defaming Israeli soldiers is part and parcel of freedom of speech. The very same far leftists who cheer on the leftwing academics who file fascist SLAPP harassment suits against anyone who dares to criticize THEM and tell the truth about THEM are now suddenly all upset about the possibility that leftwing liars could be sued for defamation.

The leftwing Minister of Justice Tzipi Livni, by the way, opposes the law. Thus demonstrating once again the foolishness of Netanyahu offering her this post. All the tenured radicals also oppose the bill and the chat lists of the tenured Left are full of shrill denunciations of it. Some have taken time off from cheering on the tenured leftists who engage in lawfare and who file SLAPP harassment suits againstthe critics of leftists who dare to exercise freedom of speech. In a worrisome development, even Yair Lapid, regarded as centrist, shifted to the Left and opposed the bill.

The anti-Israel far-leftist daily Haaretz described the law as "criminalizing" the defamation of soldiers (http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israeli-ministers-back-law-calling-libel-against-idf-a-criminal-offense.premium-1.519564), and as usual Haaretz twists the facts to fit its agenda. Nothing in the law involves criminalization. It just defines the defamation of soldiers as a civil tort.

Among those praising the initiative to pass the law is the "Im Tirtzu" Zionist student group. According to the Jerusalem Post: 'Im Tirzu (a political activist group) issued a press release praising the vote, saying that the law implemented "the unwritten, but obligatory, contract between the IDF and civilian society and representatives of the public, which dictates that IDF soldiers will be ready to risk their lives so that every Israeli citizen can live and for the State of Israel to continue to exist." The statement added that, "as a price for this sacrifice of time, and if necessary, of a soldier's life" there is a duty to "defend them in the parliamentary, judicial and public arenas.'

According to the text of the bill, "Those who defame Israel, waging a campaign of de-legitimization against it in the international community, who wish to bring about a boycott of the state and its citizens have chosen IDF soldiers as a comfortable target in recent years, fully aware that no legal steps can be taken against them. Though many fabricated claims against IDF soldiers have been exposed over the years, but due to procedural constraints, the soldiers who were trampled and whose reputation was damaged were left without any legal solution."

Steven Plaut is an American-born Israeli associate professor of Business Administration at the University of Haifa and a writer. Plaut is a member of the editorial board of the Middle East Quarterly, a publication of the Middle East Forum think tank. Contact Dr. Steven Plaut at stevenplaut@gmail.com

Second incident of unrest this week at facility for asylum seekers detained under the anti-infiltrators law amendment.

A group of African migrants attacked an officer and two other guards, one of them female, at the tent city section of the Saharonim detention facility on Tuesday, leaving three guards lightly hurt, the Prisons Service reported on Tuesday.

According to Prisons Service spokeswoman Sivan Weitzman, while guards were distributing packages brought by visitors, one detainee who said he didn't receive an item he was expecting, punched the commander of the tent city section of the detention center.

When other officers came to assist the commander they were swarmed by a group of around 20 other detainees who began attacking them, Weitzman said.

The detainees were eventually subdued and the three lightly wounded officers were treated at the scene.

The incident was the second time in two days that the facility has made the news.

On Sunday, the Prisons Service reported that over the weekend a group of 340 migrants from Block 7 of the detention center refused to return to their cells and remained in a prison yard, saying that they were being held illegally in the detention center and must be released.

By Sunday, Prisons Service officers were able to remove them from the yard and return them to their cells.

The protesters were African migrants who had been detained in the facility indefinitely under the amendment to the Prevention of Infiltration Law (1954) that went into effect last summer. It allows the state to jail people who enter the country illegally for three years or longer.

Weitzman said that such incidents are commonplace at all of the prisons across Israel, and that the Prisons Service does not see them as out of the ordinary for a facility holding large numbers of people. She added that the Prisons Service has not decided to beef up security or make any other personnel or policy changes in response to the events of this week.

Contact K at noahsworldtv@gmail.com

When PM Netanyahu was running for re-election, Abbas led the P.A. to seek recognition of statehood from the UN. That violated the Oslo Accords signed by the PLO. In retaliation, PM Netanyahu proposed [a typical Zionist response to Arab violations] to let Jews build thousands of houses in Judea-Samaria.

Accordingly, the Housing Minister prepared tenders for such construction within the large settlement blocs.

Now the U.S. is again trying to revive negotiations between the P.A. and Israel. Apparently, PM Netanyahu is afraid that if he lets the housing be constructed, the Obama administration would blame him for P.A. refusal to negotiate. In any case, he has not signed the tenders all year, it now being May, when the secret was revealed.

If Netanyahu at least froze Arab construction, he'd not discriminate against his own people and boost Arab plans to take over the area. A genuine right wing PM would explain such plans to his people and to the U.S..

The freeze is for new construction. Construction that had started is proceeding (http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=593022).

Time and again, Netanyahu breaks his nationalistic promises, and in a sneaky way. Nevertheless, many Jewish nationalists still trust him and leftists still pretend he is right wing. Charitable critics depict him simply as one who succumbs to pressure.

Netanyahu has made himself seem like someone whose bluff can be called. He loses credibility, Israel therefore loses some deterrence.

A U.S. attempt to revive negotiations is not in the interests of the U.S. nor of Israel. The P.A. is part of the Sunni Islamist world, which the Obama administration has been helping, now also in Syria. Independence for the jihadist P.A. empowers it to prepare for war, including terrorism. It cannot bring peace. The P.A. exists to wage jihad against Israel.

Adding to the problem, the traditionally anti-Zionist State Dept., now headed by a Secretary with a treasonable past, and directed by a President with an Islamic past, would as usual, take mostly the Arab side in negotiations. After all, Netanyahu reasonably suspects that Obama would unreasonably blame Israel for P.A. intransigence. He should blame the P.A. for demanding a pre-condition contrary to the Oslo Accords on which P.A. autonomy is based.

Would that Netanyahu had the courage to keep his word to his people and point out to Sec. Kerry what everyone in Israel knows, that Abbas does not intend to make a peace agreement or at least to honor it. Somebody has to explain to the U.S. that it must begin to understand the foreign cultures with which it deals. Time to end U.S. folly. Now that U.S. resources are thin, and Obama is thinning them fast, the U.S. must set wiser policy. It would help if we could count on the patriotism of our own President.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses are a regular feature on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

Yom Yerushalayim, which we marked this week, is a monumental day in Jewish history. It is a celebration of the first time in 2,000 years that Jews regained sovereignty over the Kotel, the Western Wall, and the Temple Mount, which is Judaism's holiest site. And it is a time to thank God for giving us the extraordinary gift that is Jerusalem.

We were overwhelmed and outnumbered by our enemies in 1967, yet the Israel Defense Forces achieved a miraculous victory, reclaiming and reuniting Jerusalem in a defensive war. We salute and remember the brave Israeli soldiers who battled our antagonists and prevailed in just six days.

Many of us, young and old, sometimes take it for granted that we have control over Jerusalem and unfettered access to our holy sites. However, it is important to always recall that there was a time, not so long ago, when Jerusalem was off limits to Jews.

Understandably, it is difficult for younger people, who have never experience a divided Jerusalem, to fathom that there was an era when Jerusalem was not under our purview. For those who lived through it, it was extremely painful and especially frustrating that we were unable to visit Israel's capital. Jews throughout the world prayed that Jerusalem would once again be ours and we yearned for the time we could once again bask in its holy glow. Now, years after Israeli forces achieved this remarkable feat, even the older generation can easily forget about the centuries when Jews were denied access to our most holy sites.

Yom Yerushalayim comes around once a year, but we must continually thank God for restoring our connection to Jerusalem and for keeping His promise.

Israel's prime ministers have always maintained that Jerusalem is a "red line" that cannot and will not be crossed. Menachem Begin said it best at Camp David in 1978 when he quoted to President Jimmy Carter from the Book of Psalms: "If I forget thee, O' Jerusalem, may my right hand lose its cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I hold thee not above my highest joy." He followed that by emphatically stating, "Jerusalem is the heart of Israel, the heart of the Jewish people."

Moving forward, the greater Jewish community needs to put a renewed emphasis on shifting the focus to Jerusalem and highlighting its significance.

● We must urge our rabbinic leaders to double their efforts in educating our young people and reminding the older generation about the centrality of Jerusalem. A real in-depth understanding of what Jerusalem means to our people is paramount in order to preserve the rich history of this great city, mentioned more than 600 times in Tanach.

● It would behoove Jewish schools, summer camps, and educators around the world to continue developing and enhancing curricula aimed at transmitting to the younger generation a keen awareness and deep appreciation of the importance of Jerusalem in a historical, cultural, and religious context. Families must commit to visit the city to maintain a durable and unyielding connection with it.

● It is incumbent upon all of us to encourage and support settlement in all areas of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is our capital, and no one in the international community is in a position to dictate where Jews are permitted, or not permitted, to reside within our own capital.

● We all must make the issue of Jerusalem a pivotal part of our lives. We can never take for granted the fact that the capital of the Jewish state belongs to us and is under our rule.

The holy city of Jerusalem is a vital connection to our past and an integral link to our future. With its unique religious and cultural significance, Jerusalem is the lifeblood of the Jewish people and the heart and soul of our nation.

Our children and grandchildren are the leaders of tomorrow. Someday they will be the stalwarts of the Jewish people. We must build a solid foundation for the future by instilling in them a love of Jerusalem and ensuring that they develop a deep appreciation God's gift to us.

So, after observing Yom Yerushalayim and celebrating the 46th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, let us revitalize our efforts to underscore all that this holy city means to the Jewish people. Let us turn our attention to the importance of communicating to the younger generation just how fortunate they are to have a city they are able to call home.

Contact Robert Hand by email at borntolose3@att.net

I'm going to talk about the good news here, because I think we are a little behind the times in thinking about some of these cyber problems.

There is a revolution going on in attribution, and the Mandiant report is a good example of that, and the revolution, properly understood, is going to change our policy options. The question is whether we're going to seize the opportunity to use the policy options that we are being provided by the ability to attribute some of these attacks that we're beginning to discover.

Now, this is from a larger presentation that I do about attack and defense that begins more or less, since every general in the Pentagon seems to be waiting for the lawyers to tell them what they can do before they come up with a cyber war strategy. Well, I've got a JD, so I'll give you a strategy.

Let's start with the attack part of our strategy. That's what everybody likes to hear about, and of course the next problem is who we're going to attack, at which point people start to wring their hands and say, "Oh, dear, we don't know who's attacking us! It's so hard, it's so hard!"

It's not that hard.

That's what we have discovered. As I said to Chairman Rogers, we've discovered that not because the CIA has told us, not because NSA has told us, or DHS, but because brave people got into command and control servers that were owned by the Chinese got in and looked around and told us what they found. They found a hell of a lot. They found the hacker's girlfriend's pictures. They found phone numbers and QQ addresses and a whole bunch of stuff that allowed us to determine who was attacking us.

That's because it is not possible to operate in cyberspace these days without leaving little digital bits of your DNA all over cyberspace. It's just like Pigpen. We've got this cloud of data falling off us whenever we move around in cyberspace.

I should have said this is going to be the "Huffington Post" version of cyber security. You get a little bit of fact and you get a fair amount of opinion and you get a strategic amount of cleavage.[laughter]

So, what are these digital bits that we leave behind? Here's one. [laughter]

So this picture was put up on a site of law enforcement agencies that had been hacked by Anonymous. In leetspeak this says, "You've been pwned by wormer & CabinCrew-Love you bitches!" The rest of the picture speaks for itself.

It turns out that this was taken with an Apple iPhone. And unbeknownst to the guy who took it, it very helpfully included the geographic coordinates of where it was taken. The FBI went to this suburb of Sydney and as they say, "Obtained a positive identification of the subject." Apparently, the Secret Service is not the only law enforcement agency that's having a great time abroad.[laughter]

They then discovered that her boyfriend lived in Corpus Christi, Texas; he is now serving a year in prison for his attack. And just to make this G rated, he has married the subject of the photo. So it's turned out well for everybody.[laughter]

That's kind of an unclassified view of attribution. I've been trying to popularize Baker's Law, which sums up the attribution opportunity this way: "Our security sucks, but so does theirs." That's what we need to remember. The hackers are no better at securing their communications and their data than we are, and we know we're bad at it, right?

Let's start taking advantage of the fact that we can find out all kinds of stuff about the people who are attacking us.

This creates an enormous set of options for policy makers. Many people know what attribution 101 is. You've got all the people who've been compromised up on that top line. Then the command and control server which tells them all what to do and receives all their reports about the information. Then headquarters takes that information from the command and control and ultimately passes on to some final customer who actually is going to use the information that has been stolen.

If we can break down that set of information, we can start penetrating each of those steps along the espionage trail. We can go from attribution to, not deterrence, but retribution.

Come on! That's what we should be doing. We can expose and isolate nation-states, show that they are engaged in activity that will embarrass. That's a great opportunity. We can impose sanctions on spies. Why not say, "We are designating you a specially designated national hacker?" We already have specially designated nationals for blood diamond traders. Really, that is not our most important national security problem.

What you have here is a couple of people whose pictures were actually taken with their home PC cameras by counter hackers who were investigating the attack. We can identify these guys and impose sanctions on them individually.

This is my favorite story here. One of the hackers actually had a blog. One of the hackers who did the United States government serious, serious damage had a blog that he was running under a pseudonym in which he complained the site of the "Prison Break" TV series complained about how horrible his life was. How bored he was out in the suburbs, and how much he yearned to break free of the prison that his hacking unit had imposed on him.

I thought to myself, "Wow! We could figure out who these guys are. They're so bored. We'll offer them a million dollars and an S Visa to come to the United States. The first one gets a million dollars. The second one gets a $100,000. The third one gets $10,000. Everybody else gets indicted. [laughter] Prison break meets prisoner's dilemma. We could do it tomorrow if we had the nerve.

We could deny visas to companies who are hiring these guys. We've seen Tencent, which apparently actually hired one of the hackers who attacked United States government agencies. We should be investigating that hacker and saying to the company, "You know, if you want to come to the United States, do business here and have visas to come here, you need to cooperate with our investigation." We aren't doing that, but we could.

Then finally, to my mind the ultimate goal is to find the guys who are actually using the data. Governments are not using most of the data they're stealing. They're probably giving it to state-owned enterprises so that those state-owned enterprises can go out and do business successfully in the West where we can reach them and prosecute them. If we can establish that a foreign company got stolen information, if we can find that information inside their crappy, unsecured networks we can prosecute them. That will change everybody's vie

So, last point. What's the role for private companies? You know how much help you're going to get from the police if somebody steals your bike: They will tell you how sorry they feel about it, and they will tell you what kind of lock you should buy next time for the next bike you own. That is the treatment we're getting now from the FBI and the CIA when they don't have the ability and don't have the resources to do the help.

But the private sector is willing to spend a lot of money to find out who's attacking them. We should help them to get the kinds of information that's necessary to bring a criminal action against the people who are attacking us. That's what we need.

Instead, what we're getting, and I think even from Chairman Rogers, is a classic government response. "We can't actually help you with your criminal problem, but we can make sure that you can't defend yourself."

That can't be the right answer. We've got to find a new approach that relies on the capabilities of the private sector as well as government resources.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is the Director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy (ACD) and the Economic Warfare Institute (EWI). She has authored hundreds of articles and several books on terrorist financing and political corruption. This article appeared April 11, 2012 on the American Center for Democracy (ACD) website at http://www.acdemocracy.org/

Shalom,

Yom Yerushalayim is a monumental day in Jewish history. It is a celebration of the first time in 2,000 years that Jews regained sovereignty over the Kotel, the Western Wall, and the Temple Mount, which is Judaism's holiest site. And it is a time to thank G-d for giving us the extraordinary gift that is Jerusalem

We must thank G-d on Yom Yerushalayim for restoring our connection to Jerusalem and for keeping His promise. It is a day to reflect and appreciate the great gift that He has given us. And it is the perfect occasion to focus on the vital role that a unified Jerusalem plays in the lives of the Jewish people.

From our actions we should be fortunate enough to merit the age-old command of Isaiah the Prophet (Chapter 62:1): For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet, until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, and her salvation as a burning torch.

Today is Yom Yerushalayim, also commemorating those who fell conquering not only Jerusalem, but also the whole Binyamin Area, which has grown since 1967.

Contact aliya2bin at aliya2bin@yahoo.com

Today we are celebrating Yom Yerushalayim Jerusalem Day the anniversary of the liberation by Israeli troops of eastern (historic Jewish) Jerusalem, in 1967.

May we never forget the blessing that has been restored to us. This is a time for prayers of gratitude for the gift of this city, which truly is the soul of the Jewish people.

The Jerusalem Day parade leads people through the streets of the city and into the Old City for dancing with flags at the Kotel:

~~~~~~~~~~

In celebration of the unification of Jerusalem:

http://www.aish.com/jw/j/90565359.html

~~~~~~~~~~

On the 28th of Iyar, the third day of the Six Day War, when Lt. Gen. Motta Gur. IDF Chief of Staff and the paratroopers he led in the capture of the Old City reached the Temple Mount, he sent out a message:

"Har Habayit b'yadenu! Ani chozer: Har Habayit b'yadenu!

"The Temple Mount is in our hands! I repeat, the Temple Mount is in our hands!"

You can hear an historic recording of this event, which includes prayers by Rabbi Shlomo Goren, IDF Chief Rabbi including prayers for those soldiers who fell in taking the city and a Shehechayanu, prayer of thanksgiving for reaching that day and shofar blasts.

A translated transcript is provided:

http://israelperspectives.blogspot.com/2006/05/jerusalem-day-broadcast-of-liberation.html

~~~~~~~~~~

Today my prayer is that every Jew should take to heart the meaning of "Har Habayit b'yadenu! "

~~~~~~~~~~

In the 3,000 years since King David first made Jerusalem his capital, the only time it was divided was during the 19 years that Jordan controlled eastern Jerusalem following the War of Independence.

When Israel liberated that part of the city, Jerusalem was reunited never, ever to be divided again.

The myth is that "east" Jerusalem is "Arab." But this only appeared to be the case because Jordan rendered it Judenrein not only banishing all Jews, but destroying synagogues and desecrating cemeteries. The reality is that the very heart of ancient Jewish heritage is in the eastern part of the city.

~~~~~~~~~~

Today, almost half of the population of eastern Jerusalem more than 225,000 people is Jewish. Any notion of being able to divide the city with western Jerusalem for the Jews, and eastern Jerusalem for the Arabs, is pure nonsense.

In fact, the notion that the Palestinian Arabs have a legitimate claim to any part of Jerusalem is equally nonsense. And let it be clearly understood: They say they want the eastern part of the city for their capital. But a serious analysis of statements made by the Palestinian Authority makes it clear that they intend to have all of the city.

We made a grievous error, in turning over the daily administration of the Temple Mount to the Muslim Wakf after we had liberated it. Let there be no more mistakes.

To surrender the very heart of Jewish heritage would be to seriously weaken our national resolve, and to rob us of our deepest purpose. And don't imagine the Arabs are not aware of this.

Under no circumstances may Jerusalem be divided.

~~~~~~~~~~

Any so-called Jewish leader or thinker or writer, whether here in Israel or outside, who proposes such a division imagining it to be somehow necessary either in the interests of "peace" or to satisfy international demands does a serious disservice to Am Yisrael and the State of Israel. Such a move would serve only to weaken the Jewish people and to subvert the cause of true peace.

~~~~~~~~~~

Almost immediately after the city was reunited, a law was passed for the protection of holy places; it reads:

"The Holy Places shall be protected from desecration and any other violation and from anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings with regard to those places."

It must be noted that only under Israeli sovereignty will Christian holy places in Jerusalem be guarded.

In July 1980, the Knesset passed the Jerusalem Law, declaring, "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel." Eastern Jerusalem is indivisibly part of the capital.

~~~~~~~~~~

If you have never visited Jerusalem, I urge you to do so. There is no way to truly value her in your heart without knowing her. When you come, be sure to take a tour of the ancient Jewish sites in eastern Jerusalem.

Of course, the Kotel, and the tunnel adjacent, and the nearby archeological gardens. And go up on the Mount an important thing to do with a guide.

Not to be missed, as well, is Ir David the City of David, outside the city walls. This is the original ancient city, and archeologists regularly uncover new evidence of life there:

But it doesn't end with these sites. A guide can show you old Jewish neighborhoods, and much more.

See www.keepjerusalem.org.

~~~~~~~~~~

Im eshkachech:

If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand lose its cunning; let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I do not set Jerusalem above my greatest joy.

From Psalm 137

~~~~~~~~~~

Ya'akov Shwekey singing Im Eshkachech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJBJnOO7Eck

~~~~~~~~~~

Celebrations were held last night at the Mercaz Harav Kook Yeshiva in Jerusalem. One of those who spoke was Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, who said:

"We build Jerusalem physically and spiritually. It is the duty of our generation to protect Jerusalem, keep it, develop it and build it. One does not divide one's soul." (Emphasis added)

~~~~~~~~~~

Trade Minister Naftali Bennett (Habayit Hayehudi) also spoke, and he said (emphasis added):

"In recent days we hear about initiatives from the Saudis and from America. Some say openly that they are in favor of splitting Jerusalem. I have an argument with them, and I will never give in when it comes to this argument! But there are also these 'invisible divisors' those who say they are against the division of Jerusalem, but they are in favor of a Palestinian state. These 'invisible divisors' are against the splitting of Jerusalem, but they freeze construction in our capital city.

"These invisible divisors do not tell us that they will cause us to give up the Temple Mount and the Old City which are the heart of the Jewish people and a heart is indivisible. And I ask all these invisible divisors: Excuse me, but where exactly will be the capital of the Palestinian state be? In Jericho? In Bethlehem? In Berlin?

"Already when President Obama visited here I said that a nation cannot be an occupier in its own country, and I say now that a nation cannot be an occupier in its own capital. We are not occupying Jerusalem. Jerusalem is ours! Jerusalem belongs to my grandfather's grandfather and to my grandson's grandson. Neither I nor anyone else has the right to split it."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167825

~~~~~~~~~~

How I wish that on this day, there would be nothing to fill this post but rejoicing about Jerusalem. But wishing does not make it so.

I mention here matters of concern, to which I will return for further discussion. The very first was alluded to by Bennett, above, when he spoke about "'invisible divisors' [who] freeze construction in our capital city."

It has come from a multiplicity of sources that our prime minister is instituting some sort of building freeze past the Green Line. None of this is confirmed in its details, but the fact that something is going on seems very likely and is deeply disconcerting, indeed, infuriating, if so.

Part of the problem in verifying this information is that we're being told that Netanyahu is giving instructions not to put out tenders for construction (invitations for contractors to bid on jobs). This means that construction already begun will continue: there will not be a freeze on this. Not putting out tenders would mean that in the future there would not be any new construction contracted.

Today Army Radio reported that Netanyahu had instructed House Minister Uri Ariel (Habayit Hayehudi) regarding the tenders for construction projects in certain Judea and Samaria communities. When asked about this, Ariel is reported to have responded that he does not talk about private discussions between himself and the prime minister. This is hardly a denial. I consider Ariel one of the good guys, and I ask, what is going on?

~~~~~~~~~~

Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon was subsequently quoted by Army Radio as saying that he was unaware of any silent freeze on housing:

"The Prime Minister clearly said that he is willing to negotiate, but without preconditions, and a silent freeze is a precondition."

Yea, yea. But what the prime minister says and what he does are not always the same thing, are they?

Then PLO chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told Maan, the Palestinian Arab news agency, that the PLO had not been informed of any change in "Israel's colonial plans."

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=593212

But Justice Minister Livni is scheduled to meet with Secretary of State Kerry in Rome today.

~~~~~~~~~~

The situation to our north is also deeply worrisome:

Three shells from Syria have hit in the Golan in the course of 24 hours. It is believed that these were strays from the on-going civil war and were not deliberately aimed at Israel. But Minister of Defense Ya'alon has made it clear, once again, that the IDF has a policy of immediately responding to such shelling whenever the source can be identified.

Israel, he said, is not "interfering in the Syrian civil war, but we've warned what our interests are, and we have called it 'red lines,' whether it's transferring quality weapons to a terrorist organization or violating our sovereignty along the border.

"...We will act to protect the security of Israel," he warned, and any Syrian cross-fire will be answered. Forces in the north are under orders to return fire without seeking approval. "Should they identify the source of fire, they will destroy it."

~~~~~~~~~~

More significant are reports of Assad's possible intentions towards Israel right now.

He continues to make noise about the attacks on Iranian weaponry, without taking direct action that is not the problem. Rather, Assad is considering permitting Palestinian Arabs in Syria to attack in the Golan. Khalid Abd al-Majid, secretary-general of the Palestinian Popular Struggle Front, has said that his faction will be meeting with Syrian authorities about this.

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Report-Syria-to-permit-Palestinians-to-attack-from-Golan-312365

This might set a precedent for allowing other radical groups stronger or better armed than the Palestinian Front to enter the Israeli Golan. Assad has scrupulously guarded against this possibility until now. But should his policy change, the IDF would be immediately and necessarily more involved.

~~~~~~~~~~

Peacekeepers from a Philippine battalion of the U.N. Disengagement Observer Force, were seized near al Jamlah, by Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade, part of the Free Syrian Army clearly not from the Army's secular arm.

~~~~~~~~~~

The US and Russia are now said to be advancing an international conference to address the situation in Syria. I'm sure the speeches at a conference will have a huge effect.

~~~~~~~~~~

It is good that Prime Minister Netanyahu went to China, primarily, as I read it, to forge an enhanced trade relationship. But...

While he was there, so was the PA's Abbas. And the Chinese greeted him with a "four point peace plan" based on the '67 lines, and the capital in eastern Jerusalem. So what else is new?

~~~~~~~~~~

A Turkish negotiating contingent was just here to finalize arrangements for compensation that Israel will provide with regard to the Mavi Marmari incident. Reports are that it went well and that surprise! after this is achieved there may be an exchange of ambassadors.

The diplomatic/security situation requires a closer relationship between Israel and Turkey. But it remains pro forma for Turkish diplomats to attack Israel. Erdogan participating in a very large club just issued criticism of Israel's alleged attack on Iranian weapons in Syria. Such hypocrisy, when Iranian weapons in Syria make him very uncomfortable.

~~~~~~~~~~

Steven Hawking, world renown British theoretical physicists, has just demonstrated just how stupid someone exceeding brilliant can be: According to the Guardian today, he has decided not to attend a conference to be hosted by President Shimon Peres here in Jerusalem, as a protest of the way Israel treats the Palestinians. He was to headline the conference, scheduled for next month, but pulled out on the unanimous advice of his British academic associates.

I would venture to say he knows next to nothing about the political/security realities here, and I point my finger at the British academic community, whose position comes as no surprise. The Guardian says Hawkings has been bombarded with an intense campaign by backers of the boycott against Israel. Regrettably, he serves as their unwitting tool.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

Following denials earlier today, Cambridge University is now confirming that Stephen Hawking has chosen to boycott an event in Israel next month.

A University spokesman told The Algemeiner that "We have now received confirmation from Professor Hawking's office that a letter was sent on Friday to the Israeli President's office regarding his decision not to attend the Presidential Conference, based on advice from Palestinian academics that he should respect the boycott.

"We had understood previously that his decision was based purely on health grounds having been advised by doctors not to fly."

The Algemeiner reported earlier that an article published by The Guardian last night, which cited a statement from the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP) that it was Hawking' s "independent decision to respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there," had been contradicted by a Cambridge University spokesman.

The Presidential Conference earlier criticized Hawking's decision. After the initial reports, Presidential Conference chairman Israel Maimon decried Hawking's boycott of the conference as "outrageous and inappropriate, especially for one so fundamentally associated with the spirit of independence as a person and an academic.'

A spokesperson told The Algemeiner that a letter had been received from Hawking explaining his decision for not attending. "The conference has made the decision not to discuss any of the contents of the letter received by Professor Hawking, but we stand by our statement from this morning," Matthew Krieger said.

Krieger added: "The conference is not confirming if it was a boycott or not a boycott."

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. Write him at splaut@gmail.com. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com.

I am afraid I am trying your patience today but I now need to correct my earlier correction. The original story about Stephen Hawking boycotting Israel turns out to be correct. The announcement that this was a hoax turns out to be wrong and was itself a hoax. I realize this is frustrating and confusing. Apologies for my role in the confusion.

I have one important proposal. Israel, it turns out, is a leading player in research on ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease, which is what Hawking has. See http://israel21c.org/health/israeli-clinical-study-offers-hope-to-als-patients/, although there are lots of other stories about this on the web. I would like to propose that if Israeli researchers discover a cure for the disease, it should be refused to Stephen Hawking. After all, we would not want to compromise his strong moral stand on behalf of the "suffering Palestinians"! And boycott for the goose is also boycott for the gander. Let us not put Hawking into any uncomfortable ethical position now that he has decided to join the BDS terrorists and boycott Israel. So let us help him avoid compromising his principles and simply let him know in advance that he will be denied any cure for ALS that ever comes out of any Israeli institution or research.

Statement on Professor Hawking and Jerusalem conference:

8 June 2013

A University spokesman said:

"We have now received confirmation from Professor Hawking's office that a letter was sent on Friday to the Israeli President's office regarding his decision not to attend the Presidential Conference, based on advice from Palestinian academics that he should respect the boycott.

"We had understood previously that his decision was based purely on health grounds having been advised by doctors not to fly."

This has now been confirmed on numerous web sites including http://www.timesofisrael.com/hawking-is-indeed-boycotting-peress-jerusalem-meet/ and

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/08/about-face-cambridge-confirms-hawking-is-boycotting-israel/

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. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com.

I was about ten years old, my father and I were going fishing one day. I went in to find him in our living room in Tulsa, Oklahoma. My father, a lawyer, had spread out on a card table a whole lot of yellow pads; he was taking notes and putting slips in the books and so forth, and I said, "Dad, what are you doing?" And he said, "I'm really sorry that we're going to have to put off the fishing trip. I'm getting ready, since I'm now expecting to go to trial on Monday, and I need to get a lot of work done." I said, "Well, what are you doing right now?" "I'm figuring out the opposition's cleverest strategy." I said, "Why do you do that?" And he said, "Because it's not only the opposing case that you think you'll likely be facing, but the strongest, most powerful, cleverest, sneaky and crafty thing that is possibly imaginable that you prepare for. Figure out how defeat that and then you're more likely to win.

Well, I thought that that was kind of an interesting approach to debates and lawsuits, and I've always tried to follow it.

Let me suggest an approach a bit like that with regard to cyber security. Today, Kim Jong Un, Ahmadinejad, and some of their buddies in other countries like China like to steal money from us over the Internet, and that's a serious matter. We have to protect ourselves and deal with all such important issues. But for some of them, their objective may be a lot worse than that, say destroying us. Now a common way of discussing these latter sorts of existential issues is to say of somebody fill in the blank: Kim Jong Un, Ahmadinejad that is not crazy. If they tried that, then they'd know we might go back and attack them or even, you know, use a nuclear weapon, and since they're not crazy, we have little to worry about they'll be deterred. Well, the problem is that there are at least two kinds of crazy

I once wrote a paper on Hitler's diplomacy. I can assure you that although his objectives were absolutely hideous (to conquer Europe and rule it for a thousand years as an empire and to kill all the Jews), his skills as a diplomat were superb. From 1933 to 1939, Hitler had the chancelleries of Europe eating out of his hand. He was as good as Metternich. It is not inconsistent for a sociopath like Hitler, or Kim Jong Un, or Ahmadinejad, to have a crazed, evil world-destroying objective, but still be a crafty dude. We have, I think, lapsed into a mode of thinking about the Kim Jong Uns or the Ahmadinejads that they can be treated like your average Soviet leader.

Let me be clear about what I mean when I say that. I kind of miss the Soviet Union, but only in a sense. I spent a lot of years trying to figure out how to deter them, what kind of weapons systems to buy to defeat them, and how to spy on them. But I also negotiated with them four times. Sometimes my Soviet counterpart and I would get really intense at a meeting, but then we'd go out to dinner together and after a couple glasses of wine, we'd start talking about our families and maybe trade some Jewish jokes. And sometimes in the negotiations we could then kind of make a few things work.

The Soviet military kept Fidel Castro from persuading the Soviet Government to use a nuclear weapon during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We now know from the materials released that Castro badly wanted a nuclear weapon used during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Why? Because he wanted to destroy the United States. But he would have consequently also destroyed Cuba, right? Well, yes, but did he care? Not that much. A Soviet Navy Captain stopped his small flotilla from using a nuclear torpedo during the Cuban Missile Crisis, something that could have set off nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. So bless the more or less common sense of at least some Soviet military people. They didn't really want to die for the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." They wanted to remodel their dachas, their country homes outside Moscow.

So we got used to dealing with an enemy that was very bureaucratic, and would allow its economy, which we substantially outperformed, to wither away. And they produced a Gorbachev, who was a pretty decent guy. The enemies we have now, I would say, Kim Jong Un and Ahmadinejad and those around them, are quite capable of creating a lot more tension than what we ordinarily had with the Soviets. They appear to be quite capable of Hitler-like thinking, behavior, and objectives.

Now if they were thinking about attacking us, using my father's approach, as described above, what might they do?

Well, first of all, they would notice that the United States has eighteen critical infrastructures: food, water, electricity, natural gas, financial markets, and so on. All seventeen of the others depend on electricity. If the electric grid goes out, not just for a few days as in super storm Sandy, but for months to years, we don't have stockpiles of things like transformersit's not just that your lights would go off. You couldn't pump gasoline at the filling station, because the pump is electric. You couldn't get food because the food delivery system depends on things that are electric in one way or another. You couldn't get water, because the pumps don't work. You would not be back in the 1980's, pre-world-wide-web. You would be back in the 1880's, pre-electric-grid.

I doubt very seriously that we have enough water pump handles and plow horses and seed to function in a 19th century economy. So the estimate on what would be the result of the grid's going down for a substantial period of time, let's say a year or more, looks at the possibility that you would have two hundred million of the three hundred million people in the United States dead, because the agricultural system that we have is highly technological and feeds all of us, while only two percent of us work on farms. The end of that system means lots of people starve. In that post-electric future we would not see more than about a hundred million people surviving in a non-electrical, non-networked country.

So, we are talking about the ability of an Ahmadinejad or a Kim Jong Un to seriously consider, if he hated us as much as Hitler hated the Jews, the possibility of taking down the grid, or at least a big chunk of it, for a substantial period of time. It could be something more devastating than some scenarios in which nuclear weapons are used. An effective attack by a few nuclear weapons might destroy several cities. And while that would kill a large number of people, it's probably not going to fundamentally undercut all of our infrastructure. So what about the possibility of North Korea or Iran or somebody else hacking into the grid and taking it down?

Well, the way that I feel about the electric grid is kind of bipolar. It's true, the National Academy of Engineering said not too long ago that, in a way, it's the most remarkable invention of the 20th century. It's a just-in-time system, and, generally speaking, except when there's a big outage such as from Sandy, it's given us the electricity that we need, so in a sense, it's really remarkable. On the other hand, the electricity grid has been, from the first instance, and it is now, highly fragile. It was first put together in the beginning of the 1880's, and because Tesla won out over Edison, as an alternating current system, which makes long distance transmission possible. But it is a just-in-time system, so if any part of it is interrupted a lot of things can be thrown off.

It used to be, in the time of childhood or even young adulthood for most of us, a simply-operated system. If you were at a utility in Idaho, and you saw some kind of outage developing that made you need some added electricity, you would pick up the phone, probably something with a dial that hung on the wall, and you'd dial long distance to folks at a utility over in Washington State. You'd say, "Hey, we're going to need a boost here in about thirty minutes. So, can you help out?" "Yeah, we can, we can do that. We'll work it out and give you a call."

But after a while, with the coming of the computer, it was not a couple of guys on the phone but computers communicating on unique software that some local vendor had sold them so they could communicate a bit faster than they could on the phone. It would have been pretty hard for any outsider to get into it. Then in the mid-1990s, we got worried about Y2K, so as we fixed that problem, we started basically putting the electric grid's control systems on the web. About the same time we basically de-regulated electricity, and let it be bought and sold on an open market. So you now have an open market all over the country, on the web, with a lot of very standard software, and the control systems are ones that lots and lots of people know how to hack.

And so we now have a system, important parts of which can be disrupted relatively easy. I'll use one example: the Department of Homeland Security cleared some information to go on CNN about three years ago. I don't think it should have been cleared, but it was and it was all over the web. It was a pretty simple hacking maneuver. When you have a spinning machine, at sixty cycles, and you want to put another machine into the mix, and you need to synchronize it, instead of putting them so they synchronize properly, what you do, if you're a hacker, is turn off the control of one of the machines. One of them then spins very much faster than the other because of the torque, and then, within a few seconds or so, you put them back together again. The spinning one then destroys the other. It was on a demonstration up in Idaho three years or so ago. There are other relatively simple tricks.

Who's in charge of the electric grid? Clearly somebody must be. Not really. There are fifty public utility commissions that are sort of in charge of electricity in each of the states. They are more or less run predominantly by retired utility. There are not very many of them that are up to date with respect to new research and development in electrical matters. A Former Deputy Director of ARPA-E in the Department of Energy told me a couple of weeks ago that if you take research and development done last year by all three-thousand, five hundred American utilities and add it together, it is less than the R & D that is done by the American dog food industry.

There is very little interest in the industry in dealing with these problems. There is a tragedy of the common problems with these utilities. Each essentially says "If I stockpile transformers and my neighbor's utility goes down, he'll probably take me down too, so that stockpiling will turn out to have been a waste of money, so I'm not going to do anything unless everybody has to do it." Who would everybody be? Certainly not fifty public utility commissions. How about the Department of Energy? They have a small electric office and no authority to regulate transmission. What about the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission? Not really. They can regulate transmission but not distribution. Why don't we have a national energy strategy? Because nobody's in charge.

We are in a situation where a whole set of electricity issues substantive and organizational is extremely troubling. Now, since I've been so happy and optimistic, let me leave you with one other I'm afraid rather difficult problem. We've heard about EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse). Apparently it's the case that, about once a century, we have a very large solar event it's called a Carrington Event and there's a huge electromagnetic pulse, naturally caused. The last time we had a very large one was a century and a half ago, in 1859. There were just a few telegraphs around to show what happened to electrical equipment, but everybody is quite clear: It was a devastating electrical storm.

There have been lesser events that were still quite devastating to more modern electronics. There was one in the 1920s that was reported in Russia and to a limited extent, in the Western Hemisphere. As far as man-made EMP events are concerned, open-air nuclear detonations sometimes occurred from 1945 until 1963 before the atmospheric test-ban treaty took effect. There were not many transistors in the early '60s, and vacuum tubes aren't affected by EMP, but by looking at the effect of those open-air tests, both the Americans and the Soviets came to the conclusions that a storm of the sort that occurred in 1859, or a comparable powerful nuclear explosion, particularly at a very high altitude could be absolutely devastating to electronics.

The Russians, the Chinese, now the Israelis and the British, are all getting their electrical systems protected against electromagnetic pulse, whether caused by the sun or by a nuclear explosion. We're not, because nobody's in charge.

One final point. It's possible to create such a pulse with the detonation of a relatively simple nuclear weapon. It doesn't have to be sophisticated; it just has to go off a few hundred miles above the target area. So, we have, to put it mildly, a very major cyber problem with the grid and at the same time we have a solar and a nuclear explosion problem. The electric grid is vulnerable in more than one way and we have not done a responsible job in taking care of it or the rest of our infrastructure. We've got a lot of work to do, and it needs to be done quickly.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is the Director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy (ACD) and the Economic Warfare Institute (EWI). She has authored hundreds of articles and several books on terrorist financing and political corruption. Contact ACD/EWI at rehrenfeld@rehrenfeld.com

British physicist Stephen Hawking has announced he is withdrawing from a leading Israeli conference in deference to a Palestinian call to boycott this and other Israeli events.

The decision by Prof. Hawking, who was to have been a key speaker at the Israeli Presidential Conference next month in Jerusalem, has infuriated conference organizers and delivered one of the biggest names yet to the ranks of the growing international campaign to boycott Israel.

It also has drawn the enormous attention of Israelis themselves. By the end of the day Wednesday in Israel, items related to Prof. Hawking's announcement were the number one, three and six of the most widely read pieces on the Haaretz newspaper's website.

The annual Presidential Conference, now in its fifth year, is hosted by Shimon Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his efforts to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

According to its website, the conference brings together "world leaders, international scholars, activists, poets and scientists, artists and clergy, entrepreneurs, economists and industrialists, as well as representatives of the next generation of leaders" in order to discuss issues of geopolitics, economics, environment, culture and more. This year's conference also is a celebration of Mr. Peres's 90th birthday.

In his letter to conference organizers, Prof. Hawking stated he had reconsidered his earlier agreement to participate in the event. "I have received a number of e-mails from Palestinian academics," he wrote. "They are unanimous that I should respect the boycott. In view of this, I must withdraw from the conference. Had I attended I would have stated my opinion that the policy of the present Israeli government is likely to lead to disaster."

The Israeli chairman of the conference, Israel Maimon, denounced Prof. Hawking's decision to boycott the event as "outrageous and inappropriate, especially for one so fundamentally associated with the spirit of independence as a person and an academic."

The British physicist, who has visited Israel on at least four occasions in the past, has been a frequent critic of Israeli policy. During the three-week-long conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip in 2008-09, he described Israel's bombardment of Gaza in retaliation to frequent rocket attacks as "plain out of proportion."

"If Israel wants peace, it will have to talk to Hamas," he said at the time. "Hamas are the democratically elected leaders of the Palestinian people and cannot be ignored."

Prof Hawking, 71, a Cambridge University cosmologist, spent six weeks in 2010 at the University of Waterloo in southwestern Ontario, where he collaborated on research at the university's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Diagnosed at 21 with a motor-neuron condition known as Lou Gehrig's disease or ALS, he uses a wheelchair and speaks through a speech synthesizer, making him the world's most recognizable scientist.

Prof. Hawking is best known in scientific circles for his research on the beginning of the universe.

The Hawking decision to boycott the Israeli event is likely to provide a significant boost to the worldwide boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, intended to put pressure on Israel to change its policies regarding Palestinians and the occupation of Arab territories.

Already, numerous artists and performers, such as Stevie Wonder and Alice Walker, have chosen not to perform in Israel or for Israeli benefits, and several European universities turn away Israeli academics seeking visiting professor status or deny their own faculty members opportunities to visit as professors in Israel.

The Hawking decision also may cause a backlash against Cambridge University, the physicist's academic base.

Seemingly mindful of this, a spokesman for the university told reporters earlier Wednesday that Prof. Hawking was cancelling his plan to attend the Israeli conference due to health reasons.

"His doctors said he should not be flying at the moment so he's decided not to attend," the spokesman, Time Holt, said.

Later in the day, the university corrected itself. "We have now received confirmation from Professor Hawking's office that a letter was sent on Friday to the Israeli President's office regarding his decision not to attend the Presidential Conference, based on advice from Palestinian academics that he should respect the boycott," a Cambridge spokesperson said.

Reaction in Israel was fast and furious. In a passionate appeal to Prof. Hawking to reconsider his position, Carlo Strenger, a reknowned psychoanalyst and chair of the Clinical Graduate Program in Psychology at Tel Aviv University, wrote that he regarded his fellow scientist's decision to boycott as "hypocritical."

"Yes, I think that Israel is guilty of human right violations in the West Bank," Prof. Strenger wrote in an open letter in Haaretz Wednesday. "But these violations are negligible compared to those perpetrated by any number of states ranging from Iran through Russia to China, to mention only a small number of examples."

"How can you and your colleagues who argue for an academic boycott of Israel justify your double standard by singling out Israel?" he asked. "You are simply denying that Israel has been under existential threat for most of its existence."

"Singling Israel out for academic boycott," said Prof. Strenger, "is, I believe, a case of profound hypocrisy. It is a way to ventilate outrage about the world's injustices where the cost is low."

"I'm still waiting for the British academic who says he won't co-operate with American institutions as long as Guantanamo is open, or as long as the U.S. continues targeted assassinations," he added.

"Israel's academia is largely liberal in its outlook, and many academics here have opposed Israel's settlement policies for decades," Prof. Strenger concluded. "But once again, British academics choose the easiest target to vent their rage in a way that does not contribute anything constructive to the Palestinian cause they support.'

Editor's Note: This story has been edited to reflect the fact that although Bruce Willis postponed a promotional trip to Israel, there is no evidence he is boycotting the country.

Contact IAM e-mail at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com

At an Independence Day reception for foreign diplomats, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke of Israel's desire for peace with the Palestinians. "Peace will be based on the principle of two states for two peoples," he said. "This we recognized 65 years ago when under Ben-Gurion's leadership the Jews said yes to the UN resolution calling for two states for two peoples. We said yes then and we say yes now."

Partitioning the area mandated to Britain by the League of Nations for establishing a Jewish national home has been proposed a number of times. The first partition took place in 1921 when Winston Churchill, then the colonial secretary, offered the area east of the Jordan River, 78 percent of the League of Nations-mandated area, to Abdullah, the son of Sharif Hussein of the Hejaz. He stipulated that the Balfour Declaration's provisions would not apply there, and this area is now the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Thereafter partition proposals were made for the remaining League of Nations-mandated area west of the Jordan.

The Peel Commission appointed by the British government recommended in 1937 that western Palestine be partitioned into Jewish and Arab states, the Jews being apportioned one-third of western Palestine. The proposal, rejected by the Arabs, aroused a great debate in the Zionist movement, with David Ben-Gurion supporting acceptance of the proposal.

Ze'ev Jabotinsky dismissed the partition plan using the Yiddish expression "nisht geshtoigen, nisht gefloigen" ("it won't take off and it won't fly"). In other words, nothing would come of it. And nothing came of it.

The UN partition plan adopted in 1947 assigned about 56 percent of western Palestine to the Jewish state. Like the Peel Commission plan it was accepted by Ben-Gurion and the official Zionist leadership and rejected by the Arabs. There is no way of knowing what Jabotinsky's reaction to the plan would have been. He died in 1940. His adherents, the Irgun Tzvai Leumi under Menachem Begin, rejected the proposal, warning that the partition plan would not bring peace, a prediction that turned out to be correct.

After Israel's War of Independence the mutually agreed armistice lines in 1949 left Israel in control of about three-quarters of western Palestine. Actually, toward the end of the war, Ben-Gurion had planned to launch an operation that would bring all of Judea and Samaria under Israeli control, but his motion brought before the Israeli government on October 26, 1948, was defeated by one vote. This decision will be regretted for generations, Ben-Gurion said after the vote. In June 1967, Israel's victory in the Six-Day War led to Israeli control of all of western Palestine. So the time came again to talk about partitioning the Land of Israel this time not between Jews and Arabs, but between Jews and Palestinians.

Those talking about partitioning the Land of Israel today mean a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in which Israel concedes substantial parts of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians the Gaza Strip already constituting a mini-Palestinian state under the control of Hamas. But as is well recognized, the PA under Mahmoud Abbas speaks at best for only the Palestinians residing in Judea and Samaria, as Hamas refuses to recognize Israel or make peace with Israel.

Under these circumstances Abbas cannot meet the basic Israeli requirement of such a peace treaty namely, that the treaty end the conflict with the Palestinians and that no further acts of terror be launched by Palestinians against Israel. Abbas knows he cannot meet these requirements, which is why he has been so reticent to carry on negotiations with Israel and prefers turning to the United Nations. In other words, there is no partner for partition. Nothing will come of this partition. It won't fly.

*Moshe Arens served as Israel's Defense & Foreign Minister as well as Israel's US ambassador

Contact Yuval Zaliouk at ynz@netvision.net.il

On May 9, 2013, the Israeli organization B'Tselem issued a 30-page report headlined "Human Rights Violations during Operation Pillar of Defense 14-21 November 2012." This publication immediately received widespread coverage in the Israeli media, apparently based largely on an accompanying press release.

However, the claims in the press release are inconsistent with the actual report, creating false perceptions in the media. The press statement claims that the "report raises suspicions that the military violated International Humanitarian Law (IHL)." But these allegations are not demonstrated in the report; at best, they are the result of conjecture, as B'Tselem itself acknowledges in the report. Additionally, the claim to distinguish between civilian and combat deaths in this report, as in past B'Tselem statements, is based on manipulated definitions and speculation, and the application of existing legal standards would result in very different conclusions.

1) The report text clearly reflects the limited information available largely "eyewitness interviews" (including via telephone) in Gaza, whose accuracy cannot be independently verified. Thus, after presenting the allegations from the interviews, the report states, "However, the means at B'Tselem's disposal are too limited to determine whether or not the Israeli military acted in accordance with the law."

This is a very significant change and acknowledgement by B'Tselem compared to the claims made in the 2009 reports on the previous Gaza conflict (and later repeated in the discredited Goldstone Report). However, as noted above, reference to this central methodological limitation is not mentioned in the press release.

B'Tselem acknowledges that it "is unable to investigate the lawfulness of each and every military strike during the operation," although the bulk of the report and press release ignore this admission. (B'Tselem and other NGOs also bombarded the IDF with unsupported allegations of illegal actions, overwhelming the investigatory process. When the IDF did manage to respond, B'Tselem dismissed the replies out of hand.)

2) The report includes a number of fundamental distortions of international law that appear to be lifted from the Goldstone report, including standards for operational targeting in response to terror attacks, the concept of military necessity, and the obligation to warn civilians prior to strikes. B'Tselem also employs artificial definitions in the effort to distinguish between those participating and not participating in combat.

Example: The report condemns the IDF alleging that attacks "against the homes of senior members of Hamas leaders" are illegitimate military targets. Factually, B'Tselem has no knowledge of why any sites were targeted and therefore cannot draw conclusions relating to military necessity. Moreover, many of the homes were used to store weapons, clearly making them legitimate targets.

Example: The report condemns the IDF alleging that "In some cases a warning was given. Yet, even in those cases, residents were not always given sufficient time to leave their homes, and then, after the warning, it was not ascertained that the residents had indeed left."

In reality, under international law, states are required only to provide general warnings to civilians to seek safety and only to the extent that such warnings are feasible under the circumstances; the effectiveness of warnings is not judged on the basis of whether the warnings were followed.

Example: B'Tselem claims that accidental civilian deaths occurring during this military operation might constitute a violation of international humanitarian law (IHL) since "the military must do everything in its power to prevent such mistakes, and when they do occur, to examine their underlying causes and what can be done to prevent recurrences."

This assertion is false. The standard is "due diligence and acting in good faith," defined as "precautions that are feasible in the circumstances, given the information available to the commanders and military planners." B'Tselem and other NGOs have no knowledge that these steps were not taken, and the evidence indicates the opposite that the IDF indeed took the required precautions.

3) B'Tselem's previous reports, including the 2009 allegations regarding the Cast Lead operation, erased the terror attacks that led to the IDF response. In this report, however, the NGO includes "an examination of the conduct of both sides during the operation," including condemnations of Hamas.

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

1. Since September 2012 Hamas has run a new program called Al-Futuwwa ("youth," "courage") in high schools in the Gaza Strip. In the program, tens of thousands of adolescent Gazan boys receive theoretical and practical military training. The program has three components: military classes are held weekly in the schools, there are two-week training camps held during school breaks, and practical activities carried out with operatives of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military-terrorist wing. An article in the British newspaper The Guardian recently reported that the weekly classes are part of the curriculum for 37,000 boys aged 15 to 17, of whom about 5,000 have participated in the training camps. They train with Kalashnikov assault rifles and learn how to use hand grenades and detonate IEDs.

2. The military training program is part of comprehensive indoctrination and practical activities held by Hamas for the younger generation in the Gaza Strip. The activities which begin in kindergarten and continue on into university, are meant to raise a new generation of motivated military and political operatives and activists and to brainwash them with Hamas ideology (the so-called "liberation of Palestine," refusal to recognize the State of Israel or its right to exist, nurturing the path of jihad and fostering radical Islam).

3. Hamas expects that this new generation will participate in the armed campaign against Israel as operatives in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades and will integrate into the Hamas movement and administrative activities, thus ensuring Hamas' long-term control of the Gaza Strip. Another of the program's objectives is to reinforce the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades' image as an "army of the people" operating in the service of the movement's administration, as opposed to the military-terrorist wings of the other terrorist organizations, whose role is secondary and which represent affiliation with one faction or another.

Military Training in Gazan High Schools within the Framework of Al-Futuwwa

4. During 2012, called by the de-facto Hamas administration "the year of Palestinian education," Hamas introduced a program in its high schools called Al-Futuwwa ("youth," "courage"). Its objective was to integrate military studies into the schools run by Hamas to raise a new generation of operatives and activists to "serve the homeland" and "expel the Zionist occupation from the land of Palestine" (Hamas forum website, January 24, 2013). The ministries of education and the interior of the de-facto Hamas administration direct the program with the support of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades and Hamas' security services.

5. An article in the British paper The Guardian recently reported on Al-Futuwwa. Its main points were the following [ITIC emphasis throughout]

1) The high school curriculum includes weekly classes in which boys become familiar with Kalashnikov assault rifles and other weapons. Instructors from the interior ministry's national security services also teach first aid, firefighting and the values of "discipline and responsibility." Parents can remove their sons from the program but rarely do so.

Al-Futuwwa students at the Gamal Abdel Nasser in eastern Gaza City. They are holding both real and dummy rifles. In the background are senior members of the education and interior ministries of the de-facto Hamas administration, responsible for the program (Dunia Al-Watan, April 4, 2013).

2) To supplement the course there are voluntary camps during school breaks, in which boys are instructed in how to handle guns and explosives. The Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operatives assist in the training using live ammunition and real explosives (Note: See the military display below, photographed at the Gamal Abdel Nasser School in Sajaiya in the eastern Gaza Strip).

3) According to the Hamas ministry of education, the course is now part of the curriculum for about 37,000 pupils aged 15 to 17. So far, about 5,000 have participated in the training camps. A 17 year-old boy (called "Mohammed" in the article) said that he spent six hours a day for two weeks at a training camp, along with 170 other students from his school. They practiced firing Kalashnikov assault rifles, using hand grenades and detonating IEDs. Their instructors were operatives from the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades and Hamas' national security. The boys learned "self defense" and how to "confront the occupation" [i.e., fight Israel]. "Mohammad" said that he supported Hamas and would consider joining the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades.

6. The people in charge of Al-Futuwwa are Mahmoud Syam, general director of educational activities for the Hamas ministry of education, and Lieutenant Colonel Mahmoud al-Nahale, in charge of the program for the ministry of the interior. In March 2013 Mahmoud Syam visited a number of high schools where the program was being taught, and said that so far it had achieved its aims and that the government alsowas considering adapting the program for high school girls. He said that in the future emphasis would be put on a variety of training exercises including the use of weapons and learning skills on the ground (Website of the ministry of the interior of the de-facto Hamas administration, March 31, 2013; Website of the ministry of education of the de-facto Hamas administration, March 20, 2013).

Flanking the Al-Futuwwa students, at the left, Mahmoud Syam, general director of educational activities for the Hamas ministry of education, and at the right, in uniform, Lieutenant Colonel Mahmoud al-Nahale, in charge of Al-Futuwwa for the Hamas ministry of the interior (Website of the Hamas ministry of education, March 20, 2013).

Lieutenant Colonel Mahmoud al-Nahale, in charge of Al-Futuwwa for the Hamas ministry of the interior (center, holding microphone), with Al-Futuwwa instructors and others involved in the program. They are at a ceremony to mark "Palestinian prisoner day" and the anniversary of the death of Hamas leader Abd al-Aziz Rantisi. The ceremony was held at a school in the town of Qarara, northeast of Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip. The pictures hung below the stage are of Hamas figures, including Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abd al-Aziz Rantisi (Al-Futuwwa Facebook page, April 20 26, 2013)

Participation in Operational Activity on the Ground

7. Al-Futuwwa students are integrated into the operational activities of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades to complete their training and theoretical studies. According to the Hamas forum, on May 3, 2013, 140 Al-Futuwwa students participated in nighttime activities in Gaza along with operatives from the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military-terrorist wing. They patrolled and secured junctions and other key points in Gaza City (Hamas forum website, May 3, 2013).

Military Display of Al-Futuwwa Students in a School in Gaza City

8. On April 10, 2013, Al-Futuwwa students held a military display at the Gamal Abdel Nasser school in the Sajaiya quarter in eastern Gaza City. They simulated the attack and takeover of an "IDF post," the abduction of an "Israeli soldier," and ended the display by firing anti-tank weapons at the "Israeli post." They used live ammunition before a large audience. The display was conducted by a Hamas announcer who excited the audience by promising more explosions for "the Zionist enemy." The display was taped and posted on the GAZA ALAN Facebook page (GAZA ALAN Facebook page, April 10, 2013). It was also posted on YouTube.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R6BSxpl7_0).

Criticism of the Al-Futuwwa Program

9. Samir Zakout, director of the field research unit of the Al-Mezan Center in the Gaza Strip,[2] was severely critical of the de-facto Hamas administration for introducing the Al-Futuwwa program into Gaza Strip high schools. He called the program "empty and with no educational content." He added that the Hamas administration first had to solve more important problems in Palestinian education in the Gaza Strip and provide them with educational values in a different way. He said that Al-Futuwwa was liable to endanger the schools in the Gaza Strip and expose them to attacks by the Israeli Air Force (MBC-TV, Dubai, November 12, 2012).

10. On another occasion, quoted by The Guardian's correspondent in the Gaza Strip, Samir Zakout said that Hamas had cut sports activities for the past six years, and how had found time to have military training in schools. He added that Hamas was building a "military culture" and creating the next generation of "militants."[3]

Contact Terrorism Information Center at newsletter@terrorism-info.org.il

Do the rest of us have the right to pray quietly at the Wall on the first day of the new month? And to enjoy Jewish simachot, like Bar Mitzvas, there on that day?

Friday is the first day of the month of Sivan, the month in which the Torah was given by the Almighty to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai. It was quiet then. Not a creature stirred. Everyone hearkened to the voice of G-d proclaiming the Ten Commandments.

The first day of the month of Sivan is that one day a month chosen by the group which calls itself the"Women of the Wall (WoW)", for an appearance at the Kotel Plaza.

Friday, please G-d, my grandson is to don his tefillin for the first time at the Kotel. He doesn't know how to provoke his parents, let alone other worshipers. The "Women of the Wall" will do their best to ruin our joyous occasion we have already been told that we will have to walk from Jaffa Gate, limiting the guests to those capable of that, and that the yeshiva we were supposed to have our breakfast in will be impossible to reach and that made me think of how many happy family occasions the WoW have already managed to disrupt. I regret that I selfishly did not realize this before it affected me and wrote only of their lack of basic respect and civilized behavioral norms in trying to force change at a holy site.

The members of this group have been fighting with all the means at their disposal the media, the internet, the courts, with everything but numbers, as large numbers of women are obviously not at their disposal to be allowed to show contempt for the accepted customs for praying at the Kotel, a site that merits respect for its tradition. There are barely fifty of them on a really good fighting day, but this is hard to tell because of the noise they generate and all the media hype they receive.

Don't think it is just hareidi worshipers who are offended. Many, if not most, religious Zionist worshipers find their actions at the Wall just as offensive. Look at the picture accompanying this article (click opeds on the menu at the top of the page) and see who forms the majority at the Wall.

What is certain is that they are disrupting an existing, well established situation. In the days of the British Mandate and the Ottoman Empire, Jews could not request their own customs at the site, but they established them firmly as Orthodox ones in 1967. And in the Holy Temple, women did not don tallit and tefillin or carry a Torah scroll.

What one can count on is that the WoW generate vociferous conflict. Because despite the opposition to their reading of the Torah on the part of those thousands who pray at the Kotel regularly and despite repeated requests by the rabbi of the Kotel the group will not pray at the beautiful area set aside for them at Robinson's Arch, a continuation of the same ancient Kotel, and insist on changing the customs at the main Kotel Plaza. They know that this will cause disruption. They know that they offend a great many people. They don't care.

It is not hard to imagine what would happen if they were Christians who tried to change the traditional service to that of some obscure sect at the Vatican or Moslem women who decided to pray in their own fashion in Mecca. In Israel, however, they have no such fears. Here they are even touted as liberating, fighting for human rights, etc. by our leftwing media when all they are doing is being rude and impolite towards the majority. And this goes on after there is a solution.

And there are halakhic questions. While there are rabbis who allow women to wear prayer shawls and tefillin, just not at the Kotel where established custom forbids it, women can not be counted as part of a prayer quorum (minyan) and therefore when praying in a women's prayer group must not recite the kaddish and kedusha prayers. The same applies to the blessings before and after reading the Torah. What the WoW do on those issues is unknown, but the Kotel is not open to services that transgress halakha, and neither was the Holy Temple that once stood behind it.

No matter what the courts decide, if I were told that I offend someone at a holy site, if I knew that the current tradition did not allow my way of worshipping, and was offered another site with the identical holiness, I would go there without hesitation. I would invite all the people who agree with my form of service to join me and fill that area with them. The only thing missing would be the conflict and the media, but perhaps the media would come even if there were no shouting.

Contact GWY123 at GWY123@aol.com

With all that remains disturbing (and I'll get to it), there are also good things happening within the government and the Knesset. Good people who are ready to fight for Jewish rights.

Yesterday, during an AFSI reception at the Knesset, Deputy Minister of Transportation Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) shared her intentions to fight for the right of Jews to pray on Har Habayit (the Temple Mount).

While at a celebratory plenum session of the Knesset, Speaker of the Knesset Yuli Edelstein (Likud) expressed the hope that the issue of Jewish prayer on Har Habayit would be resolved by the next Yom Yerushalayim:

"All of us must make sure that the city of three religions, which we are proud of for having freedom of worship, should be open to every Jew in every place that they want to pray."

And the Knesset Internal Affairs Committee held a special meeting about Har Habayit in honor of Yom Yerushalayim. Elhanan Glatt, director general of the Ministry of Religious Services, told the Committee that his office was examining ways to arrange for Jewish prayer on Har Habayit.

~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, and yes! Jewish prayer on Har Habayit. Enough voices speaking out so that one begins to hope that maybe, maybe at long last there will be action.

It's such a no-brainer that Jews should be able to pray at the place that is holiest for them, the site of the Temples. And an outrage of such immense proportions that we Jews cannot pray there.

~~~~~~~~~~

There is, of course, a convoluted history to this situation, as there often is with what goes on here. No matter what their claims, the issue for Muslims regarding Jewish prayer on Har Habayit is political and not religious.

If Israel were not a power with which they contend, you think they'd care if Jews prayed there? For a long time, before Israel liberated Har Habayit, the Muslims paid it little heed. Their holiest city is Mecca, with Medina second. But let Jews have it?? Never.

Perhaps the comment by MK Ibrahim Sasour (United Arab List -Ta'al) during yesterday's Knesset Internal Affairs Committee meeting says it all:

"Jews in Israel need to understand that one day Jerusalem will return to Palestinians and Muslims. The solution is to maintain the status quo."

~~~~~~~~~~

MK Moshe Feiglin (Likud), Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, explained the situation:

"The Wakf's problem isn't prayer, but the sovereign symbolism of prayer. As far as they are concerned, [Jewish prayer] eats away at the total Muslim rule over the Temple Mount." (Wakf = Islamic trust, an administrative body)

~~~~~~~~~~

"Total Muslim rule over the Temple Mount" in a Jerusalem that is under Israeli sovereignty?

Very quickly after we liberated Har Habayit in 1967, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan made an exceedingly foolish decision. Meeting with members of the (Jordanian-controlled) Islamic Wakf, he ceded day to day administrative control of the Mount to the Muslims. This was done, presumably, as a "good-will gesture," (a loaded term) following the war.

Whatever Dayan's "good-will" in the matter, and hopes of cementing good relations with the Arabs, it has to be noted that he was not a religious man. Thus, he viewed Har Habayit as having "historical" significance and not religious his own words make this clear. For him, personally, a Jewish presence on the Mount had limited import.

"Day to day administrative control" does not mean sovereignty, however. This was retained by Israel. And this is what is constantly being undermined by the Wakf, which acts as if it does have full sovereignty there.

~~~~~~~~~~

Part of Dayan's mistake was in assuming that there would be an appreciative attitude on the part of the Muslim Arabs for what he had acceded, and that they would sit with Israel in a cooperative spirit. He did not understand the Arab mentality, did not anticipate what was going to transpire, and did not imagine, certainly, that the Muslims on the Mount would do everything they could to destroy archeological artifacts that document the ancient Jewish presence there. Dayan greatly valued such artifacts.

At any rate, Dayan did not permit the Israeli flag to fly on the Mount (stupid, stupid, stupid) and was opposed to Jewish prayer there. IDF Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren attempted to institute prayer, holding a service on the Mount on Tisha B'Av. Dayan intervened and the status quo of no Jewish prayer on the Mount was on its way to being established.

~~~~~~~~~~

There are, I must note, further complications: Because Har Habayit — the site of the Temples — holds special sanctity, and because it cannot be determined with absolute certainty where the Temples stood (in the location of the Dome of the Rock, it is commonly thought), and because there are those who believe that the Shekhinah (presence of the Almighty) still resides there, some rabbis believe it should be forbidden to Jews to ascend to the Mount. Others maintain that ritual immersion is necessary before ascending.

Certainly, when ascending the Mount, a Jew should be guided so as to avoid walking where it is believed that the Temples once stood.

It is my observation that over time more rabbis have begun to permit ascension to the Mount. The religious issue cannot be separated from the political one, and the presence of Jews on the Mount in order to establish Jewish rights to this holiest of places is of great importance.

~~~~~~~~~~

The Wakf, when Dayan dealt with it, was Jordanian-controlled, and remained so for many years. But with the Oslo Accords in 1993, the Palestinian Arabs asserted themselves, gaining further influence over matters.

Then with the peace treaty with Jordan in 1994, according to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "Jordan conditioned its signature on inclusion of a clause which gave Amman a preferred status in future Israel-Arab talks about the Temple Mount." (http://jcpa.org/jpsr/s99-yc.htm)

It is not clear precisely how extensive this "preferred status" is, but this is particularly troublesome. I have observed instances in which Israeli decisions that impinged even indirectly on Temple Mount issues were influenced by Jordan.

In particular that was the case with regard to the building of a permanent bridge to the Mughrabi Gate of the Mount. Israel was going to build that bridge in 2011, and then halted when Jordan protested. One had to wonder why the prime minister was so intimidated by Jordanian demands especially with regard to a gate that approaches the Mount but isn't even on it.

~~~~~~~~~~

For some period of time, I've been told, there were actually two Wakfs the Jordanian and the Palestinian Arab, with rivalry between the two. But very recently the PA acceded authority to Jordan.

And just in the last couple of days, we've seen tension with Jordan over Mount-related issues:

For Yom Yerushalayim, the number of Muslim worshippers on the Mount was limited so that there would be opportunity for Jews to ascend for celebration of the day. What is more, the Mufti was detained for a period (ultimately not arrested) because of suspicion that he was involved in throwing a chair at Jews on the Mount.

This so enraged the Jordanians that their Parliament passed a non-binding resolution calling for the Israeli ambassador to be sent back and their ambassador to Israel to be called home. President Shimon Peres then rushed to reassure them that all agreements on holy sites would be respected, and that we should be friends, etc. etc.

What he actually said "We respect all religions' holy places" was meant to assure the Jordanians that Arabs would have access to the Mount. But it could, however also mean that we will respect OUR rights to Jewish holy places.

But never mind....

~~~~~~~~~~

As to our Jewish rights to pray on the Mount, the High Court of Justice has upheld that right (#2955/07). There is a proviso, however, that the police can restrict this right for reasons of security. What has happened then is that the Israeli police have determined that in order to avoid Arab unrest, riots and who-knows-what, it is better to deny Jews their rights to pray. It is actually Israeli police who will arrest a Jew who attempts to pray on the Mount.

Would Arabs riot if Jews attempted to pray there regularly? No doubt, as things stand now. But there comes a point at which it doesn't matter. Jews cannot be routinely denied essential rights out of fear of what the Arabs will do, or say about us. This must be worked out, or confronted.

~~~~~~~~~~

This issue of asserting Jewish rights on Har Habayit is only one of several involving our sovereignty in the land of Israel. I will be returning to this topic again and again.

Before moving on to other subjects, however, I want to tell a short, related story:

I mentioned above the special meeting yesterday of the Knesset Internal Affairs Committee. Before the Committee began its business, a short film in honor of Yom Yerushalayim was played, which showed the liberation of Har Habayit by Israeli paratroopers in 1967.

Some Arab Knesset members who were present grew incensed, saying that the film was "insulting," and demanding that it be stopped.

When I first learned of this story, via a news report, it was not clear if their demand was met. I investigated, and learned, to my considerable relief, that it was not, and that, in fact, Jewish MKs turned and yelled at the Arabs.

~~~~~~~~~~

I won't deal here with the issue of what Arabs who think thus are doing in the Israeli Knesset. I simply want to use this incident to demonstrate the chutzpa of Israeli Arab so-called leadership. Their attitude, as reflected here, is not unusual.

And this permits me to make a very significant point that is often lost:

Jews have NATIONAL rights in Israel. Political rights. For Israel is a Jewish state. Arabs, as Israeli citizens, have individual rights: Civil rights, human rights, religious rights. They do NOT have national rights, rights as a people. But, deliberately confusing the issue, they often act as if they do.

~~~~~~~~~~

Yesterday, when writing about the freeze that the prime minister is apparently instituting at some level, I mentioned that Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon had said, the day prior, that he hadn't heard of any freeze.

Yesterday, in a public gathering, Danny Danon said, "We must unfreeze the freeze." Ooooh...

I was not there, but I spoke with highly reliable sources that had heard him. The irony for me was that he was making this statement at just about the same time that I was writing in my posting that he said there was no freeze. So quickly did his position shift, so quickly is this situation shifting.

The full parameters of what Netanyahu has instructed or intends are still not clear although the JPost is now reporting that what is involved are tenders for public housing projects in four communities in Judea and Samaria: Efrat, Ariel, Givat Ze'ev and Karnei Shomron.

Nor is it clear how Danon would like to go about unfreezing the freeze.

~~~~~~~~~~

The good news, as reported by the JPost, is this:

The Defense Ministry on Wednesday approved for deposit plans for the construction of 296 homes in the West Bank settlement of Beit El with the Higher Planning Council of Judea and Samaria.

The Civil Administration must now advertise the plans in a newspaper, after which begins a 60-day period for the public to register objections, before the plans receive final approval from the council.

"Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu promised to build the homes in June, as part of a deal reached with 33 families living in the Ulpana outpost located at the outskirts of the settlement, whose homes were slated for demolition as the result of a High Court of Justice ruling.

"The settlers agreed to leave their homes without physical resistance, in exchange for a pledge by government officials to build 296 new homes."

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Plans-deposited-for-296-new-settlers-homes-in-Beit-El-312606

Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon will have to sign off on this, but I do not anticipate this as a problem.

~~~~~~~~~~

This news about building follows other news of 90 units in Beit El that have been fully cleared for construction. This is also part of the Ulpana compensation package.

~~~~~~~~~~

I really don't want to make too much of Steven Hawking's decision to boycott Israel. But this information is worth sharing:

"Hawking's decision to join the boycott of Israel is quite hypocritical for an individual who prides himself on his whole intellectual accomplishment. His whole computer-based communications system runs on a chip designed by Israel's Intel team. I suggest if he truly wants to pull out of Israel he should also pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet," said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Shurat HaDin, an Israeli law center that represents victims of terrorism.

"Hawking, 71, has suffered from motor neuron disease for the past 50 years, and relies on a computer-based system to communicate." Darshan-Leitner says the equipment has been supplied by Intel in Israel since 1997.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/05/09/hypocritical-hawkings-boycotts-israel-but-depends-on-israeli-technology/

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

Hezbollah is a model of resistance against Israel, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad was quoted by a Lebanese newspaper as telling a group of Lebanese visitors in Damascus. Assad said that Syria will "give Hezbollah everything" in recognition of its support.

The U.S. now believes that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, pictured, has used chemical weapons against rebel forces, corroborating an earlier Israeli intelligence assessment.

Assad's comments, published by Al-Akhbar, appeared intended to refute any suggestion that last week's reported Israeli airstrikes on Syrian targets would halt Syrian assistance to the Shiite terror group Hezbollah in Lebanon.

"For the first time we feel that we and they are living in the same situation and they are not just an ally we help with resistance" he said, according to an AFP translation.

"We have decided that we must move forward towards them and turn into a nation of resistance like Hezbollah, for the sake of Syria and future generations."

Hezbollah is a strong ally of the Assad regime and has sent soldiers to fight alongside it during the country's current civil war.

Assad was quoted as saying Syria could "easily" respond to Israeli air strikes by "firing a few rockets at Israel."

"But we want strategic revenge, by opening the door of resistance and turning all of Syria into a country of resistance."

"After the strike, we are convinced that we are fighting the enemy now, we are pursuing its soldiers deployed throughout our country," he said, in apparent reference to rebel forces, which the regime has accused of being allied with Israel.

British 'Jew-maican' Moni Tivony Dazzles Judges on Talent Contest Show The Voice

A British Jew is taking the world of reality TV by storm after dazzling the judges on the British version of the music contest show The Voice.

Moni Tivony wowed coaches Tom Jones, Danny O'Donoghue, Jessie J and will.i.am on the BBC One talent contest with his own rendition of Bob Marley's classic track No Woman no Cry.

The 32-year-old's routine on Saturday saw all four coaches eager to offer him a place in their teams — but he picked will.i.am as his mentor.

Moni, who was dubbed a 'Jew-maican' by the Black Eyed Peas member, said: "I just felt really privileged to get all four coaches turn. Not every person in the audition could get that chance to choose."

Moni's family is from Israel, and he told the Daily Star the day after his successful performance that growing up in England wasn't always easy: "I used to be more religious in my younger days and I got bullied for being Jewish."

Something tells us that with his new found stardom he won't have to worry about the bullying ever again.

Contact Algemeiner at editor@algemeiner.com

Recently, a Pakistani religious leader, Pirzada Muhammad Raza Saqib Mustafai, said: "When the Jews are wiped out the sun of peace [will] begin to rise on the entire world." The same preaching is routinely done not only by clerics, but by politicians in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere. This is not just Ahmedinijad; it is at the heart of Islamic theology that world peace will be established only when all the Jews are wiped from the earth. But few people in Western media are alarmed by this kind of rhetoric or care to expose this dreadful dark side of Islam's obsession with Jew-hatred.

I do not believe that one has to be an authority on human behavior or group thinking to find out the obvious pathology in Islamic Jew-hatred. It is time for all of us to uncover and expose this atrocity against the Jewish people. We owe that to humanity and the truth.

No true Muslim can see that such hatred is unbecoming and unholy for a world religion to focus on and that the credibility of Islam is tarnished by such hatred. No Muslim is allowed to go far enough to self-analyze or ask why such hatred. Muslims defend Jew-hatred by claiming that Jews betrayed Muhammad and thus deserve of this kind of treatment. Even when I was a Muslim, I believed that the one-sided story against Jews by Islam was enough to justify all the killing, terror, lies, and propaganda by Islamic leaders against Jews. To the average Muslim, routinely cursing Jews in mosques feels normal and even holy!

After a lot of thinking, analysis, research, and writing, I discovered that Jew at red in Islam is an essential foundation to the Islamic belief system that Muslims cannot seem to be able to rid themselves of. Jew-hatred masks an existential problem in Islam. Islam is terrified of the Jews, and the number-one enemy of Islam is the truth, which must be constantly covered at any cost. It does not matter how many Muslim men, women, and children die in the process of saving Islam's reputation. The number-one duty of Muslims is to protect the reputation of Islam and Mohammad. But why would a religion burden its followers like that? This is why:

When Mohammed embarked on his mission to spread Islam, his objective was to create a uniquely Arabian religion, one created by an Arab prophet, which reflected the Arabian values and culture. Yet to obtain legitimacy, he had to link it to the two previous Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Christianity. He expected the Jewish tribes who lived in Arabia to declare him their Messiah and thereby bring him more legitimacy with Arabs, especially with his own tribe in Mecca, the Quraish. Because his own tribe had rejected and ridiculed him, Mohammed needed the approval of the Jews, whom he called the people of the book. But the conversion of Jews to Islam was part of the scenario that Mohammed had to accomplish in order to prove to Meccans that they had made a mistake by rejecting him.

That was one of the reasons Mohammed chose to migrate to Medina, a town that had predominantly been settled by Jewish tribes and a few impoverished Arabs who lived around the Jews. The Jews allowed Mohammed to move in. At the beginning, the Koran of Mecca was full of appeals to the Jews, who were then described as "guidance and light" (5:44) and a "righteous" people (6:153-154), who "excelled the nations" (45:16). But when the Jews rejected the appeasement and refused to convert to Islam, Mohammed simply and completely flipped. The Quran changed from love to threats and then pure hatred, cursing, and commandments to kill Jews. Rejection by the Jews became an intolerable obsession with Mohammed.

Not only did the Jews reject him, but their prosperity made Mohammed extremely envious. The Jewish Arabian tribes earned their living from legitimate and successful business, but Mohammed earned his living and wealth through warfare by attacking Arab tribes, some of whom were from his own tribe and trade caravans, seizing their wealth and property. That did not look good for a man who claimed to be a prophet of God. The mere existence of the Jews made Mohammed look bad, which led Mohammed to unspeakable slaughter, beheading of 600 to 900 Jewish men of one tribe, and taking their women and children as slaves. Mohammed had the first pick of the prettiest woman as his sex slave. All of this senseless slaughter of the Jews was elaborately documented in Islamic books on the life of Mohammed not as something to be ashamed of, but as justified behavior against evil people.

One does not have to be psychiatrist to see the obvious: that Mohammad was a tormented man after the massacre he orchestrated and forced his fighters to undertake to empower and to enrich himself and his religion. To reduce his torment, he needed everyone around him, as well as future generations, to participate in the genocide against the Jews, the only people whom he could not control. An enormous number of verses in the Koran encouraged Mohammed's fighters to fight, kill, and curse Muslim fighters who wanted to escape fighting and killing Jews. The Quran is full of promises of all kinds of pleasure in heaven to those who followed Mohammed's killing spree and curses and condemnation to those who chose to escape from fighting. Muslims were encouraged to feel no hesitation or guilt for the genocide because it was not they who did it, but rather "Allah's hand."

Mohammed never got over his anger, humiliation, and rejection by "the people of the book" and went to his grave tormented and obsessed that some Jews were still alive. On his deathbed, Mohammed entrusted Muslims to kill Jews wherever they found them, which made this a "holy commandment" that no Muslim can reject. Muslims who wrote sharia understood how Mohammed was extremely sensitive to criticism, and that is why criticizing Mohammed became the highest crime in Islam that will never be forgiven even if the offender repents. Mohammed's message on his deathbed was not for his followers to strive for holiness, peace, goodness, and to treat their neighbors as themselves, but rather a commandment for Muslims to continue the killing and the genocide against the Jews. Killing thus became a holy act of obedience to Mohammed and Allah himself.

Mohammed portrayed himself as a victim of Jews, and Muslims must avenge him until judgment day. With all Arab power, money, and influence around the world today, they still thrive at portraying themselves as victims. Sharia also codified into law the duty of every Muslim to defend Mohammed's honor and Islam with his own blood, and allowed the violation of many commandments if it is for the benefit of defending Islam and Mohammed. Thus, Muslims are carrying a huge burden, a holy burden, to defend Mohammed with their blood, and in doing so they are allowed to kill, lie, cheat, slander, and mislead.

Mohammed must have felt deep and extreme shame after what he had done to the Jews, and thus a very good reason had to be found to explain away his genocide. By commanding Muslims to continue the genocide for him, even after his death, Mohammad expanded the shame to cover all Muslims and Islam itself. All Muslims were commanded to follow Mohammed's example and chase the Jews wherever they went. One hundred years after Mohammed's death, Arabs occupied Jerusalem and built Al Aqsa mosque right on top of the Jewish Temple ruins, the holiest spot of the Jews. Muslims thought they had erased all memory of Jewish existence.

Mohammed's genocide of the Jews of Arabia became an unholy dark mark of shame in Islamic history, and that shame, envy, and anger continues to get the best of Muslims today. In the eyes of Mohammed and Muslims, the mere existence of the Jewish people, let alone an entire Jewish state, delegitimizes Islam and makes Mohammed look more like a mass murderer than like a prophet. For Muslims to make peace with Jews and acknowledge that Jews are humans who deserve the same rights as everyone else would have a devastating effect on how Muslims view their religion, their history, and the actions of their prophet.

Islam has a major existential problem. By no will of their own, the Jews found themselves in the middle of this Islamic dilemma. Islam must justify the genocide that Mohammad waged against the Jews. Mohammad and Muslims had two choices: either the Jews are evil sub-humans, apes, pigs, and enemies of Allah, a common description of Jews still heard regularly in Middle Eastern mosques today, or Mohammad was a genocidal warlord not fit to be a prophet of God a choice that would mean the end of Islam.

Then and now, Mohammad and Muslims clearly chose the first worldview and decreed that any hint of the second must be severely punished. Jews must remain eternally evil enemies of Islam if Islam is to remain legitimate. There is no third solution to save the core of Islam from collapsing; either Mohammed was evil, or the Jews were evil. Any attempt to forgive, humanize, or live peacefully with Jews is considered treason against Islam. How can Muslims forgive the Jews and then go back to their mosques, only to read their prophet's words, telling them they must kill Jews wherever they find them? It does not add up, if someone wants to remain Muslim.

That is why the number-one enemy of Islam is, and must remain, the truth. If the truth exposes Islam's unjustified Jew-hatred, Muslims will be left with an empty shell of a religion, a religion whose prophet was a murderer, a thief, and a warlord. Without Jew-hatred, Islam would self-destruct.

Contact Dr. History at drhistory@cox.net

Future of A Besieged Civilization

"There was a siege going on; it had been going on for a long time, but the besieged were the last to take notice of it."

The conquest of India by Islamic invaders is a long and dreadful narrative of multiple ferocious wars between the invaders and the valiant Hindu Rajas who ruled over different parts of India during medieval times. The barbaric invaders, including Muhammad Ghauri and Babur, took morbid delight in building towers of the skulls of slaughtered 'kaffirs' (read Hindus), a stark fact, proudly recorded by a number of Muslim historians in great detail. Most brave heart Hindu rulers zealously defended their motherland, their subjects and above all their honor at a terrible cost; unlike the Arab conquest of the Persian empire within a short span of two decades and similar fate of Byzantine empire and smaller kingdoms of central Asia. In sharp contrast, the Islamic invaders had to fight multiple tortuous, gut-wrenching battles for centuries to subjugate the Hindus. The resistance offered by the masses to invaders and freebooters was formidable indeed. Occasionally there were some traitors, too, like Raja Jaichand of Kannauj, whose name has become synonymous with treachery.

The hostility between two kingdoms, namely the Chauhans of Rajasthan and Gahadwala Rajputs of Kannauj was a major cause of the defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan in 1192. Had the armies of two gutsy Hindu rulers stood united in the battle of Tarain, the invading armies could have been defeated.

The atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on Sikhs of Punjab and Marathas in south were horrendous. Jahangir had murdered the fifth Sikh Guru Arjan Dev in a most diabolical manner. The epitome of courage Arjan Dev was made to sit on a hot plate and hot sand was poured on him to torture him to death. Later on Aurangzeb, the cruelest of all Muslim kings not only beheaded Guru Tegh Bahadur, but also murdered four gallant sons of Guru Gobind Singh. Two elder sons, Sahibzade Ajit Singh and Junjhar Singh attained martyrdom in 1704 during the battle of Chamkaur Sahib, while the younger sons Fateh Singh and Zorawar Singh were bricked alive in 1705 at Sirhind by Faujdar Wazir Khan, under orders of Aurangzeb.

Starting with the invasion of Sind by Muhammad bin Qasim in 712 A.D. the next 900 years witnessed a relentless onslaught by hordes of Muslim invaders pouring in through Khyber and Bolan passes. Among the barbaric murderers and freebooters were Mahmud Ghazanvi, Muhammad Ghauri, Babur, Ahmad Shah Abdali and Nadir Shah. In fact, Guru Nanak has given in the Babur Vani a vivid description of the atrocities committed by invaders on the hapless Hindus of Punjab and north-western India. According to the eminent historian, Will Durant, "the Mohammedan conquest of India is perhaps the bloodiest story of history". He calls it a discouraging tale, for its only lesson was that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace could be overthrown at any time by barbarians invading from without and multiplying within." [Source: Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Part I, p. 459].

A detailed narrative of the tyranny and atrocities committed by Muslim invaders was given by a well known Muslim author and thinker, Rizwan Salim, who wrote in The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, on December 28, 1997, an article titled, "What the invaders really did?" justifying the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992. Rizwan Salim highlighted that the wrecking of Hindu temples went on from the early years of the eighth century to well past 1700 A.D. a period of almost 1000 years. [Source : The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, December 28, 1997]. Every Muslim ruler of Delhi (or Governor of the Province) spent most of his time fighting the Hindu kings in the north and the south, the east and west. Rizwan continues emphasizing that "savages at a very low level of civilization and no culture worth the name began entering India from the early eighth century onwards. Islamic invaders demolished Hindu temples, destroyed unaccountable sculptures and idols, plundered innumerable palaces and forts of the Hindu kings, killed vast number of Hindu men and carried off Hindu women. This story, the educated and lot of even the illiterate Indians know very well. The history books recount it in a remarkable detail. [Source: Ibid].

Barely 66 years after independence, India's Hindu identity and centuries old ethos are again in grave peril. Sharply growing attacks on innocent Hindu citizens, their temples and targeting of unarmed pilgrims going to Amarnath and Vaishnodevi and repetitive attacks on Hindu festivals are clear pointers to the rising crescendo of a virulent jihad being waged against Hindus of India. Soon after Al Qaeda's attack on twin towers on September 11, 2001, a proclamation was made on Al Jazeera Television channel in October 2001 that in addition to the Christians and Jews, henceforth the so-called 'Hindu India' will also be the target of Islamic jihad. Within two months of that announcement a determined and indoctrinated group of Pakistan-trained Jihadis (including Afzal Guru and several others) attacked the Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001. Thereafter thousands of terrorist attacks have been made across the country from Kashmir to Kanya Kumari. The avowed goal of jihadi warriors has been to destroy the faith of Hindu masses by terrorizing them in a bid to destroy their resolve to fight back a strategy ordained in their scriptures and elaborately explained by a retired Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik in his book, The Quranic Concept of War. Unfortunately, the two most important facts that a regular jihad has been declared against Hindus of India, and that terrorism will be used as strategic tool in this holy war have been kept under wraps by political leadership and mainstream English media.

In India's decadent culture of political correctness and pock-marked 'taqaiyah' of "paid news", when no national leader dare muster the courage to speak truth, it fell to the lot of that irrepressible police officer, K.P.S. Gill, to speak out boldly in September, 2006, at a gathering of college students in Mumbai that the jihadis were trying to destroy the Hindu civilization. Gill's bluntspeak was indeed a timely warning. It is time, we Indians, smelt gunpowder rather than smelling coffee. We must realize that the dice of terror is heavily loaded against us on many counts, both internally and externally. Sandwiched as we are between the two terror factories of Pakistan and Bangladesh, the millennia-old Hindu civilization is under siege. Yet the ruling political dispensation continues to blame the peace-loving Hindus of unleashing 'saffron terror' against the Muslim minority. Although the sacred saffron color has been the traditional symbol of the valor and sacrifices of Hindus and Sikhs in defense of our motherland, today it is used in a pejorative sense by vote-bank besotted politicians and our 'paid media. They don't understand that freedom-fighters had placed 'color saffron' on top of Indian tricolor to boost and promote the spirit of sacrifice among Indians. These anti-national dimwits need to be reminded that it was not for nothing that Sardar Bhagat Singh sang, "Mera rang de basanti chola" to his mother while he stood in Death Row. A clumsy attempt is being made to pass a law titled 'Prevention of Communal & Targeted Violence Bill'. The bill is being pushed in the Parliament to harass the majority community by blaming them for the rising crescendo of communal riots across India.

In her seminally researched tome, 'The Politics of Communalism', published in 1989, Zenab Banu, a Muslim scholar, had analyzed 74 cases of Hindu-Muslim riots which occurred between 1953 and 1977. She found that in 75 percent cases the rioting had been started by the Muslim community. To comprehend what causes communal violence, the National Advisory Council (NAC) and the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Chairperson are advised to read Zenab Banu's scholarly book.

Equally relevant for understanding the cause of fast-rising communal tension in India and abroad is the judicial verdict pronounced by Z.S. Lohat, Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi on July 31, 1986, in a case under sections 153-A and 295-A IPC filed by Delhi police against two Hindus, Indra Sain Sharma and Rajkumar Arya, for publishing and circulating a poster in Hindi citing 24 ayats of the Quran under the caption, 'Why Riots Take Place in the Country'. The ayats cited in the poster were taken verbatim from an authentic edition of the Quran translated in Hindi and published by a Muslim scholar, Mohammed Farooq Khan of Maktaba al-Hasnat of Rampur in Uttar Pradesh. In his book the author had provided the original Arabic text of the Quran, along with Hindi and English translations reproduced in parallel columns. On the basis of a complaint lodged with the police the two Hindu activists were arrested and charged under Sections 153-A and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code for circulating 24 ayats of the Quran which commanded the Muslims to fight against the followers of other religions. The ayats of Quran cited by the two accused persons were 9.5, 9.28, 4.101, 9.123, 4.56, 9.23, 9.37, 5.5, 33.61, 21.98, 32.22, 48.20, 8.69, 66.9, 41.27, 41.28, 9.111, 9.58, 8.65, 5.51, 9.29, 5.14, 4.89 and 9.14.

The poster further added that "there are numerous other ayats of the same sort. Here we have cited only twenty-four ayats. Obviously these ayats carry commandments which promote enmity, ill-will, hatred, deception, fraud, strife, robbery and murder. That is why riots take place between Muslims and non-Muslims in this country as well as (the rest of) the world." The poster claimed, "In the above mentioned twenty-four ayats of the Quran Majid, Mussalmans are commanded to fight against the followers of other faiths. So long as these ayats are not removed (from the Quran), riots in the country cannot be prevented.

On behalf of the government the Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the ayats at serial No. 2,5,9, 11 to 19 and at serial No.22 in the poster were either not in the Quran, or that they were distorted version of the ayats in the Quran. The accused, however, rebutted the arguments of the government prosecutor and asserted that the ayats cited by them were part of the Quran and had been taken verbatim from the book of Mohammed Farooq Khan and these do exhort the Muslims to fight against the followers of other faiths. They submitted that so long as these ayats continued to be part of the Quran Majeed, communal riots in India cannot be prevented.

After hearing both sides and discussing their arguments, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharged the two Hindus, Inder Sain Sharma and Rajkumar, on the ground that prima facie there was no case made out against them. No charge could be framed against the two accused persons because the ayats reproduced in the poster were found to be true and correctly reproduced. The learned Magistrate stated in his order, "I have personally compared the disputed ayats with Quran Majeed (translated in Hindi) with notes by one Mohd Farookh Khan and found that the most of the ayats have been reproduced in the poster in the original form as is available in the Quran Majeed". The learned Magistrate concluded, "In view of the above discussion, I am therefore of the view that there is no prima facie case against the accused as the offences alleged against the accused do not fall prima facie within the four corners of Sections 153-A /295-A." The aforesaid judicial verdict clearly endorsed the view that certain ayats in the Quran have the potential to create communal violence! It is a matter of record that no appeal was filed against the historic judgment by the leaders of the Muslim community on whose complaint the two Hindus were arrested and prosecuted by the police. Apparently they knew very well that their holy book did preach hatred and violence against non-Muslims and for that reason they dare not challenge the judicial verdict by appealing to the High Court. Equally important is the fact that the Delhi government, too, did not think it prudent to file an appeal against the judgment and allowed the judicial truth to remain on record unchallenged. It is high time that the partisan members of the NAC read the aforesaid historical judgment and the relevant ayats of the Quran to understand the growing cult of communal violence, even after partition of the country!

The proposed law, invented by NAC, gives the right to veto exclusively to the minority community in matters concerning communal violence by defining them as 'the group' and by vesting extra-constitutional powers in a seven members super-outfit called the National Authority for Communal Harmony. This super-outfit comprising four members of the minority communities (including the Chairman and the Vice Chairman, both belonging to the minority community) has been assigned the responsibility for directing and overseeing the administration of the proposed vicious legislation. The deliberate inclusion of a provision sidelining the majority community in constituting the so-called National Authority shows the immense distrust in the majority community and aims at promoting hatred against them. Interestingly the term 'group" used in the bill applies only to the minority groups (both religious and linguistic). The draft bill does not make even a cosmetic pretense of protecting the so-called majority against violent attacks by members of the 'group'.

The Bill aims at making the police, including the process of investigation, subservient to the whims of the minority-community-dominated National Authority. It is common knowledge that most communal riots cannot be controlled easily by the meager manpower presently available at a police station in India, or for that matter, even in a district. Worldwide there is a norm of at least 225 policemen for one lakh (one hundred thousand) of population. But in India the ratio of police to the population ranges between 125 to 150 per one lakh (one hundred thousand) of the total population. Despite repetitive jihadi attacks across the country and fast-paced spread of communal politics by vote-bank-besotted politicians, India remains the least and most ineffectively policed country. As against a measly manpower of 15-16 lakh policemen spread across 35 States and Union Territories, today the number of privately organized security guards in India stands at nearly 54 lakhs!

Apparently the members of the NAC of Sonia Gandhi do not know that every riot, especially a communal conflagration, erupts suddenly like a tornado and rips through its trajectory at a furious pace. Thereafter the storm of violence tends to slow down mostly on fourth or fifth day, after reinforcements are mustered and positioned. The NAC ought to know that it takes considerable time to collect additional manpower and procure reinforcements. The proposed Bill unfairly aims at penalizing the police officers and district magistrates on the bogus and trumped-up charge of partiality. Frankly, no member of the NAC appears to have the faintest idea of the anatomy and dynamics of riots. Nor are they aware of the ferocious momentum of riots and their un-anticipatable trajectory. They have no idea, absolutely none, of the methodology of riot control, much less any clue about the real cause of the mischief. None of the members of the NAC appears to have any "hands-on" experience of controlling a communal riot! Before embarking upon the anti-constitutional path chosen by them to blame Hindus for every riot, they will do well to learn a thing or two from the London riots of August 2011 which rapidly spread to nearly two dozen cities and could be controlled only after substantial reinforcements were spread across the riot's trajectory and its furious pace had slowed down on the fifth day!

It is time that every Hindu and Sikh realizes that his ancient civilizational identity is under siege both internally and externally. The Hindu identity of India is under serious demographic threat, perhaps far more perilously than the Christian identity of Europe which continent is likely to become Muslim dominated in another 50 to 60 years. As pointed out by late Mari Bhat and Francis Zavier, two well known demographers, in a research study "the fertility of Muslims, which was about 10 per cent higher than that of Hindus before independence, is now 25 to 30 per cent higher than the Hindu rate". Furthermore, they disclosed that during the next 95 years (i.e., by 2101) the Muslim population will grow by 130 per cent, while that of Hindus will grow by only 50 per cent, even though Hindus will continue to remain the majority community. The following two major demographic trends are clearly visible:

i) First, any time between 2051 and 2071 the combined Muslim population of the sub-continent (i.e., India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, all counted together) will exceed the total Hindu population of the sub-continent; and

ii) Second, by 2101 India will have a large number of Muslim majority districts in the country, spread out across nearly ten States, including Assam, West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Kerala, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.

The definitive clue to the alarming demographic crisis likely to engulf India in near future is written across Statement 7 on page xlii of the Census 2001 Religion Data Report which provides the details of religious composition of 0-6 years old cohorts. An analysis of the 0-6 years old children (cohorts) reveals the following facts:

a) Although in 2001, Muslims constituted only 13.4 percent of India's population, their percentage in 0-6 years group was higher than Hindus by 21 percent thus giving them a headstart advantage of 7.6 percent in the matter of reproduction when these cohorts enter reproductive age, say any time after 2011 and beyond.

b) It is well known, even officially admitted, that the acceptance of family planning among Muslims was 25 percent lower than among Hindus. The result: from 2015 onwards for the next three decades the growth rate of Muslims will be much faster than what has been witnessed during the last three decades.

c) Out of 35 States and Union Territories (listed in Census 2001 Report), the percentage of 0-6 years Muslim cohorts is higher than that of Hindu cohorts in as many as 31 States and Union Territories (excepting Madhya Pradesh and Sikkim and 2 Union Territories of Andamans & Nicobar Islands and Daman & Diu where Hindu cohorts have a marginal advantage).

d) Due to fast declining proportion of Hindu cohorts, in the coming decades the percentage of youthful component among Hindus and Sikhs will go down substantially, while the youthful component of Muslims will remain much higher. That could spell trouble, as highlighted by Huntington, because aggressive youthful jihadis could overwhelm the sedate, introvert and ageing non-Muslims.

And moving forward let us look at another siege within - an equally challenging one. Due to sheer collapse of governance across the country, Pakistan's ISI has been able to establish a mammoth network of several thousand fifth-columnists to whom may be added several lakh sympathizers, including some Jaichandi politicians. They facilitate frequent jihadi attacks. And propelled and sustained by the double-barreled oxygen cylinder of foreign money and mega publicity, a powerful pro-terrorist lobby has been thriving which poses a sinister threat from within. This pro-terror cabal was seen in full cry against the nation's security apparatus when Isharat Jahan, a Lashkar-e-Tayeba mole, was killed in an encounter on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. The same lobby was into overdrive in an unseemly bid to seek clemency for Afzal Guru, the kingpin of Pakistan's jihadi onslaught on India's Parliament. Its malefic influence was manifestly visible during the visit of U.S. President, George Bush, to India in the first week of March 2006. No sane person could have imagined that the second publication of prophet Muhammad's cartoons in some European journals in February, 2006, and the subsequent visit of the U.S. President in March, 2006, there will be widespread eruption of violent demonstrations in the Muslim streets of India. Mindless violence was unleashed by mobsters against members of the Hindu community which had nothing to do with the provocative cartoons which first appeared in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, in September 2005. This onslaught, however, was entirely in keeping with the long standing tradition of pro-terrorist groups venting their ire on the majority community instead of protesting against the real culprits. The scale of violence witnessed during visit of George Bush in several cities and towns like Hyderabad, Lucknow, Meerut and Muzaffarnagar conclusively demonstrated massive radicalization of the Muslim community. In many cities prior preparations had been made to unleash violence on unsuspecting citizens. While hurling foul invectives at the visiting U S President, the demonstrators carrying aloft photographs of bin Laden unashamedly lionized him and eulogized the cult of suicide bombings. But the major targets of mobsters were Hindu shop-owners and passers-by.

As if responding to the praises showered on bin Laden and his tribe of suicide bombers, within the next four days the jihadis struck with a vengeance on Tuesday March 7, 2005, at the famous Sankatmochan temple in Varanasi. The three bomb blasts in the most sacred temple town of Hindus, easily comparable to what Mecca is to Muslims, resulted in death of 20 worshippers and injuries to nearly another 100 innocents.

The most shameful and ignominious jihadi attack on India was the Mumbai Massacre of 26th November, 2008, during which the corporate capital of India was kept hostage for 3 days which was relayed across the world by 24/7 T.V. channel. But the worst aspect of the tragic narrative was that the Indian Mujahideen had circulated an e-mail on July 8, 2008, in which they unequivocally threatened the Hindus thus :

"(O Disbelievers). We are guiltless of you and whatever worship beside Allah, we have rejected you and there has arisen between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever unless you believe in Allah and Him alone (Quran 60.4) [Source: The Rise of Jihad, e-mail of Indian Mujahideen cited on the Wikipedia].

After quoting chapter and verse from Quranic verses in Arabic, the e-mail commanded the Hindus to convert to Islam in English in the following words:

"O Hindus! O' disbelieving faithless Indians! Haven't you still realized that the falsehood of your 33 crore dirty mud idols and the blasphemy of your deaf, dumb, mute and naked idols of Ram, Krishna and Hanuman are not at all going to save your neck, Insha-Allah, from being slaughtered by our hands". [Source: Ibid].

What the Hindus of India are facing today is not terrorism. It is something much worse and sinister. It is jihad proper, raw and gory in its medieval and macabre form, launched by Pakistan. Time has come to speak out openly that a regular jihad is being waged to annihilate the centuries old civilizational ethos of India. On July 2005 a group of Lashkar goons tried to storm Ramjanambhoomi temple. Luckily they were killed by the alert CRPF contingent protecting the most sacred Hindu shrine. The unending series of attacks on Hindus and their temples, religious festivals and centers of excellence have all the trappings of a regular jihad ordained in their scriptures, as claimed by terrorists in their innumerable e-mails. Even though the soft Indian state and benumbed media invariably try to conceal the truth, the reality can no longer be denied. The repetitive targeting of the places of worship of Hindus and their festivals are part of a bigger design, perhaps a global design of jihadis to overrun India.

Over the years the terror groups, now deeply entrenched within India, have sent innumerable messages through regular bomb blasts and senseless killings that they will not allow the Hindus to live peacefully in their ancient homeland. Their avowed objective is to convert India into Dar-ul-Islam. Irrespective of the changing colors of the ruling political dispensation, the response of Indian government to the growing menace of jihad has been absolutely timid and weak-kneed at times even cravenly submissive. Even after two long decades from their forced exile from Kashmir the five lakh Hindu refugees have not been able to return to their ancient homeland.

The real tragedy, however, is that despite centuries old barbaric encounters with jihadi Islam, neither Indian government, nor the Hindu society has learnt any lessons. In sharp contrast to the timid response of the Indian state, the USA, the UK and many European governments have displayed better understanding of the threat by taking on the jihadi groups in a no-nonsense manner. The effete response of Indian government and their failure to decode and analyze the jihadi matrix is both intriguing and deplorable. In openly trying to kill the so-called infidels and obliterate the civilizational ethos of Hindus the jihadis draw sustenance from the Preamble of Al Qaeda which proclaims that "Islamic governments have never been and will never be established by peaceful solutions and cooperative councils. They are established, as they have always been, by pen and gun, by word and bullet, by tongue and teeth". That is the real, raw and destructive face of militant Islam, now aggressively trying to overwhelm, subvert and subdue India.

Despite shenanigans of naysayer secularists, a feeling has grown in the Hindu community that India is moving in the direction of a religion-based faultline conflict, or civil war. Till recently the low-key discourse about the likelihood of a civil war erupting across the country was confined to hush-hush conversations in the drawing rooms of Luteyn's New Delhi and sun-kissed lawns of South Delhi. For a change, the simmering discontent among Hindus caused by relentless targeting of their temples and religious identity spiraling into a civil war was brought out boldly 6 years ago by the editor of The Economic Times, by initiating a debate on this politically shunned subject. Despite divergent views expressed by the three experts selected by the editor, including Ved Marwah, a former Commissioner of Police, Delhi, who also held gubernatorial posts, Prof. Neerja Gopal Jayal of JNU and Dr. Ajai Sahni of the Institute of Conflict Management, no one ruled out the possibility of a civil war engulfing the country.

Ordinarily a serious subject like the growing threat of civil war should have first received attention of prominent strategic analysts and mainstream politics-oriented newspapers and journals because lately it has been regularly alluded to at informal gatherings not only in the national metropolis, but even in many other cities and village towns. But the prevalent culture of political correctness afflicting our comatose middle class and leading lights of English media dare not bring out of closet this burning issue.

The much feared civil strife, spiraling out of the growing communal divide, is likely to be powered by the twin factors of fast growing jihadi attacks and galloping increase in the proportion of Muslim population. Anyone having his ears close to the ground can hear the rumblings of the coming civil strife in many parts of the country. The outbreak of communal clashes between Bodos of Assam and Bangladeshi infiltrators, the subsequent riots in Ranchi, Lucknow and Mumbai which led to sudden flight of thousands of innocents from Bangalore, Pune, Hyderabad and Mumbai to the north-east, caused by the hostility of Muslim mobsters are like straw in the wind pointing to the fearsome civil war like conditions erupting in several sensitive cities and States.

In the sensitive and populous State of Uttar Pradesh there have been repetitive eruptions of communal riots, numbering 27 within a span of few months. (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/27-communal-riots-in-up-since-sp-formed-govt-cm-admits-in-house/1083234/) Mutual hostility and fear are visible across many rural areas of Muzaffarnagar, Meerut and Ghaziabad districts of the State. Similar conditions prevail not only in most border areas of West Bengal, but in Kolkata city itself which has witnessed frequent sales of Al Qaeda sponsored Jihadi cassettes and CDs. Unless central government comes down heavily on jihadi groups and effectively prevents growing assaults on Hindu temples and centers of excellence, the situation is bound to get out of hand, perhaps sooner than one can imagine.

Yet the Goebblesian falsehood is propagated day in and day out by secularists that Al Qaeda has no followers in India and that jihadis have no support among Indian Muslims? Pray, then who were those fifty thousand mobsters mobilized by the Raza Academy on August 10, 2012, who attacked the police, the media and tried to savage women police officers during an arson-packed riot organized to protest against the so-called atrocities on Rohingyas in Burma and Bangladeshi infiltrators in Assam.

Again who were those thirty thousand momins (Muslims) who clappingly applauded the fiery hate speech of the notorious MIM leader Akbaruddin Owaisi on December 24, 2012, at Nirmal in Adilabad (Andhra Pradesh) threatening to kill 100 crore Hindus within 15 minutes, if the police were temporarily divested of their duties for that short duration? According to intelligence sources in numerous terrorist attacks staged in various parts of the country during the last 20 years quite a few thousand fifth-columnists operating in India were involved. Many of them had been trained in Pakistan and Bangladesh. For instance, one of the key ISI mole planted by Jaish-e-Mohammed, Maqbool Hussain, was involved in the July 2005 attack on Ramjanambhoomi temple. He was a resident of Dhubri in Assam and had reportedly spent five years (1992-97) studying in Deoband and had travelled to Bangladesh and Pakistan on forged travel documents to receive training and instructions from his jihadi masters.

Unfortunately despite centuries old violent encounters with jihadi Islam neither the Indian government, nor the comatose Hindu leadership, have learnt any strategic lesson. Time has come for Hindu leaders and masses to remember Arnold Toynbee's famous quote: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder". Time has come to face the jihad courageously and stop sleep walking towards suicide cliff.

The Hindu leadership must realize that today Jihad is the only fully globalized enterprise across the world. And Messrs. Jihad Inc. have millions of shareholders and franchises in more than 60 countries, including India, who are working overtime to destroy all non-Muslim nations. It is time to act fast and boldly to break out of the ongoing jihadi siege of India. If we don't wake up now, it could be the 'last chance' for Hindu survival, before the threatened mega faultline strife near about 2050 or 2060 A.D. by which time the combined Muslim population of the sub-continent is likely to outstrip the Hindu numbers. That is the bottom line.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses are a regular feature on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

Contact Roberta Dzubow by email at Roberta@adgforum.

Hanan Ashrawi is an oft-cited model of Palestinian Arab moderation. Has she earned that credit?

She was thought to have expressed moderation for signing a petition against attacks on Israeli civilians, but the petition did not condemn the terrorism only its timing. At that time, terrorism was bad P.R. for the P.A..

Ashrawi is a long time Holocaust denier. Her article called the Holocaust "a deceitful myth which the Jews have exploited to get sympathy."

She deems Hamas legitimate and the murder of Arab "collaborators" with Israel as justified. In 2000, when a P.A. mob lynched and mutilated two, unarmed Israeli reservists, she justified the lynching.

She blames Israel for the dispersion of Palestinian Arabs [during their attempt at ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Israel].

She opposes recognizing Jewish sovereignty over Israel no matter what its size. She favors letting all Palestinian Arabs into Israel, which we know would get Israel destroyed.

Ashrawi's speeches accused Israel of "carrying out ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem"; "shooting at civilians"; "besieging the towns and cities and camps of the Palestinians"; "occupying other people's lands"; and "enslaving" Palestinians" (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1093).

Her NGO, MIfTAH, is subsidized by the UN and the Ford Foundation. On its website, was published this: "Does Obama in fact know the relationship, for example, between "Passover" and "Christian blood"?! Much of the chatter and gossip about historical Jewish blood rituals in Europe are real and not fake as they claim; the Jews used the blood of Christians in the Jewish Passover. (http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/03/28/plo-official-hanan-ashrawis-ngo-publishes-passover-blood-libel/ sent via Prof. Steven Plaut, 3/29/13)

What can one expect from an NGO subsidized by the UN and Ford Foundation (or by EU members)?

Abbas, also called moderate, is not much different. He rewards the families of terrorists and honors the killers.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses are a regular feature on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

The families of Navy SEALs killed in an August 2011 shoot-down of a helicopter in Afghanistan spoke at a press conference Thursday morning, citing a number of grievances, including an allegation that the Pentagon invited a Muslim cleric who "disparaged in Arabic the memory of these servicemen."

In addition to blasting the Obama administration for the mission and for an official investigation they deemed a cover-up, the families complained that "military brass, while prohibiting any mention of a Judeo-Christian God, invited a Muslim cleric to the funeral for the fallen Navy SEAL Team VI heroes who disparaged in Arabic the memory of these servicemen by damning them as infidels to Allah."

During the news conference, attorney Larry Klayman who is representing the grieving parents showed a video with audio of the prayer and a translation that scrolled over the screen.

Contact Marcia Leal at marcia.leal.eejh@gmail.com

The Derfner affair began as an esoteric incident noticed only by English-speaking Israelis. Where the ex-columnist for the Jerusalem Post Larry Derfner was fired by the Post after he had published criminal support for random murders of Jewish civilians by Arab terrorists.

It has grown as the radical Left rallies to endorse Derfner and support the inalienable right of Arabs to murder Jewish children. Far leftists are coming out in droves to cheer Derfner's justifications for terrorist mass murders of Jewish civilians. The international news agencies have reported the story, as has the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Leftist blogs are ranting against the "fascist censorship" by the Post and the suppression of Derfner's "freedom of speech."

Suddenly the far Left is outraged that the Jerusalem Post "suppressed diversity of opinion and pluralism" by sacking Derfner.

But of all the members of the Derfner lobby, the most notable of all is the writer of a blog entry in the Huffington blog. It is written by none other than Haaretz senior editor Bradley Burston. I really think you need to read his comments in full here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bradley-burston/jerusalem-post-larry-derfner_b_941827.html

Burston complaining that pluralism and diversity of opinion at the Jerusalem Post are being jeopardized by canning the squirrelly little cheerleader for terrorism? Burston, the senior editor at Haaretz having an opinion about diversity?

Well, the delightful part of this is watching Burston whine about the loss in pluralism and diversity at a newspaper. That is because he is employed by the worst totalitarian leftist anti-pluralistic newspaper in the Western world. The pluralism and diversity at Haaretz are similar to those in Pravda in the Brezhnev era.

Haaretz is a monolithic engine of propaganda in which virtually no non-leftist opinion is permitted. Its editorial pages are uniformly far-leftist, anti-Zionist and semi-communist. Once a week a token Right-winger is allowed to publish an Op-Ed. Usually Moshe Arens or Yisrael Harel, and the token slot is obviously there so that Haaretz editors like Burston can roll their eyes in hurt feelings whenever anyone says Haaretz has no pluralism or diversity.

The leftist anti-Israel propagandizing at Haaretz fills the paper and is not restricted to the editorial page. Aljazeera may be a less biased, less one-sided news source than Haaretz. News stories at Haaretz are daily distorted to give them far-leftist ideological themes and twists and messages. Letters to the editor at the paper are censored and non-leftist letters banned. I never read the sports pages there but I would not be surprised if half the sports news stories are devoted to the evils of settlers and Orthodox Jews and the need to convert Israel into a bi-national state.

While liberal newspapers like the NY Times and Washington Post have their biases, those biases do not dominate each and every page in the newspaper, and non-liberal opinion pieces are published there often.

Not at Haaretz. There is only one single correct point of view permitted in Haaretz, and it is ALWAYS the far-leftist anti-Israel Post-Zionist view.

So here we have the spectacle of an editor for a newspaper that suppresses all diversity of opinion and imposes its political bias even upon the most minor news story, and he then comes along and whines about the Jerusalem Post not living up to its proud tradition of permitting pluralism and diversity!!

Read Burston's little rant.

The first thing you will notice is that Burston is running his comments on the Huffington Post blog, an unbalanced non-pluralistic blog in which no conservative is permitted to publish. This is where he chooses to bitch about insufficient pluralism at the Jerusalem Post.

The second thing you will notice is how many lies Burston manages to squeeze into this one page. First he dismisses the idea that Derfner endorsed terrorism, claiming that "some readers" mistakenly thought so and that Derfner's words were misunderstood.

Liar.

All you need to do is read Derfner's actual column, which can be read here: http://zioncon.blogspot.com/2011/08/call-to-arms-please-help-put-larry.html. Derfner justified and celebrated the right to murder Jewish civilians as resistance against Israeli evil.

Burston then insists that Derfner's call for murdering Jews was a mistake and a misunderstanding.

Liar.

He calls Derfner an exceptional columnist. Liar. By exceptional maybe he means Derfner is as bad a liar as Burston is. After the a-Dura hoax was exposed, Derfner insisted that those who fabricated it were not so wrong because Israel so often intentionally targets other Palestinian children. Derfner also could not contain his adoration of the flotilla terrorists attacking Israeli unarmed troops.

Burston is a liar liar with a kafiya on fire.

Burston writes, the "management of the Jerusalem Post has caved in to what amounts to a political boycott." No it didn't. It simply maintained simple standards of decency. Unlike Haaretz.

Burston is suddenly all in favor of pluralism and diversity. But never, Stalin forbid, at the his own employer, the Palestinian daily newspaper published in Hebrew with its 6% market share.

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. Write him at splaut@gmail.com His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com.

Calls them sinners, infidels, not equal to Muslims

A memorial service was held in Afghanistan by U.S. Forces following the crash of a CH-47 helicopter that took the lives of 31 service members including 22 Navy SEALs, 5 Army helicopter crew members, 3 Air Force combat controllers and one Navy SEAL dog. Among the fallen was Arron Vaughn, a SEAL Team Six member. Aaron's parents are Florida residents Billy and Karen Vaughn. Aaron is survived by his wife Kimberly and daughter Reagan Vaughn.

A Muslim cleric was invited to pray at the memorial service for those killed in the Extortion 17 helicopter crash. The following is the certified translation of what the Muslim cleric chants:

Amen, I shelter in Allah from the devil who has been cast with stones. In the name of Allah the merciful forgiver. The companions of the "fire" (The sinners and infidels who are fodder for hell fire) are not equal with the companions of heaven.

The companions of heaven (Muslims) are the winners. Had we sent this Koran to a mountain you would have seen the mountain prostrated in fear of Allah (mocking the God of Moses).

Such examples are what we present to the people; to the people, so that they would think (repent and convert to Islam).

Blessings are to your God (Allah) the God of glory of what they describe.

And peace be upon the messengers (prophets) and thanks be to Allah the lord of both universes (mankind and Jinn).

Dr. Rich Swier is Publisher of www.DrRichSwier e-Magazine. He holds a Doctorate of Education from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, CA, a Master's Degree in Management Information Systems from the George Washington University, Washington, D.C., and a Bachelor's Degree in Fine Arts from Washington University, St. Louis, MO. Richard is a 23-year Army veteran who retired as a Lieutenant Colonel in 1990. He was awarded the Legion of Merit for his years of service.

While struggling to turn around an expanding (5%) budget deficit, Israel sustains its unique role as a pipeline of commercial, defense and homeland security technologies to the US and the Free World. Israeli technologies, shared with the US industry, have enhanced US employment, research & development and exports:

1. Facebook about to acquire Israel's Waze for $1BN. In January, Waze turned down Facebook's offer of $500MN (Israel Hayom, May 10, 2013). Warren Buffett completed acquisition of Israel's Iscar $2BN for the remaining 20% of Iscar. $4BN was paid for 80% (Globes, May 1). NYC's KKR Private Equity acquired (from NYC's Warburg-Pincus Ventures) 75% of Israel's Alliance Tires Group for $500MN (Globes, April 15). Israel's Prolor was merged into Miami, FL's Opko for $480MN (Globes, April 25). San Jose, CA's Avago Technologies acquired Israel's Cyoptics for $400MN (Globes, April 12). China's Fosun Pharma acquired Israel's Alma Lasers for $240MN (TechTime, April 29). J.P. Morgan sold 21% of Israel's CaesarStone (held by Israel's Tene' Investment Fund) for $170MN, on NASDAQ (Globes, April 15).

2. Japan's Sony extends its medical tech investments, investing $10MN in Israel's Rainbow Medical investment fund, joining prior giant investors: Minnesota's Medtronic, Illinois' Abbott and Italy's Sorin. Sony is seeking Israeli acquisitions. Israel is a research & development hub for GE Healthcare, Phillips, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific and Switzerland's Roche, which have acquired Israeli companies and have invested in scores of Israeli start-ups (Globes, May 9). GE inaugurated a software research & development center in Israel (May 1).

3. London's Amadeus Capital led a $17MN round of private placement by Israel's ClickTale (Globes, May 1). Israel's Micronet Enertec raised $8MN on NASDAQ (May 6). Waltham, MA's Battery Ventures participated in a $6MN first round of private placement by Israel's FTBpro (Globes, May 9).

4. The scope of Leviathan's offshore proven natural gas reserves is larger (19 Trillion Cubic Feet) than expected (17 TCF), according to Yedioth Achronot, May 2).

5. Israel's unemployment decrease to 6.5%, during the first quarter in 2013, derives from increased integration by Arabs and ultra-orthodox Jews into the job market. The average unemployment rate is 10.9% in the EU, 12.1% in the Euro Bloc and 25% among the youth of the Euro Bloc.

6. "In January, Intel executive Greg Slater noted that many of his company's major innovations over the past three decades started in Israel including the latest 'Ivy Bridge' and 'Sandy Bridge' microprocessors, which accounted for 40% of Intel revenues in 2011.Microsoft's founder, Bill Gates, said in 2006 that 'the innovation going on in Israel is critical to the future of the technology business. 'Scores of major U.S. manufacturers from General Electric to General Motors, Microsoft, IBM, Google, Apple and others have R&D centers and technology incubators in Israel. Israel [contributes] to the U.S. economy thousands of skilled professionals, hundreds of joint patent applications, and hundreds of coauthored scientific and technical papers. (Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2013).

Yoram Ettinger is a former ambassador and head of "Second Thought: a U.S.-Israel initiative."Contact Yoram Ettinger at yoramtex@netvision.net.il

Alan Dershowitz's response to his derisive reception at 'Post' conference in New York late underscores bankruptcy of "The Case for Two States".

I have now joined this distinguished company of people who get booed for advocating territorial compromise in the interest of peace. That's why I will no longer lend my support to 'far-right pep' rallies of the kind I spoke at last week. — Alan Dershowitz, Jerusalem Post, May 5

In many ways, Alan Dershowitz's somewhat puerile and petulant response to the derisive reception he was given by the audience at The Jerusalem Post Second Annual Conference in New York late last month vividly underscores just how bankrupt "The Case for Two States" has become.

Sulk, sulk; pout pout

True, Dershowitz has been a stout defender of Israel against its more vehement critics. For this he should be and often is commended.

But this does not give him a carte blanche to promote preposterous and perilous policy proposals or immunize himself from censure when he does.

His intemperate reaction to the irreverent giggles that the plan he presented for restarting talks with the Palestinians or at least, certain elements of the plan elicited from the audience were hardly becoming of a figure of his stature.

Although a case could perhaps be made for greater courtesy from the crowd, Dershowitz's disparaging dismissal of his critics as "foolish" and "part of the problem, not the solution"; and his rather juvenile jibe that he reserved the right "to tell you what I think of you, and it's not much," hardly added to the force of his arguments.

His conference exchange apparently stung him sufficiently to prompt him into penning a riposte last Sunday, in The Jerusalem Post, titled "Jews who boo efforts to make peace."

In a display of pouting pique he, in essence, declared that henceforth he would confine the presentation of his blueprint for peace to more compliant and consensual crowds, sulking: "I will no longer lend my support to 'far-right pep' rallies of the kind I spoke at last week."

When an ardent and articulate two-state advocate, such as Dershowitz, finds himself resorting to insults, rather than intellect, and vows to eschew endeavors to persuade dissenting audiences of the merits of his case, the arguments for it must be becoming terribly threadbare.

Refuting straw-man claims

Of course, the JPost audience was not booing the idea of making peace, merely the idea that it could be attained by disproven methods of political appeasement and territorial concessions.

They can invoke both past precedent and political prudence in support of their skepticism and apprehension regarding the consequences of persisting with such a policy.

But in attempting to rebut his "right-wing" opponents, Dershowitz invokes straw-man tactics, endeavoring to contort and caricaturize, rather than contend with, their positions.

He thus attempts to discount his critics as an inconsequential group of shrill and irrational rejectionists, writing: "There are a small number of extremely vocal right-wing Jews who believe that retaining the entire West Bank is more important than trying to make peace with the Palestinians."

Quite the opposite is true: There is a large and growing number of mainstream Jews, denied Dershowitz's easy access to the media, who believe that relinquishing even the entire West Bank would not result in sustainable peace with the Palestinians.

When it comes to irrational obsession, this seems far more the case with proponents of Palestinian statehood, than with its opponents.

It is not so much that the latter are not prepared to give up anything to attain peace, but that the former are prepared to give up everything, even if peace is not attained.

For as we saw last month at the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in Tel Aviv, where the bizarre notion of "constructive unilateralism" was aggressively touted, there are a small number of extremely vocal left-wing Jews, with easy access to the media, who believe in relinquishing virtually the entire West Bank even if this does not result in peace. Now there is irrational obsession for you.

Illogical and incomprehensible

I could go on analyzing and countering the bile-tipped barbs that Dershowitz hurls at his detractors, and demonstrate that they are both inappropriate and unconvincing. But rather than get embroiled in a petty tit-for-tat rhetorical duel, I should like to focus efforts on his overall proposal, and show why it is neither logically consistent nor operationally feasible.

At this point allow me to remark that occasionally, an irate talk-backer will complain that there is some repetition to be found in the arguments articulated in the almost 100 columns I have written in this section over the past two years. To be fair, there is some truth in the claim. But this is virtually unavoidable when the same delusional and dangerous ideas, like so many hydra-heads, keep appearing repeatedly, and need to be refuted repeatedly.

Accordingly, in the ensuing paragraphs I will, as I have done before, set out the glaring defects and deficiencies in Dershowitz's proposal for peace with the Palestinians which make it unworthy of serious consideration.

But then, I shall call on him to rebut my contentions or to concede their validity, retract the proposal and refrain from its continued promotion.

You know, just so I won't have to keep on repeatedly refuting it.

A brief reminder

Readers will recall that Dershowitz suggests a scheme for reengaging the Palestinian Authority (presumably sans Hamas) in negotiations, in effect by offering it less i.e. a conditional construction freeze than what has already proven ineffective i.e. an unconditional construction freeze.

Essentially, he counsels "putting the horse before the cart," claiming: "The first issue on the table should be the rough borders of a Palestinian state.

According to Dershowitz this can be done by "recognizing that the West Bank can be realistically divided into three effective areas:

• Those relatively certain to remain part of Israel, such as Ma'aleh Adumim, Gilo and other areas close to the center of Jerusalem.
• Those relatively certain to become part of a Palestinian state, such as Ramallah, Jericho, Jenin and the vast majority of the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank beyond Israel's security barrier.
• Those reasonably in dispute, including some of the large settlement blocs several kilometers from Jerusalem such as Ariel (which may well remain part of Israel, but subject to negotiated land swaps)."

As for the mechanism of the construction freeze, he stipulates: "There would be no Israeli building in those areas likely to become part of a Palestinian state. There would be no limit on Israeli building within areas likely to remain part of Israel. And the conditional freeze would continue in disputed areas until it was decided which will remain part of Israel and which will become part of the new Palestinian state."

Significantly, the said freeze would commence "as soon as the Palestinian Authority sits down at the bargaining table, and continue as long as the talks continue in good faith."

Points of principle

While it might be unreasonable to expect Dershowitz to provide answers to questions as to the elaborate details of his scheme, he should be able to provide them on the many issues of major principle it raises.

For example, with regard to his confident assertion that certain area across the Green Line are "relatively certain to remain part of Israel," would this, in Dershowitz's eyes, include the contentions E1 area whose development has been endorsed by virtually all Israeli prime ministers, including Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert? If not, why not? After all, it is immediately adjacent to Jerusalem and comprises the territorial link between the capital and Ma'aleh Adumim, which Dershowitz designates as "relatively certain to remain part of Israel."

Or does he recommend encapsulating Ma'aleh Adumim's 50,000 Jewish residents within an isolated enclave almost completely surrounded by Palestinian territory, accessible only by a narrow, virtually indefensible — or at least easily disrupted corridor? Would he envision the same fate for "other areas close to the center of Jerusalem" such as Pisgat Ze'ev and and Givat Ze'ev, with a combined population of about 70,000 Jewish residents? Clarification would be greatly appreciated, as well as any indication of who in the PA agrees these areas should remain part of Israel?

Points of principle (cont)

As for the areas that "are in reasonable dispute," would the freeze be placed on both sides of the dispute, or merely on the Jewish side? If not, why not? Clearly, if Jewish development is denied while Arab construction is allowed, the fate of these areas has been prejudged as being destined for inclusion in the putative Palestinian state, and their designation as "disputed" is deceptively misleading. So I would call on Dershowitz to enlighten us on this matter as well a freeze on both sides, or only for Israelis? Dershowitz seems to expose his prejudice on this issue when he endorses "encourage[ing] residents [in these areas] to move to areas that will remain part of Israel, especially if the freeze were accompanied by financial inducements to relocate."

A trenchant question immediately arises: Apparently Dershowitz sees no moral defects in providing financial inducements to fund the evacuation of Jews from disputed areas to allow their annexation to what, in all likelihood, will become a failed micromini- Islamist state and a forward base for radical terror groups. Accordingly, would he not agree that there is no moral defect in funding the evacuation of Arabs from these areas to allow their annexation to Israel, and to forestall the establishment of such a presumably undesirable entity? And if not, why not?

The matter of good faith

As we have seen, according to Dershowitz, the building freeze in the areas in "reasonable dispute" will continue "as long as the talks continue in good faith."

Again, a trenchant question of principle arises: What would be the criteria for determining and who would be the arbiter to determine whether the talks were "continuing in good faith"? Obama? The State Department? The EU? Egypt? The Arab League? I am sure that, on reflection, Dershowitz might admit that this could be a touch problematic, with Israel risking being locked into a perpetual construction freeze by a biased adjudicator of Palestinian "good faith."

Or would Israel be able to decide this unilaterally and revoke the freeze at will, whenever disagreement arose? If so, why would the Palestinians agree to an arrangement which gives Israel the power to judge their good faith? Prof. Dershowitz, could you elucidate?

Especially disturbing

Dershowitz talks glibly of widespread support among Israeli leaders for "a two-state solution that does not compromise Israel's security."

For a myriad of reasons that I and others have detailed elsewhere, this is unattainable "pie in the sky."

I would challenge him (and indeed any senior Israeli) to show how any two-state configuration, even remotely acceptable to the Palestinians as a permanent resolution of the conflict, could be implemented without gravely compromising Israel's security.

Unless, of course, wildly optimistic, and hence irresponsible, assumptions as to the future conduct of the Palestinians are made, envisioning them behaving in a manner diametrically opposed to the way they have behaved for decades.

In his writings, Dershowitz has shown himself to be alive to perils any such arrangement might create, threatening to bring the realities of Sderot to the Coastal Plain: "Someday Hamas might gain control over the Palestinian government, either by means of a coup, or an election, or some such combination of both. Israel cannot be asked to accept a fully militarized Hamas state on its vulnerable borders.'

The question is why risk a policy that may well precipitate an unacceptable situation which you will have no power to prevent?

The challenge

I challenge Dershowitz to respond to the queries I raise and to rebut my critiques of his proposal.

If he cannot, he should retract both the proposal and his pejorative portrayal of its critics. That would be no more than his moral and public duty.

Dr. Martin Sherman is in the Department of Political Science at Tel Aviv University. He has written extensively on water, including "The Politics of Water in the Middle East," London: Macmillan, 1999. He was a senior research fellow at the Interdisciplinary Institute in Herzliya and Academic Coordinator of the Herzliya Conference in 2001 and 2002. He is currently Academic Director of the Jerusalem Summit. This article appeared May 09, 2013 in the Jerusalem Post and is archived at
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Rebut-or-retract-A-public-challenge-to-Dershowitz-312710

Benghazi talking points, version 12.0

Game, set, and match if the rest of the media keeps running with this story, now that ABC News has broken it.

As ABC duly acknowledges, it's not entirely brand-new information, as it builds from the landmark Weekly Standard report on smoking-gun emails related to the politicized editing of the Benghazi talking points, posted online last week. But ABC News enhanced the story by getting its hands on even more documentation, and the result is a story that can no longer be kept under quarantine in the conservative media "ghetto," where the rest of the media dismisses accurate, well-documented stories by sneering that only the likes of Fox News care about them.

What ABC News brings us is a version history of the Benghazi talking points, in which they passed through 12 versions that began with reasonably accurate and complete information from the intelligence community... and ended with the malarkey peddled by the Administration:

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

"Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC's best assessments of what they thought had happened," Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. "The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' because 'consulate' was inaccurate."

Carney has said the revisions to the talking points were merely "stylistic." Yes, I believe that style is called "lying."

For the benefit of liberal forum trolls, and a few mainstream media reporters, who can't figure out why the Administration would orchestrate a cover-up when they supposedly had nothing to hide, the material uncovered by ABC News makes it crystal clear:

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

"The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks."

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned."

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

The genesis of the "spontaneous video protest" fraud is also revealed in these emails, as the CIA's first draft incorrectly suggested the Benghazi attack was apparently "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo," an idea whose origin remains unclear, because in reality there was never any reason for anyone knowledgeable about the attack to believe that. It should also be noted that the Cairo protests themselves only incorporated the infamous YouTube video as an after-the-fact justification; they were originally organized for the purpose of demanding the extradition of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, on the anniversary of 9/11. At any rate, the CIA analysts continued, "That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaeda participated in the attack," and they named the al-Qaeda affiliate called Ansar al-Sharia.

As Wednesday's testimony made clear, a five-minute phone call to Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks in Tripoli could have cleared up the "protest" nonsense but instead, at the urging of Victoria Nuland, the Administration went in the opposite direction, scrubbing everything except the nonsense. Everything about al-Qaeda and the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi leading up to the attack was purged from the talking points.

Obama's political operatives were right to be concerned. Can you imagine what the public response would have been, if U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice hit the Sunday talk shows to dispense honest, accurate, complete information? "Yes, it's clear there were mounting security issues in Benghazi, and a disturbing level of terrorist activity, culminating in an organized attack involving crew-served weapons and precision mortar fire that killed our Ambassador and his heroic, outnumbered defenders. But we made no effort to rescue him, took absolutely no precautions to send special-ops teams or air power to his rescue on the anniversary of 9/11, and in fact we reduced his security over his protests, because oh, darn, look at the time, I've got to go. Have a great day, everybody!"

Does anyone in the media aside from the hacks ready and willing to suppress any story that hurts Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton really still need the dots connected for them? More hearings are on the way, in which tough questions will be asked about how the State Department's internal review managed to miss all the blockbuster revelations of the past week. The liberal media can't pretend this is just a "Fox story" any more.

I'm old enough to remember when they wouldn't need any prodding to investigate an Administration that lied to the American people, and to the families of the fallen. Pat Smith, mother of slain diplomat Sean Smith, recently expressed her frustration at the difficulty of getting the truth out of Hillary Clinton and her operatives to Jake Tapper of CNN (he was formerly with ABC News.) Tapper responded, "I don't find it surprising that you haven't gotten answers, because I haven't either, and I've been reporting on this since September." Remarkably few of his colleagues have expressed any such frustration, or indeed much in the way of curiosity.

Update: Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) called for a congressional investigation, based in part on the stories of relentless talking-point revision: "The death of Ambassador Stevens and other Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 is upsetting, and I remain troubled by the aftermath and the fact that the terrorists involved have not been identified or captured. I have long supported a congressional investigation and want to get answers to important questions such as could the consulate have been better secured and did the administration mislead the public. The recent testimony of Mr. Hicks, as well as news reports that this administration may have stricken references to terrorism in CIA reports about the attack, further justify why I've demanded such an inquiry, including cosponsoring legislation that would require a thorough investigation."

Contact Daily Events at
HumanEventsDaily@email.humanevents.com

ACTION ALERT: Urge UC President and Chancellors to Take Immediate Action

AMCHA Initiative Co-founder and University of California Santa Cruz faculty member Tammi Rossman-Benjamin is currently the target of a vicious coordinated campaign of harassment and defamation by the Committee for Justice in Palestine (CJP) and other affiliated Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) groups on UC campuses.

For the past several years, Tammi has been alerting the the Jewish community and general public to alarming incidents of antisemitism on college campuses, including those perpetrated by the SJP and Muslim Students Association (MSA) groups and their members.

In retaliation, members of several SJP/CJP groups on UC campuses have recently launched a series of efforts to discredit and silence Tammi, including:

• a defamatory on-line petition accusing Rossman-Benjamin of racism and censorship and calling on UC President Mark Yudof to condemn her

• defamatory posters about Rossman-Benjamin widely posted on the UCSC campus

• posting over a dozen videos on YouTube that characterize her as "hateful" and "dangerous"

• instructing SJP students UC-wide to file hate/bias reports against her on their respective campuses

• passing resolutions condemning her for "inflammatory, hateful, and racist assumptions" in the UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis, and UC Irvine student senates

• working with groups sympathetic to terrorists (eg. the International Solidarity Movement) and associated on-line publications (the Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss) to more widely circulate these defamatory materials about her.

Tammi believes SJP and CJP's virulent response is just one example of the ongoing intimidation and bullying tactics used by these groups to silence anyone who speaks out against their antisemitic behavior, including the following:

• MSA and SJP members have been responsible for physically harassing and assaulting Jewish students, vandalizing Jewish communal property, disrupting pro-Israel speakers, and aggressively confronting Jewish students at events.

• MSA and SJP chapters consistently sponsor speakers, films, and exhibits that engage in discourse or use language considered antisemitic by the U.S. State Department.

• MSA and SJP chapters associate with individuals and organizations that are linked to terrorist activity and call for violence against Jews.

• As a result of the hostile environment created by the activities above, Jewish students have reported feeling physically unsafe, harassed, and intimidated, and some have even reported leaving the university, avoiding certain parts of campus, and hiding symbols of their Jewishness.

Tammi has written a letter to UC President Mark Yudof documenting the antisemitic behavior of SJP and MSA groups on UC campuses and calling on UC leaders to take immediate action by:

1. Investigating these groups to determine if they have violated university policies or state and federal laws, and if so, to take appropriate disciplinary measures that ensure the safety and well-being of all members of the campus community.

2. Publicly affirming the right of all members of the campus community to speak out against anti-Jewish bigotry without fear of harassment, demonization, and defamation.

Please support Tammi's efforts by writing a letter to UC President Yudof (President@ucop.edu) expressing your concern about the behavior of SJP/CJP and MSA students and urging him and all UC Chancellors to take the above two actions immediately.

For a list of UC leaders that you may wish to copy on your letter, see here.

Please copy or blind-copy the AMCHA Initiative on your letter (Administrator@AMCHAinitiative.org)

Contact Udi Schayat by email at udischayat@yahoo.com

In New York Harbor stands a mighty woman with a torch, beckoning the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and the wretched refuse from tempest tossed shores to her as she lifts her lamp beside the golden door.

And they were by all accounts just that a family fleeing a tyrannical government. A family seeking political asylum. The very people to whom that mighty woman holds out her welcoming torch.

This week, as America wakens from the nightmare visited upon Boston, as many painfully start the long road to recovery, we begin to comprehend the enormity of the violence that was visited upon us.

The Tsarnaev family a father, mother, two sons were granted political asylum in 2002. We opened our arms to them. Showered them with food, money, housing, education and all the freedoms of American citizens.

And look at how we were repaid.

Here's how Tamerlan's mother describes her son.

Zubeidat Tsarnaeva: "But, all around, he was really nice, and he never rejected anyone American just because they're Americans."

Really? He never rejected anyone American?

After opening our arms to you, we should be grateful that you and your terrorist son didn't reject us?

Does that sound like a mother already devastated by the death of one son? Or a woman on her own radical jihad, willing to sacrifice yet another son in honor of their god?

And get this one:

Zubeidat Tsarnaeva: "Why didn't you send him to Guantanamo or whatever? Why? Why? Why did they have to kill him?"

Why didn't they send him to Guantanamo? So now you knew he was a Muslim jihadist? That you raised a Muslim jihadist? If he's innocent, why would he even need to go to Guantanamo?

Take a look at this one:

Zubeidat Tsarnaeva: "Why did I even go there? Why? I thought America is going to, like, protect us, our kids; it's going to be safe. [...] America took my kids away from me!"

America took your sons from you?

They injured more than 200. Blinded, deafened, and blew legs and arms off of innocent civilians. Turning the city of Boston into a locked-down war zone of casualties, amputees, and a future of post-traumatic stress.

And America should protect you?

Your sons killed Americans.

We're the ones who needed protection.

And you ask why did I even go there? I'll tell you why. You came to suck the fat of our land.

To take our money.

To educate your terrorist sons.

To steal from us.

To go on public assistance.

To get housing and food stamps.

While you're driving your Mercedes Benz. All the while, your family's going back and forth to the very country from which you claimed political refuge.

Did you guys lie on that petition? By the way that's perjury.

And then, you're a thief and you're charged with theft. You're put on a terror watch list. Your son is charged with beating a girlfriend. Your other son is a pot head. Neither of them working or employed traveling back and forth.

Most Americans can't even afford a vacation. They're losing their homes. If they're lucky enough to have a job, they live check to check. The elderly choose between food and medicine. Servicemen and women are getting cuts in their benefits.

And when hardworking Americans want to know how you guys can afford this, the governor of Massachusetts refuses to reveal what kind of taxpayer assistance Tamerlan got on grounds of privacy.

Privacy? What privacy?

Governor, you take our money and give it to this guy, and you want to protect his privacy? You want to protect his rights?

He's dead. He's a terrorist. He has no rights. But it's okay to invade my privacy, and publish my name and where I live on an interactive map, because I am a lawful gun owner.

And now, mother of Islamic jihadis the Obama administration, at break-neck speed rushes in a federal judge. Stops the FBI in the middle of an interrogation to arraign your son and shower him with even more rights.

The right to remain silent. The right to an attorney. Unparalleled medical care. All the protections of the American Constitution.

Why?

Because the president and his buddy, Eric Holder, want the world to think better of us. They want the world to see the American justice system at its best.

Really? They hate us. They chant death to America. T hey burn us in effigy and we give them billions, and F-16's, and armored tanks.

As they laugh their way to the bank and the airfield.

And when they kill us, we don't even send in reinforcements for our own, fighting for eight hours in Benghazi.

And we want them to like us?

Honestly? I don't much care about what the world thinks of us or our criminal justice system.

They come here to kill us and we worry about what they think of us?

I don't want to show the rest of the world how our justice system works. I honestly don't give a damn.

They say you're planning on coming here. But hope springs eternal, and maybe the system will work and that watch list you're on will stop you.

But I imagine they'll let you in. And if they do, I can only pray that they'll activate that outstanding bench warrant against you for larceny.

And what's that? You can't afford an attorney? Too damn bad.

And I have an idea. You and your son should be stripped of your citizenship, tried in a military tribunal in Guantanamo.

Lady, you should not be allowed here.

We don't want you here. We should not be required to breathe the same air as you.

We should not be required to suffer the indignity of your presence.

Mother of Boston Bombing Suspects: 'America Took My Kids Away From Me'

Was Suspected Boston Bomber Tipped Off By Wife?

Contact Midenise at midenise@zahav.net.il

Saudi Arabia sponsors interfaith dialogues in the West. In the East, it persecutes those same religions. It officially bans them; it established Islam as the official religion. Its treatment of people is at the level of the 7th century. What to make of this hypocrisy?

In 2008, King Abdullah wanted dialogue with "our brothers" the Christians and Jews, so as to develop "respect among religions." Sounds nice. In 2012, he founded a Center for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue, in Vienna. Sounds nicer.

Saudi Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Sudais is the appointed head of the Grand Mosque of Mecca called the Center proof that "Islam is a religion of dialogue and understanding and not a religion of enmity, fanaticism, and violence." But that Sheikh also on record calls Jews "monkeys and pigs" and Christians "cross worshippers." Not so nice.

What does the requested dialogue take up? Not the declaration by the Saudi Grand Mufti, that Muhammad requires them "to destroy all the churches of the region."

Not the Saudi school instruction that "Christians are the enemies of the Believers" and that the "the Apes are the people of the Sabbath, the Jews; and the Swine are the infidels of the communion of Jesus, the Christians."

Not Maryan, a Saudi convert to Christianity who fled to Sweden and whom the Saudis want extradited for trial at home for the capital offense of apostasy.

Not the 35 Ethiopian Christians, who were arrested and abused for almost a year, after joint prayer in a private house in Saudi Arabia. Nor the 41 guests arrested in a house for "plotting to celebrate Christmas." Some plot!

No, the real purpose of the Center is to shift criticism from Islamic countries to Western ones for not being sufficiently amenable to Islam. Thus "Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the head of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, urged Western governments to enact laws countering 'Islamophobia,' because it 'leads to hate crimes and as such, it generates fear, feelings of stigmatization, marginalization, alienation and rejection.'" And what is "Islamophobia?" Apparently it is criticism of Islamic persecution of non-Muslims (Raymond Ibrahim, FrontPageMagazine.com 2/8/13 http://www.meforum.org/3448/saudi-hypocrisy).

Laws against "Islamophobia" and "hate-speech" curb our freedom of speech. They usually are enforced only against people who cite the historical record. If Westerners are kept from knowing about Islamic imperialism, they won't be able to resist Islamic subversion.

Actually, the West hardly persecutes Muslims. The problem is that the West condones or ignores much of actual Muslim persecution of non-Muslims in the West, in India, and in Muslim countries. Muslims often feel stigmatized or "humiliated" when unable to persecute other faiths. Their complaints are specious.

I think that the purpose of Muslim class for inter-faith dialogue, sometimes excluding Jews altogether, also is to gain respectability without giving up jihad. The purpose is not only to change the subject from jihad, but also to lower the non-Muslims' guard against jihad.

Non-Muslims invited to such dialogues should insist on raising questions of Islamic crimes against people of other faiths and questions about the Islamic drive for special privileges in Western countries. Jihad should not be one way, if we are to survive it. We can't survive by being "nice," i.e., supine, with barbarians with a 7th century mindset. It is not civilized to slaughter other people all over the world for having a different view of religion.

Remember, these people think differently, but their DNA does not mandate that and their aggressiveness. They need exposure to our values and the challenge to modernize theirs to the extent of being civilized.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses are a regular feature on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

K A H A N E, The magazine of the authentic Jewish Idea,
Shavuot, Sivan 5737 - May 1977

DIVREI TORAH

Shavuot

We are told that when the L-rd desired to give the Torah to the Jewish people, instead of choosing some lofty and majestic mountain, He selected Sinai, a small, humble little mount barely more than a hill. His purpose in this symbolic act was to show that man must turn his back on overbearing pride, must reject a false ego.

It is related in the name of the Gerer Rebbe: G-d's intentions are indeed laudable. Yet, if He intended to show that man must not be a mountain and must turn down false pride, why was the Torah not given in a valley?

The answer is clear, the answer is bold: It is not enough to reject overbearing pride. Too much humbleness is, itself wrong. Man should, man must possess some pride in his being otherwise he is not a man

I never cease to be amazed that we continue to be valleys. I never cease wondering at our choosing the way of the meek. One would imagine that after all the "help" we have failed to receive; we would have remembered the lesson of the mountain.

These are sad times when we must still just for the moment the voice of Jacob, and for the sake of Jewish honor, of Jewish protection, don the hand of Esau.

Vandals attack a Yeshiva let that Yeshiva attack the vandals. Should a gang bloody a Jew, let a Jewish group go looking for the gang. This is the way of pride not evil pride, but the pride of nation, of kinship the pride of the mountain.

There are those who will protest: This is not the Jewish way. And yet since when has it been a Mitzvah to be punished and beaten? Since when is it a Kiddush HaShem (Sanctification of G-d} to be spat upon and smeared with vegetables? It is not a Kiddush HaShem, it is quite the opposite. It is a disgrace to the pride of our people, our G-d. More important there is a rule in the hoodlum jungle: The more the victim backs away, the more the hoodlum moves forward.

The same holds true for all other areas of Jewish persecution, Jewish teachers are being harassed and forced from jobs; Jewish merchants are robbed, looted and driven from their business establishments.

Is the way out to bow to extremism and Nazi tactics? Can one buy his freedom and life from the psychotics and extremists? I think not!

Up from the valley and up to the Mount, Jewish rights are not cheap and Jewish defense is not wrong. This is the lesson of the Mount.

Israel and deep desire for the dismantlement were obvious to all who wished to see.

Barbara Ginsberg writes: "Anyone reading this Rav Kahane article and is not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles written by Rav Kahane and would like to be, please contact me at: barbaraandcdhaim@gmail.com.

To view previously e-mailed Rav Kahane articles go to: www.barbaraginsberg-barbara.blogspot.com

I hardly followed the Balkan wars and simply accepted the western condemnation of Serbia for its "genocide" against the Muslims in its province, Kosovo. That is until Felix Quigley, and his friends clued me in. This was in 2006. After a year and a half of being tutored I reversed my beliefs. The Serbs were getting the same treatment as the Israelis get. Both had to contend with a campaign of lies and demonization. Do a search for "Kosovo" on Israpundit. Ted Belman

Tomislav Nikolic, the president of Serbia, began an official state visit to Israel Monday, marking the first time that he has traveled to Jerusalem since his election triumph last year.

Normally, the only excitement generated by a visiting head of state is some rowdier honking of Israelis' car horns, as drivers find themselves trapped in a series of capricious and unforgiving traffic jams. But Nikolic's three-day stopover is far more than just another diplomatic social call. Serbia is an important friend and ally of the Jewish State and the Serbian leader's visit underlines just how close relations have become between the two countries. Israelis and world Jewry should welcome this turn of events and seek additional ways to broaden and deepen the relationship still further.

Indeed, the parallels between Israel and Serbia could not be more striking. Both are small countries in combustible regions which the international media love to criticize. Neither Serbia nor Israel gets a fair hearing at various international forums, and each is coming under relentless pressure to accede to the demands of their foes.

Much of the world has been pressing Serbia to forgo the breakaway province of Kosovo, even though it is the cradle of Serbian civilization.

And Israel of course is constantly being pressured to withdraw from Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem, the heart of our ancient homeland.

But it is not only in our present predicaments that one can find such compelling similarities.

Our history and that of the Serbs are also profoundly intertwined, both in triumph and in tragedy.

In the mid-19th century, one of the founding fathers of Zionism, Rabbi Yehuda Alkalay, served as a rabbi in the Serbian town of Zemun outside Belgrade. Historians say his views were influenced greatly by the Serbian nationalism of his day, and that his writings inspired Theodor Herzl's grandfather to embrace the Zionist cause.

In this sense, the two countries can each trace their modern-day yearnings for freedom and independence to the same period and source.

Nearly a century later in World War II, at the Jasenovac concentration camp run by Croatia's fascist Ustashe regime, Jews and Serbs found themselves side by side as both were targeted for extermination by the Nazis and their sympathizers.

It is precisely because our historical experiences bear such a likeness to one another that Jews and Serbs share such strong bonds of friendship and understanding.

On a visit to Belgrade last week, I had the opportunity to speak to numerous Serbs, from taxi drivers to government officials, all of whom expressed admiration for Israel and its accomplishments.

And unlike in many other European capitals, I did not feel in the least bit uncomfortable roaming the streets of Belgrade with a kippa on my head. Just days before my arrival, the Conference of European Rabbis had held a large gathering in the city which brought together rabbinical leaders from across the continent.

Sure, for some Jews, the very mention of the name "Serbia" still conjures up vicious stereotypes of war criminals and racists. But that is neither fair nor accurate. This is 2013. Serbia is no longer an autocracy in conflict with its neighbors. The country has transformed itself into a vibrant model of democracy, one that has gone to great pains to put the past behind it. In an unprecedented move, Serbia extradited two former presidents, various government ministers, three army chiefs of staff and several police and army generals to stand trial in The Hague on charges related to the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

And the Serbs have done so even though the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has proven to be decidedly one-sided in its handling of various cases that have come before it. Moreover, to lump all Serbs together and label them in a derogatory manner is intellectually dishonest and even slanderous. In fact, it is because Belgrade has made such great strides over the past decade that the European Union agreed last year to make Serbia an official candidate for EU membership.

Given these changes, it is time for those who still consider Serbia to be a villain to reconsider their position. This intrepid and spirited nation, standing at the crossroads between East and West, has repeatedly seen its territory occupied, its people expelled and its good name vilified.

As Jews, we know all too well what such suffering means, which is why we should view Serbia as a natural partner and move to boost our trade, investment and tourism with the Balkan nation, whose importance in the region will only continue to grow.

So "Dobrodosli u Izrael," (Welcome to Israel), our friend President Nikolic.

And may your visit signal the further strengthening of relations between Serbs and Jews.

"Chazak Chazak Vinitchazeik" (At the end of the reading of each of the Five Books of Moses) "Be strong, be strong and we should strengthen ourselves."

Israel Commentary is a unaffiliated political news service that attempts to post information not readily available in most news outlets. Contact Israel Commentary at http://www.israel-commentary.org/

I participated in the Dialogue for Peace Project for young Israelis and Palestinians who are politically involved in various frameworks. The project's objective was to identify tomorrow's leaders and bring them closer today, with the aim of bringing peace at some future time.

The project involved meetings every few weeks and a concluding seminar in Turkey.

On the third day of the seminar after we had become acquainted, had removed barriers, and split helpings of rachat Lukum [a halva-like almond Arab delicacy] as though there was never a partition wall between us, we began to touch upon many subjects which were painful for both sides. The Palestinians spoke of roadblocks and the IDF soldiers in the territories, while the Israeli side spoke of constant fear, murderous terrorist attacks, and rockets from Gaza.

The Israeli side, which included representatives from right and left, tried to understand the Palestinians' vision of the end of the strife "Let's talk business." The Israelis delved to understand how we can end the age-old, painful conflict. What red lines are they willing to be flexible on? What resolution will satisfy their aspirations? Where do they envision the future borders of the Palestinian State which they so crave?

We were shocked to discover that not a single one of them spoke of a Palestinian State, or to be more precise, of a two-state solution.

They spoke of one state their state. They spoke of ruling Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Akko, Haifa, and the pain of the Nakba [lit. the tragedy the establishment of the State of Israel]. There was no future for them. Only the past. "There is no legitimacy for Jews to live next to us" this was their main message. "First, let them pay for what they perpetrated."

In the course of a dialogue which escalated to shouts, the Palestinians asked us not to refer to suicide bombers as "terrorists" because they don't consider them so. "So how do you call someone who dons a vest and blows himself up in a Tel Aviv shopping mall with the stated purpose of killing innocent civilians," I asked one of the participants.

"I have a 4-year-old at home," answered Samach from Abu Dis (near Jerusalem). "If G-d forbid something should happen to him, I will go and burn an entire Israeli city, if I can." All the other Palestinian participants nodded their heads in agreement to his harsh words.

"Three weeks ago, we gave birth to a son," answered Amichai, a religious, Jewish student from Jerusalem. "If G-d forbid something should happen to him, I would find no comfort whatsoever in deaths of more people."

Israelis from the full gamut of political parties participated in the seminar: Likud, Labor, Kadima, Meretz, and Hadash (combined Jewish/Arab socialist party). All of them reached the understanding that the beautiful scenarios of Israeli-Palestinian peace that they had formulated for themselves simply don't correspond with reality. It's just that most Israelis don't have the opportunity to sit and really converse with Palestinians, to hear what they really think.

Our feed of information comes from Abu Mazen's declarations to the international press, which he consistently contradicts when he is interviewed by Al Jazeera, where he paints a completely different picture.

I arrived at the seminar with high hopes, and I return home with difficult feelings and despair. Something about the narrative of the two sides is different from the core. How can we return to the negotiating table when the Israeli side speaks of two states and the Palestinian side speaks of liberating Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea? How can peace ever take root in a platform which grants legitimacy to terrorism?

The author is a rising star in the Israeli media who openly expresses her political aspirations to reach the Knesset. She worked as Editor-in-Chief for the Yedioth Youth Magazines, reported for the Israel Broadcasting Authority and the Hot CableTV News channel, and is CEO and Founder of a web-based girls magazine"Pinkish Everything that Girls Love."

Contact Yaacov Levi at ylevi1993@gmail.com

Rabbi of Kotel calls to end recent conflict through government regulation, prayer.

Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovich, the Rabbi of the Kotel (Western Wall), called Sunday to put an end to recent conflicts at the Kotel. The holy site has been the scene of disputes as the Women of the Wall group seeks to conduct a form of prayer services which are not traditionally held at the site, prompting angry protests from some other worshipers.

"In light of the upsetting sight of Jews, brothers, fighting each other at the holiest place, and in the name of the loftiest values, I call for the Religious Services minister to do everything he can to quench the fire of conflict that has seized the Western Wall," he said.

He called on Minister of Religious Services Naftali Bennett to immediately clarify the regulations regarding the "local custom" that must be upheld at the Kotel.

Rabbi Rabinovich also called for Jews who are planning to pray at the Kotel during the Shavuot holiday this week to pray for peace and unity among the Jewish people in general, and at the Kotel in particular.

"The holiday of the giving of the Torah recalls the unity that existed at that time among the people of Israel, when everyone said together, 'We will do and we will hear,'" he said. "That must be a sign for all of us; prayers at the Western Wall must be said with unity, modesty and humility."

In a ceremony celebrating its 150th anniversary, the International Red Cross together with the Palestinian Red Crescent planted 150 trees bearing the names of "veteran prisoners." The Palestinian Authority uses the term "veteran prisoners" to refer to those who have been in jail the longest, and in most cases are serving life sentences for murder or multiple murders. Giorgio Ferrario, representative of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, participated in this ceremony honoring terrorists, which was named "My Honor is My Freedom."

Palestinian Media Watch recently reported that Issa Abd Rabbo, who shot and murdered two university students hiking near Jerusalem, was referred to as a "veteran prisoner." Abd Rabbo was recently honored by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. (See below names of more murderers serving life sentences referred to by the PA as "veteran prisoners.")

The Palestinian Red Crescent's website writes that its "programs, projects and events" are funded by the International Red Cross:

"The International Movement of the Red Cross Red Crescent has provided continuous support to programs, projects and events organized by the PRCS (Palestinian Red Crescent). Without the financial and technical support by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and the International Federation of the Red Cross Red Crescent Societies and many sister national Societies, it would be difficult for PRCS to provide its services."

It is significant that the International Red Cross funds not only the general budget of the Palestinian Red Crescent but also "events." The article did not state if the International Red Cross directly funded or merely participated in this terror glorification event.

PMW has documented that the PA policy is to present terrorist murderers as role models.

The following is the article in the official PA daily reporting on the International Red Cross' participation in the tree planting ceremony honoring terrorists:

Headline: "150 trees named for prisoners are planted in Jenin" "The International Red Cross and the Palestinian Red Crescent, in cooperation with the Zububa Rural Council west of Jenin, yesterday planted 150 fruit trees that carry the names of the veteran prisoners jailed in the occupation prisons. The Red Cross and the Red Crescent conducted a ceremony called 'My Honor is My Freedom' in the village of Zububa to mark the 150th anniversary of their founding. Fruit trees were planted at the entrance to the village, where the racist annexation and expansion wall that has swallowed up thousands of acres [of land] was built."[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 9, 2013

PMW notes that the article in the PA daily included the following incorrect statement:

"Participating in the ceremony was the Representative of the European Union of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Giorgio Ferrario."

In fact, Giorgio Ferrario who participated in the event is not an EU representative but the "Representative of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies" in the PA.

The following terrorists serving one or more life sentences have been referred to as "veteran prisoners" by the official PA media. Some have since been released:

Karim and Maher Younes
Issa Abd Rabbo
Osama Al-Silawi
Muhammad Turkeman
Nasser Abu Surour and Mahmoud Abu Surour
Zaid Younes
Ibrahim Al-Taqtuq
Ikram Mansour
Ahmed Ka'abna
Nael and Fakhri Barghouti
Samir Kuntar
Jamal Hweil
Jamal Tirawi Jum'a Adam

Itamar Marcus, Director of Palestinian Media Watch(http://www.pmw.org.il), is an authority on Palestinian Arabg ideology and policy. He was Israeli representative to the Tri-Lateral Anti Incitement Committee established under the Wye accords, and has written reports on Palestinian Authority, Syrian and Jordanian schoolbooks. Nan Jacques Zilberdik is an analyst at PMW, focusing on the opinions and messages of the Palestinian Arab leadership as transmitted to the Palestinian Arab public, with an emphasis on the impact on peace, messages and values communicated to children, and glorification of terrorists. This article is archived at
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=8965

The U.S. has naïve notions that defeat its foreign policy. One is to expect officials to manage foreign problems about which they may know little.

1. Another naïve notion is that training and equipping foreign troops imbues them with American values and makes them allies. Nonsense.

2. In 1982, U.S. troops invaded Lebanon, hoping to train a national army. Most in that army deserted to their communal militias, which gained U.S. arms and training for the very opposite of U.S. desired nation building. The U.S. nevertheless is renewing this policy in Lebanon. [So another specious notion is to repeat mistakes in the hope that things will work out.]

3. The U.S. trained the Afghan Local Police. In 2012, up through August, those police attacked NATO 34 times, killing 45. We had to stop the training.

4. The U.S. trained the Malian national army against al-Qaeda. Three elite unites joined the Tuareg rebels. Most of their commanders were Tuaregs. Others overthrew the elected President.

The Dayton Mission has trained 3,000 P.A. security personnel. Daniel Pipes expects those P.A. forces to fight against Israel (Daniel Pipes, 2/10/13,
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2013/02/innocents-abroad-build-foreign-armies). P.A. forces always have.

Isn't it the height of national arrogance to expect a year of training to replace a whole upbringing in an alien culture? How are they to learn much of Western ways, by osmosis? If we had a program to re-acculturate them, they would resent it. Some of our clients are Muslims who hate non-Muslims.

American foreign policy in general expects gratitude and assumes that subsidy serves U.S. interests. But foreign recipients often pursue their own conflicts, using the subsidy. They may turn on the U.S., as did the Afghan jihadists whom we armed against the Soviets, as did the Pakistanis.

Our enemies study our culture, and learn how to cajole us. The State Dept. should be studying the foreign cultures it wants to work with.

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 richardshulman5@aol.com.

Senior PA official says if PA had a nuclear weapon, 'we'd have used it this very morning.'

If the Palestinian Authority had advanced weapons, it would destroy Israel rather than negotiating, senior PA official Jibril Rajoub said recently, speaking to Lebanon's Al-Mayadeen TV. The interview was translated and publicized by the Palestinian Media Watch organization.

The TV host asked Rajoub if the PA intends to return to "the negotiations game." Rajoub said negotiations would be considered only if the PA's preconditions are met, and added, "Listen. We as yet don't have a nuke, but I swear that if we had a nuke, we'd have used it this very morning."

Rajoub is the Deputy Secretary of the Fatah Central Committee and chairman of the PA Olympic Committee.

A second senior PA official, Sultan Abu al-Einein, was on PA TV recently expressing his support for the recent terrorist murder of Israeli man Evyatar Borovsky, Palestinian Media Watch reported.

Al-Einein, who until recently served as one of Abbas' senior advisors, praised the terrorist who murdered Borovsky. "We salute the heroic fighter, the self-sacrificing Salam al-Zaghal," he said.

"He insisted on defending his honor, so he went against the settler and killed him. Blessings to the breast that nursed Salam Al-Zaghal," al-Einein added to applause from the audience.

Shortly after the murder, Palestinian Media Watch revealed that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah faction had already praised the attack.

Yoram Fisher lives on Kibbutz Kfar Blum. Contact him by email at yoramski@yahoo.com.

To the Honorable Leaders of the Arab States,

We in Israel received with great pleasure your agreement to normalize relations with Israel on condition that we agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state and exchanges of territories between that state and Israel. The Palestinian state that you propose to establish in Judea and Samaria would be the second Palestinian state, since the first Palestinian state was established six years ago in the Gaza Strip, and you clearly recognize it as such in practice. How else can the state visits of the Emir of Qatar and the secretary of the Arab League in Gaza be understood? Now you propose the establishment of a second Palestinian state? Perhaps a third!! Because Jordan is also a state with a Palestinian majority. And all of these states were established as you know on land that the League of Nations had designated for a Jewish state at the San Remo Conference, in April of 1920. So why should we agree to exchange territories with any state or states that have been established or will be established on our land?

And if indeed a second Palestinian state will arise in Judea and Samaria (that which you call "the West Bank") can you promise us that this state will not at some time in the future become another Hamas state? Do you not recall that Hamas won a clear majority of the seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council in January 2006? Did you not see how Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip with bombs, fire and kalashnikovs in June of 2007? Will you send a military force to get rid of Hamas after this terror organization also takes over by means of elections or revolution the new Palestinian state as well? Or perhaps you will leave us bleeding as a result of the problem that you have created?

We in Israel are very touched by the fact that you, as an Arab collective, not as individual states that have made a peace agreement with us, finally agree to accept us as an existing state in the Middle East. Indeed, it has taken you 65 years to understand that we are here, on the land of our fathers, that we have come back to stay in our land forever and ever until eternity. But why do you call to displant Jerusalem, the historical capital of the Jewish people, from the Jewish state? Was Jerusalem ever a capital of something connected to the Arab world or Islam? Throughout all of history, did an Emir, Sultan Caliph or Arab or Islamic King rule in it even for one day? Do you not remember that since the Islamic conquest in 637, the capital of "Jund Filastin" (the region of Palestine) was called Ramle? Then why has Jerusalem suddenly emerged as a candidate for capital of the second Palestinian state? Just because it is our capital?

Just to remind you: Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria were under Jordanian occupation for 7000 days, from May of 1948 until June of 1967. You had 7000 golden opportunities to establish a Palestinian state on this territory with Jerusalem as its capital. Why didn't you do it? Why did you think of it only after the Jewish people liberated the territory from the Jordanian occupation whose legality even you, the Arab League, never recognized? What did you know all those years about "the rights of the Palestinian people" that you don't know today? And why is Israeli "occupation" worse than Jordanian occupation?

Just imagine that we had made a peace agreement with Asad's Syria. Would the Saudi Arabian jihadists, followers of al-Qaida who want to eliminate Asad, honor the peace agreement that he signed with the Zionists? And what about the Palestinians in Jordan if they will also rise up and overthrow the royal house that the British imported from Saudi Arabia, are you sure that they would honor the agreement that that royal house signed with us over the Palestinians' objections? Are you willing to assure us that the Muslim Brotherhood, which has taken over Egypt, will always honor the peace agreement with Israel after all the years that they said that they would cancel it when they could? Just to remind you, Israel has had agreements of mutual recognition on different levels with Qatar, the United Emirates and Tunisia. Why did they cancel these agreements and close the Israeli diplomatic missions? Is this what your signature is worth?

And in general, why should we, the citizens of Israel, believe you? Is your promise worth anything? Does the Arab League indeed function as a relevant and effective body? In the covenant of the Arab League, which all of the Arab states have signed, there are articles that state principles of behavior among yourselves, but you behave in the totally opposite way!! Article 5 prohibits your states from using force against each other. Were there not wars between Egypt and Libya? Between Egypt and Sudan? Between Saudi Arabia and Yemen? Between Iraq and Kuwait? Between Syria and Iraq? And while we're on the subject of Syria and Iraq, Article 6 of the League's covenant states that if a foreign state attacks an Arab state, the League must take measures against this attacker. What did you do when your brother, Saddam Hussein, was attacked in 2003 by foreign states? Not only did you not help him but you joined the attackers!!! So can anyone trust you?

And when Syria occupied Lebanon what did you do? And in August 1976, when Syria slaughtered Palestinians in the Tel al-Za'atar refugee camp in Lebanon, what did you do? and when Kuwait eliminated many thousands of Palestinians after it was liberated from Iraqi occupation, what did you do to your Palestinian brothers? And what did you do in order to solve not perpetuate the problem of your brothers, the "Palestinian refugees" since 1948? Why have you not allowed those "refugees", who originally came to Israel from your countries before 1948, to return to their homes in your countries after they fled the wars that you started? And when Qadhaffi slaughtered 50,000 of his citizens, what did you do as an Arab collective besides calling on Europe to do your work for you, to rescue Arabs from the knife of the Arab butcher!!! When 'Ali abdAlla Salah, the former dictator of Yemen, slaughtered his citizens what did you do? And during the past two years, while your brother Bashar Asad, has been slaughtering 80,000 of his citizens until today, where have you been? If this is the way you behave, allowing so very many thousands of Arabs, your brothers, to suffer and be killed in vain, only because they want to live the normative lifestyle of a human being, then why should we, citizens of Israel, think that you would care at all about us? Would you come to our aid if one of your countries decided to attack us?

The way you relate to one another is so terrible that we are not sure that we want anything to do with you. Can an Arab travel to another Arab state without a visa? How does any Arab state treat foreign workers who come from other Arab states? And why do the Egyptians kill Sudanese living in Egypt when they demonstrate against the humiliating way they are treated by their Egyptian brothers? And what did the Iraqis do to the Palestinians who were in Iraq until 2003? Did they not persecute them and chase them with knives into refugee camps of Rawishad on the Iraqi-Jordanian border and al-Kaaam on the border of Iraq and Syria? And why have Arab citizens of Lebanon been slaughtering Arab citizens of Syria for the past year? Only because the killers are Shi'ites and the victims are Sunnis? And why does Saudi Arabia send criminals to Syria in order to slaughter Asad's soldiers, who only wanted to slaughter Syrian citizens? And why does the Sudanese government slaughter its citizens in Darfur? Is this any way for a nation that proposes peace to the citizens of Israel to behave? And what has the Arab League ever done in order to bring a little calm to the Arab nation? Why do people say that the Arab League is like a frozen body in a morgue, that no one has the courage to declare as dead?

And even if we assume that there will be peace between us and all of the Arab states, what will that give us? Will you be able to buy our products? Do you think that we will allow tourists from your countries to visit us freely? We tried this in the nineties, when hordes of tourists came from Jordan, and more than a hundred thousand of them "disappeared" into Israel. We have learned the lesson, and many years will pass until we'll want to see your tourists in Israel again.

But the most important thing is the fact that despite the terrible holocaust, in which the Palestinian Mufti your brother, Hajj Amin al-Husseini took an active part, and despite the wars and the terror between the wars that you have imposed upon us, we have established a democratic and developed country, and we have proven to the whole world that we need you, our dear neighbors, about as much as we need a headache. We have managed very well without you, and according to all the signs, we will continue to manage not at all poorly without you. You have nothing to offer us besides the poverty, unemployment, corruption, backwardness, violence and neglect that characterizes your societies and countries. Believe us, nothing, absolutely nothing, makes us want to connect ourselves with you. Do you want peace with us? We're willing but what do you offer us in return? What will you give to us in exchange for our agreement to get into the same picture frame with you and to sit around the same table with you?

Peace with you will come only after we see that you really want peace. As long as you encourage and arm terror organizations who act against us, incite against us in your media, erase the state of Israel from the geography books in your schools and act against us in international arenas, why should we believe that you indeed want peace? A peace agreement should be a recognition of actual peace in the field, for one important reason: when we see how you behave with yourselves, no one in Israel believes even one word of yours, because you have no idea what peace is. If you want peace with us, show us please that you have some concept of the term "peace". Begin with making peace within your countries, continue with peace between your countries and then perhaps we will believe that you know what peace is.

And if anyone thinks that our requirement is absurd, because there will never be peace in the Arab world, this is the proof that we are right. There is a saying in Arabic "Faqd a-Shay la y'atiha" "He who has nothing, cannot give to someone else." How can a nation that has no notion of peace, give peace to others?

In conclusion, dear neighbors, we citizens of Israel want very much to live in Peace, in a region of peace where you and we enjoy it together. But we do not think that there is any point in signing an agreement with someone who today is here and tomorrow is in a grave, and his successors won't honor his signature. When the Middle East becomes a region of peace, give us a call, perhaps we will join the peace that you will begin in the Middle East. until then please leave us alone.

Signed: Mordechai Kedar, and many, many more citizens of Israel.

Contact Yuval Zaliouk at ynz@netvision.net.il

Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu's Address to Project HEART

Project HEART is in contact with leaders of European countries in an effort to address the complex issues related to restitution of Jewish private property seized by Nazi forces and Axis powers during the Holocaust era. A Commitment to the Jewish People.

Project HEART, along with representatives from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Israeli Ministry of Senior Citizens, are amongst those participating in this phase of the process.

The agenda includes the need to preserve Holocaust-related corporate documents currently stored throughout Europe. These documents must be preserved in order to serve as important resources in the struggle to document Holocaust history and claims.

Due to the sensitive nature of these ongoing efforts, specific details can only be released once significant progress is made, and decisions by specific countries or companies have been reached.

In addition to governments of European countries, Project HEART is cooperating with many other parties in order to advance its goals: the European Parliament, the Government of the United States, the Comptroller of the State of New York, banks, numerous private companies, and many others. This will serve to highlight and explain the issues in order to aid countries and companies to find just solutions.

Contact Anya Verkhovskaya at Project HEART at av@heartwebsite.org

Haaretz deserves due recognition for its major part in motivating Stephen Hawking's negative attitude to Israel. After all if I lived abroad and my knowledge of Israel were based on the views expressed byHaaretz as so eagerly quoted by international media, I would react in the same way as Hawking did.

We shouldn't be surprised by his reaction to the distorted picture of Israel conveyed to the outside world by Haaretz as in the sample of cartoons reproduced below?

and in headlines like the following

Israel's dark deeds It is still possible to make people disappear even in the Israel of 2013. By Gideon Levy

An inconveivable crime By Efrat Yardai| Dec.11, 2012 with a subheading alleging falsely that Israel sterilizes Ethiopian women

IDF in Gaza: Killing civilians, vandalism, and lax rules of engagement By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent 19/03/2009

Kfar Sava hospital bans teaching staff from speaking in Arabic Arab teachers and students working in Kfar Sava's Meir Medical Center have been forbidden to speak to each other in Arabic, despite the fact that Arabic is one of Israel's official languages. May.18, 2012 [completely untrue]

Stop killing innocent citizens. The consecutive incidents in which Palestinians were killed in recent days give the feeling that Palestinian blood may be shed with impunity. Haaretz Editorial Jan.17, 2013

Israeli cruelty reached a point of no return in the 2008-09 Gaza war by Gideon Levy

Israeli doctors who betray their training From the prison guards and from Shin Bet personnel nobody expects any measure of compassion or humanity. By Gideon Levy 04.04.13

The above typical headlines demonize not only our soldiers, but all Israelis without any effort to substantiate the accuracy of the allegations or to deal with them in their relevant context. And even if they did contain an element of truth they are completely unbalanced in reflecting on the entire state, alleged sins committed by individuals.

One may reasonably ask Haaretz how it justifies its double standard in exaggerating every Israeli wart while turning a blind eye to the existential threats Israel continues to face and by ignoring for example, the public calls by Hamas for Israel's destruction and its charter which essentially threatens all non_Muslims.

Certainly like most countries, there is much to criticize in Israel. But one should not expect unbalanced criticism and distortion of facts in a newspaper that respects journalistic integrity and abides by Rules of Professional Ethics of Journalism of The Israel Press council which expressly requires inter alia that

The publication of news items shall be fair and not misleading.

The headline shall not be misleading. A newspaper or journalist shall not knowingly or negligently publish something which is not true, not accurate, misleading or distorted.

Prior to the publication of any item, the newspaper and the journalist shall check the accuracy thereof with the most reliable source and with appropriate caution in the circumstances of the case. Moreover such EXAMINATION OF THE ACCURACY OF AN ITEM SHALL NOT BE WAIVED BECAUSE OF THE URGENCY OF THE PUBLICATION.

And the fact that an item has been published in the past shall not discharge the person seeking to rely on it in a publication from checking the reliability of the item.

One should be entitled to expect a newspaper of Haaretz's standing to engage in in-depth discussion of the realistic factors involved in arriving at an equitable solution to the seemingly intractable Arab-Israel conflict; A solution that will result in Israel and Palestine side by side within secure borders as envisaged in SC resolution 242. Sadly, the prevalent unbalanced destructive criticism contributes nothing constructive towards reaching a solution.

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 His web site is at www.maurice-ostroff.org

Robert Elman, President of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), finds encouragement in Sec. of State Kerry's efforts to revive negotiations between the P.A. and Israel. Mr. Elman calls them "peace negotiations," which the U.S. must never give up trying.

Mr. Elman disagrees with a New York Times editorial accusing Israel of being the main obstacle to peace. After all, PM Netanyahu expresses willingness to negotiate, whereas P.A. head Abbas walked away from potential negotiations. Why doesn't the NY Times call Abbas irresponsible?

AJC supports Pres. Obama's request for Arab states, such as Qatar, to negotiate with Israel, too? (Letter, NY Times, 5/10/13). He does not indicate whether Qatar is supposed to negotiate for the P.A. or for Arab states to end their state of war with Israel.

The New York Times accusation against Israel is still another that the Times is anti-Zionist and unreliable. How many clues do left-wing Jews need to realize that?

Qatar is one of the mainstays of international jihad. It arms Islamists in Libya and Syria. It sponsors al-Jazeera TV. Jihadists are relentless and merciless. To expect it to make peace with the religion that Islamic holy books and holy men insist be conquered if not destroyed, is irrational. Is President Obama, raised Islamic, irrational about that or does he know better but favors the Islamists, as do most of his policies?

What excuse has Mr. Elman for expecting peacemaking by that pillar of jihad, Qatar?

Same goes for the P.A., on the Israeli front of jihad. Anticipating peace from negotiations with the P.A., whose stubbornness in demanding conditions that would get Israel destroyed, makes no sense, at least not for the AJC. The U.S. should give up trying for negotiations. It should let Israel develop the Territories as a terrorist free area.

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 richardshulman5@aol.com.

A resident makes his way through rubble of damaged buildings along a street in Deir al-Zor May 9, 2013

A militant Palestinian group in Damascus said it is forming combat units to try to recapture Israeli-occupied territory, in particular the Golan Heights, after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Hezbollah that they would support such operations.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) said it was preparing for new operations after nearly 40 years of quiet on the Israel-Syria border.

The group, designated terrorists by the United States and others in the West, was most active in the 1970s and 80s but retains influence with Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon.

"The leadership of the PFLP-GC announces that it will form brigades to work on liberating all violated (Israeli-occupied) territories, first and foremost the occupied Golan," it said in a statement late on Friday.

"The Popular Front's leaders have opened the door to all Syrian citizens to volunteer in the formation of the resistance."

Israel launched a series of air strikes around Damascus last week that inflamed regional tensions already on the rise as Syria's two-year civil war slowly seeps across its increasingly chaotic and porous borders.

Intelligence sources said Israel was trying to take out "game-changing" Iranian weapons destined for Lebanon's Shi'ite militant and political group Hezbollah.

Assad is a pivotal ally of regional Shi'ite power Iran, and is believed to serve as its arms conduit to Hezbollah in neighboring Lebanon.

Assad and his father, who ruled for 30 years before him, maintained calm in the Golan despite an official state of war between the two countries and Syria's support for militants in Lebanon and Gaza.

But following last week's strikes, which shook the Syrian capital and set its skyline alight with flames, Assad was quoted by state media as saying he would turn the Golan into a "resistance front" and would allow combatants to attack Israel from the area.

Hezbollah, which fought a 34-day war with Israel in 2006 and is believed to coordinate with the PFLP-GC, turned up the rhetoric further by saying it would support any such operations.

"We announce that we stand with the Syrian popular resistance and offer material and spiritual support as well as coordination in order to liberate the Syrian Golan," the group's leader Hassan Nasrallah said in a televised speech on Thursday.

Nasrallah said Syria would defy Israeli strikes by sending his group sophisticated weaponry, which he hinted may change the balance of power in the region.

The regions bordering the Golan Heights have already collapsed into disarray, with daily battles between state forces and rebels fighting to topple four decades of Assad family rule.

The war, which has killed more than 70,000 people, risks becoming increasingly regionalized, as the country's borders mark the faultlines of several Middle Eastern conflicts.

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

To a variety of matters, each briefly.

I begin with the Borovsky family the widow and five orphans left behind when Evyatar was brutally murdered by a terrorist at Tapuach Junction. Murdered for no reason other than that he was Jewish.

An appeal has gone out for funds for this family, and I ask you to consider helping, if you are moved to do so.

The fund was established by Rabbi David Dudkevich, rabbi of Yitzhar (home of the Borowvskys; Rabbi Elyakim Levanon, rabbi of the Shomron Religious Council and others.

Visit the secure website www.mekimi.org.il and learn about tax deductions and how to donate. It is essential to specify Fund no. 1515 for the Borovsky family. The website can be accessed in Hebrew or English (see upper left of homepage).

~~~~~~~~~~

And now a number of other issues to which you might want to direct your attention. We'll start with this from Palestinian Media Watch:

"In a ceremony celebrating its 150th anniversary, the International Red Cross together with the Palestinian Red Crescent planted 150 trees bearing the names of "veteran prisoners." The Palestinian Authority uses the term "veteran prisoners" to refer to those who have been in jail the longest, and in most cases are serving life sentences for murder or multiple murders."

See the full story here: http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=8965

~~~~~~~~~~

Barry Rubin has written an important piece called "Why Benghazi Is Overwhelmingly Important" (emphasis added):

"There is something terribly and tragically and importantly symbolic about the Benghazi attack that may be lost in the tidal wave of details about what happened on September 11, 2012, in an incident where four American officials were murdered in a terrorist attack. This point stands at the heart of everything that has happened in American society and intellectual life during the last decade.

"And that point is this:

"America was attacked once again on September 11, attacked by al-Qaeda in an attempt to destroy the United States as ridiculous as that goal might seem. Yet: the U.S. government blamed the attack on America itself.

"Other reasons can be adduced for the official position that what happened that day was due to a video insulting Islam rather than a terrorist attack, but this is the factor of overwhelming importance. It transformed the situation in the following ways:

— "Muslims were the victims of American misbehavior, a point emerging from the administration's wider worldview of U.S. aggression and Third World suffering.

— "'Hate speech' and racism (as 'Islamophobia' is often reconfigured) were the cause of troubles.

— "While freedom of speech and such liberties should be defended, they must be limited in some ways to prevent further trouble.

— "America's proper posture should be one of apology, as in the advertisements that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made for the Pakistani and other media.

— "The 'misblaming,' to coin a word, of the video showed terrorist groups that not only can they attack Americans, but they can do so without fear of punishment or even of blame! As the House of Representatives' hearings show, the misattribution of responsibility also delayed the FBI's investigation, perhaps conclusively so.

— "The exercise of American power has been the cause of America's problems, not an excess of appeasement.

— "The solution to these Middle East conflicts required a change in U.S. policies in order to avoid further offense. This meant distancing from Israel and even historic Arab allies, showing respect and encouragement even for "moderate" Islamist movements, and other measures.

"In short, this is the stance of blaming America and exonerating its enemies that has seized hold of the national consciousness. Of course, parallel responses met the Boston bombing, as the mass media and academics scrambled to give alternative explanations to the terrorists' motives.

"The truth is, however, extremely simple: the United States faces a revolutionary Islamist movement that will neither go away nor moderate itself.

"To understand this movement and its ideology, how it is and is not rooted in Islam, its weaknesses and divisions, the forces willing to help combat it, and the ways to devise strategies to battle it is the prime international need for the moment. It is as necessary to do these things for revolutionary Islamism today as it was to do the same things regarding Nazism in the 1930s and 1940s and for communism in the 1940s and 1950s.

"Yet the U.S. armed forces and other institutions are forbidden from holding this inquiry."

http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2013/05/09/why-the-benghazi-issue-is-overwhelmingly-important/

~~~~~~~~~~

I do not know if Rubin had in mind the case of Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley when he wrote this last sentence. But perhaps not coincidentally, at the same time that I read Rubin's article, I encountered information about Dooley's very disturbing situation.

Lt. Col. Allen West (ret.) served one term as a Congressman from FL, and then lost his re-election bid in what has been seen by some as dubious circumstances. Congressman West has moved on to a new venture: Next Generation TV. West has just run a program on what happened to Lt. Col. Dooley. See the genuinely frightening story here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HlL1zQZtg8&feature=youtu.be

This merits your careful attention.

~~~~~~~~~~

And let me end with end with this information, provided by Lori Lowenthal Marcus, on the IRS punishing conservative non-profits in the US:

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/irs-punished-conservative-non-profits-perhaps-also-pro-israel-groups/2013/05/11/0/

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

ACTION ALERT: Urge UC president and chancellors to take immediate action

AMCHA Initiative Co-founder and University of California Santa Cruz faculty member Tammi Rossman-Benjamin is currently the target of a vicious coordinated campaign of harassment and defamation by the Committee for Justice in Palestine (CJP) and other affiliated Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) groups on UC campuses.

For the past several years, University of California Santa Cruz faculty member Tammi Rossman-Benjamin has been alerting the the Jewish community and general public to alarming incidents of antisemitism on college campuses, including those perpetrated by the SJP and Muslim Students Association (MSA) groups and their members.

In retaliation, members of several SJP/CJP groups on UC campuses have recently launched a series of efforts to discredit and silence Tammi, including:

• a defamatory on-line petition accusing Rossman-Benjamin of racism and censorship and calling on UC President Mark Yudof to condemn her

• defamatory posters about Rossman-Benjamin widely posted on the UCSC campus

• posting over a dozen videos on YouTube that characterize her as "hateful" and "dangerous"

• instructing SJP students UC-wide to file hate/bias reports against her on their respective campuses

• passing resolutions condemning her for "inflammatory, hateful, and racist assumptions" in the UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis, and UC Irvine student senates

• working with groups sympathetic to terrorists (eg. the International Solidarity Movement) and associated on-line publications (the Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss) to more widely circulate these defamatory materials about her.

• MSA and SJP members have been responsible for physically harassing and assaulting Jewish students, vandalizing Jewish communal property, disrupting pro-Israel speakers, and aggressively confronting Jewish students at events.

• MSA and SJP chapters consistently sponsor speakers, films, and exhibits that engage in discourse or use language considered antisemitic by the U.S. State Department.

• MSA and SJP chapters associate with individuals and organizations that are linked to terrorist activity and call for violence against Jews.

• As a result of the hostile environment created by the activities above, Jewish students have reported feeling physically unsafe, harassed, and intimidated, and some have even reported leaving the university, avoiding certain parts of campus, and hiding symbols of their Jewishness.

Tammi has written a letter to UC President Mark Yudof documenting the antisemitic behavior of SJP and MSA groups on UC campuses and calling on UC leaders to take immediate action by:

• Investigating these groups to determine if they have violated university policies or state and federal laws, and if so, to take appropriate disciplinary measures that ensure the safety and well-being of all members of the campus community.

• Publicly affirming the right of all members of the campus community to speak out against anti-Jewish bigotry without fear of harassment, demonization, and defamation.

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

Recent statements by Mahmoud Abbas and other PA officials have directly incited numerous violent attacks against Israelis in patent violation of national and international laws. Palestinian leaders are inciting violence based on a blatant lie. They claim that Israel is seeking to change the 50-year-old status quo on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which protects the right of Muslims to pray at the site and denies Jews this same right despite that the site is the holiest in all of Judaism. Senior PA and Fatah leaders have directed a stream of inflammatory misinformation at Palestinian civilians, attempting to convince them that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is "in danger" and must be defended through religious war. Abbas sparked further uproar by accusing Israel of "executing" a 13-year-old Palestinian boy who, along with an older relative, had carried out a stabbing attack against two innocent Israelis in Jerusalem. To the contrary, as proven by photos released by the Israeli Prime Minister's office, the boy is very much alive and, thanks to treatment at Israel's Hadassah University Hospital, recovering. More importantly, these statements have been accompanied by repeated directives to murder Jews, against a backdrop of anti-Israel an anti-Semitic hate and violence perpetuated by the Palestinian media and schools.

On September 16, Abbas said, "[The] Al-Aqsa [mosque on the Temple Mount] is ours and so is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They [Jews] have no right to desecrate them with their filthy feet. We won't allow them to do so and we will do whatever we can to defend Jerusalem." He added, "Each drop of blood that was spilled in Jerusalem is pure blood as long as it's for the sake of Allah. Every shahid (martyr) will be in heaven and every wounded person will be rewarded, by Allah's will." As reported by Palestinian Media Watch, Fatah Central Committee Member Jamal Muhaisen said that "[t]he settlers' presence is illegal, and therefore every measure taken against them is legitimate and legal," and PLO Executive Committee member Mahmoud Ismail deemed the killing of two Israelis in their car in front of their four children as not only legal but also the fulfillment of Palestinian "national duty." Official PA publications encourage the continuation of such violence, even if it means self-sacrifice. Particularly egregious is the incitement directed at Palestinian children to commit suicide-homicide attacks, which further violates the most fundamental human rights of the children. Additionally, Fatah claimed responsibility for the murder of two Israelis, in furtherance of the Palestinians' genocidal aspirations for the total eradication of the Jewish state.

Under the terms of the Oslo Accords, the PA is obligated to refrain from incitement against Israel and to take measures to prevent others from engaging in it. True to Abbas's statement before the UN General Assembly that the PA would no longer be bound by Oslo, he and other PA officials have breached these key requirements of the accords, not only affirmatively inciting violence and hatred against Israel and the Jews but failing to condemn the onslaught of terrorism being waged against innocent civilians.

Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, an individual is guilty of the crime of genocide when: (1) the individual kills or causes serious bodily injury to one or more persons; (2) the victim(s) belonged to a particular national, ethnic, racial, or religious group; (3) the perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnic, racial, or religious group; and (4) the conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction. Moreover, the individual need not directly carry out the killing himself; criminal liability can attach if the individual orders, solicits, or induces the commission of genocide. Directly and publicly inciting others to commit genocide is further punishable.

The statements of PA officials calling upon their audience (Palestinian civilians) to take action, specifically to murder Jews, are exactly what was deemed to constitute "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" by the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The context of ongoing violence being waged against Israelis, and the climate of hatred drummed up by Palestinian leadership, would further support a finding that the PA is culpable for incitement to genocide under international law.

It is also worth noting that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to which the Palestinians acceded in 2014, does not require that a genocide be completed in order for genocidal conduct to warrant the designation (and consequent criminal liability). In the present context, it is the motivation to bring about the physical destruction of the Jews "in whole or in part" that matters, not the number of Jews who are killed.

Additionally, the 2007 International Court of Justice decision in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, which concerned responsibilities of state signatories to the Genocide Convention, established that all states are obligated to take "all means reasonably available to them so as to prevent genocide so far as possible." While a Palestinian state does not exist (despite valiant lawfare attempts by the PA to secure recognition through illegitimate methods), the PA would be hard-pressed to present any valid argument that it is not similarly obligated to prevent genocide. As discussed herein, the PA has not merely failed to attempt to prevent genocide, but instead has vehemently encouraged it.

Israel also has its own anti-genocide law, Israeli Law No. 5710-1950, the language of which mirrors that of the Rome Statute and Genocide Convention. Like a number of other national laws that prohibit and punish genocide, the Israeli law applies to individuals who committed genocidal acts outside of Israel, and is also enforceable even when the perpetrator is a "legally responsible ruler."

Whether at the national or international level, it is imperative that a judicial proceeding be brought against Palestinian leaders for these criminal and terrorist acts.

The Lawfare Project is the only organization of its kind dedicated solely to identifying, analyzing, and facilitating a response to lawfare in all of its manifestations. Contact The Lawfare Project at about@thelawfareproject.org

A mass exodus of Christians is currently underway. Millions of Christians are being displaced from one end of the Islamic world to the other.

We are reliving the true history of how the Islamic world, much of which prior to the Islamic conquests was almost entirely Christian, came into being.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recently said: "The flight of Christians out of the region is unprecedented and it's increasing year by year." In our lifetime alone "Christians might disappear altogether from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt."

Ongoing reports from the Islamic world certainly support this conclusion: Iraq was the earliest indicator of the fate awaiting Christians once Islamic forces are liberated from the grip of dictators.

In 2003, Iraq's Christian population was at least one million. Today fewer than 400,000 remain—the result of an anti-Christian campaign that began with the U.S. occupation of Iraq, when countless Christian churches were bombed and countless Christians killed, including by crucifixion and beheading.

The 2010 Baghdad church attack, which saw nearly 60 Christian worshippers slaughtered, is the tip of a decade-long iceberg.

Now, as the U.S. supports the jihad on Syria's secular president Assad, the same pattern has come to Syria: entire regions and towns where Christians lived for centuries before Islam came into being have now been emptied, as the opposition targets Christians for kidnapping, plundering, and beheadings, all in compliance with mosque calls telling the populace that it's a "sacred duty" to drive Christians away.

In October 2012 the last Christian in the city of Homs which had a Christian population of some 80,000 before jihadis came was murdered. One teenage Syrian girl said: "We left because they were trying to kill us because we were Christians. Those who were our neighbors turned against us. At the end, when we ran away, we went through balconies. We did not even dare go out on the street in front of our house."

In Egypt, some 100,000 Christian Copts have fled their homeland soon after the "Arab Spring." In September 2012, the Sinai's small Christian community was attacked and evicted by Al Qaeda linked Muslims, Reuters reported. But even before that, the Coptic Orthodox Church lamented the "repeated incidents of displacement of Copts from their homes, whether by force or threat.

Displacements began in Ameriya [62 Christian families evicted], then they stretched to Dahshur [120 Christian families evicted], and today terror and threats have reached the hearts and souls of our Coptic children in Sinai."

Iraq, Syria, and Egypt are part of the Arab world. But even in "black" African and "white" European nations with Muslim majorities, Christians are fleeing.

In Mali, after a 2012 Islamic coup, as many as 200,000 Christians fled. According to reports, "the church in Mali faces being eradicated," especially in the north "where rebels want to establish an independent Islamist state and drive Christians out there have been house to house searches for Christians who might be in hiding, churches and other Christian property have been looted or destroyed, and people tortured into revealing any Christian relatives." At least one pastor was beheaded.

Even in European Bosnia, Christians are leaving en mass "amid mounting discrimination and Islamization." Only 440,000 Catholics remain in the Balkan nation, half the prewar figure.

Problems cited are typical: "while dozens of mosques were built in the Bosnian capital Sarajevo, no building permissions [permits] were given for Christian churches." "Time is running out as there is a worrisome rise in radicalism," said one authority, who further added that the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina were "persecuted for centuries" after European powers "failed to support them in their struggle against the Ottoman Empire."

And so history repeats itself.

One can go on and on:

• In Ethiopia, after a Christian was accused of desecrating a Koran, thousands of Christians were forced to flee their homes when "Muslim extremists set fire to roughly 50 churches and dozens of Christian homes."
• In the Ivory Coast—where Christians have literally been crucified—Islamic rebels "massacred hundreds and displaced tens of thousands" of Christians.
• In Libya, Islamic rebels forced several Christian religious orders, serving the sick and needy in the country since 1921, to flee.

To anyone following the plight of Christians under Islamic persecution, none of this is surprising. As I document in my new book, "Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians," all around the Islamic world in nations that do not share the same race, language, culture, or economics, in nations that share only IslamChristians are being persecuted into extinction. Such is the true face of extremist Islamic resurgence.

Contact Dr. History at drhistory@cox.net

You can't refute them.

It is correct, the wealth and property of the Kuffar in Dar al-Harb is lawful (halal) for the Muslims.

The Kuffar can only be protected by (1) embracing Islam, (2) becoming a Dhimmi, (3) that their land has a treaty with Dar al-Islam.

There is no clear treaty/covenant between Muslims in the West and the Government.

And even the alleged implied-covenants claimed by some go against the rules of contract and the rules of treaties. Especially with the realities to consider in the post-Colonial era after the occupation of the Lands of the former Caliphate.

One of their reasons was "Deception is allowed in War", therefore they don't declare war openly and believe that they can break any contracts under the pretext of "Deception".

Contact Sri Venkat at venkat.hpu@gmail.com

Despite the distractions of a continuing unemployment crisis and the media's concentration on stories of human depravity, the scandal of the death of four Americans including an ambassador in Benghazi "a long time ago" according to the administration's spokesman will not be put down.

Three sets of issues follow the testimony of three whistleblowers from the Department of State appearing before the early May meeting of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

• Why were proper preparations not made to defend American personnel and territory [the embassies and consulates] in the chaos of newly liberated Libya, especially on the anniversary of 9/11?
• Why did the Obama administration feed explanations of the origins of the event which were boldfaced lies a "cover-up" for which we now have confirmation from U.S. government documents?
• Why were American military forces in the region ordered not to go to the aid of the embattled American ambassador and his handful of ad hoc defenders, even including that additional small Special Forces group available in Tripoli?

It is, of course, the second set of these questions which has gained what little media attention there has been, largely until this past week reported only by Fox News. That is the nature of the American political process. For quite correctly, if the party in power has made extraordinary efforts to mask failures in strategy and tactics, it assumes an even wider political significance than the very events themselves. To lie in covering mistakes is seen in the American political culture as a greater sin and violation of the voters' mandate than the act itself.

But in the long run of history, it may well be that the third of this group of questions is the most meaningful, that is, the role of the American military.

Despite their magnificent performance as the most skilled warriors in modern history, the American military have been bogged down in continuous war for more than a decade. Huge mistakes in strategy the decision not to finish off Iraq's Saddam Hussein in the First Persian Gulf War and the notorious articles of engagement in Afghanistan have prevented conclusive victories.

But there are almost no critics of substance of the performance of American soldiers, sailors and marines themselves. Not only is their valor self-evident, but their honor in pursuing the brutal demands of extended conflict are also a cardinal aspect of this past decade. [I would be one of those who argue that pinpointing in so far as that is possible in any armed engagement of terrorist leadership with unmanned aerial vehicles is as humane a pursuit as war permits against an enemy which boasts of its own attacks against civilian targets.]

Sacrifice is, of course, the name of the game for every man and woman enlisted in the U.S. armed forces. The possibility of losing life and limb in defense of American national interest is of course implicit in their service contract with their country. Yet one of the time-honored traditions of the U.S. military, paid for with countless lives over the two hundred years of the Republic, is that embattled comrades are never voluntarily left on their own to face an enemy no matter the prospects for an outcome. "Just as you have a responsibility to your country under the Code of Conduct, the United States government has an equal responsibility to keep faith with you and stand by you as you fight for your country", says The Code of the U.S. Fighting Force.

But in his testimony before the House Committee, Gregory Hicks, in command in the Tripoli embassy in the absence [and later death] of Amb. Chris Stevens in Benghazi, claims the remnant of a Special Forces security force already shredded by orders from Washington was ordered to "stand down". Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound "when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight. They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."

Nor did assistance arrive from the U.S. military outside Libya during the eight hours that Americans were under attack, trapped inside compounds by hostile forces armed with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles. Obama administration officials have insisted that no military resources could have made it in time. This has been refuted categorically by former military and CIA officials.

A White House official told CBS that, at the start of the attack, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta "looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies."

Hicks has testified: "I talked with the Defense Attaché, Lt. Col. Keith Phillips, and I asked him, 'Is there anything coming?' And he said that the nearest fighter planes were Aviano [Italy], that he had been told that it would take two to three hours to get them airborne, but that there were no tanker assets near enough to support a flight from Aviano. [Fighters were routinely refueled in NATO bases in nearby Sicily during the overthrow of Gadhafi.]

"And for the second time that night [before 5:15 AM attack], I asked the Defense Attaché, is there anything coming, is there anything out there to help our people from, you know, big military?. The answer was, it's too far away, there are no tankers, there is nothing, there is nothing that could respond." [A Delta Special Forces strike force was on exercises in Croatia, not more than four hours away.]

"The second team the Defense Attaché worked assiduously all night long to try to get the Libyan military to respond in some way. Early in the morning sorry, after we were formally notified by the Prime Minister, who called me, that Chris had passed, the Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements. Because we at that time at that time, the third attack, the mortar attack at 5:15, had not yet occurred, if I remember correctly. I still remember Colonel Gibson, he said, 'I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military.' A nice compliment."

Members of the Committee except for Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York's 14th Congressional District who immediately charged critics of trashing the military have tiptoed around this issue. Apparently they fear further accusations such as Ms. Maloney's.

Yet at the heart of the Benghazi unknown is Gen. Carter N. Ham, commander of the Africa Command, who, suspiciously, was removed within a month of the events ahead of the usual end of his command and then given early retirement. The Committee and the country need to hear from him where the order to stand down came from, whether it was, indeed, his decision, his superiors at the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, or with the Commander-in-Chief in the White House where constitutionally it should have been. At least according to official statements, the President went to bed and departed on Air Force One the next day for a fundraiser only seven weeks before the election.

The honor, the integrity and the reputation of the American military hangs on the legitimate answers from the participants to these questions, the military as well as the civilians.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is the Director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy (ACD) and the Economic Warfare Institute (EWI). She has authored hundreds of articles and several books on terrorist financing and political corruption. Contact ACD/EWI at rehrenfeld@rehrenfeld.com

"You should be careful what you wish for, as the reasons for war get confused. One person can be very clear in their motives, but others can have different agendas." —Dougray Scott

I am amazed at the current U.S. debate over Syria. Those urging intervention may be driven by humanitarian good intentions, to end the fighting and ease suffering. But whatever they are proposing—no-fly zones, safe havens, direct supply of weapons to rebels, etc. have they actually considered how four highly visible, recent precedents turned out?

Afghanistan: There is no question but that after September 11, 2001, the United States had to invade Afghanistan, destroy the al-Qaida infrastructure there, and overthrow its Taliban partner. Yet today, twelve years later U.S. troops are still in Afghanistan! The delusion of rebuilding that country has predictably failed. About 2200 Americans have died, many of them killed by Afghan "allies." The Afghan government is not exactly "grateful." The Taliban is still strong. Again, that war was necessary but how worthwhile was it and how expensive and difficult has it been for the United States to extricate itself. Even after 4 and one-half years of Barack Obama U.S. soldiers are still there.

Egypt: U.S. intervention in Egypt overthrew an ally. Many Egyptians now see, despite the talk about democracy, that they are worse off. Talk about freedom quickly turned into domination by the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist mobs. The economy is going down the drain. Christians are under siege; women's rights are shrinking. Other than a free media it is hard to see what Egyptians got out of it. Certainly, this intervention was a strategic defeat for the United States.

Iraq: Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, about 4500 American soldiers have been killed. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent. Whether or not the war was worthwhile can still be debated. The Iraqis have suffered greatly yet have also gained the most of the four cases cited here but it is still estimated that about 200,000 Iraqis have died, mainly in sectarian fighting, which still continues today though at a lower level. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein unleashed a Sunni-Shia war of terrorism that could be dwarfed by what might happen in Syria. The U.S. forces were said to be needed to remain in the country until a new Iraqi army was trained. On strategic grounds, Iraq has turned around sharply though it is still too friendly with Iran for U.S. tastes and supports the Bashar Assad regime in Syria. It is also a country where the vice-president had to flee after the prime minister charged him with terrorism.

Libya: In this case, U.S. involvement was indirect and caused no U.S. casualties. While the overthrow of dictator Muammar Qadhafi would have been a boon to U.S. strategic interests in earlier years, by the time it actually happened Qadhafi was relatively neutralized. Being governed by an elected regime may be counted as a gain for Libyans but anarchy, rule by militia, and extremism is still strong. Arms from Libyan arsenals were smuggled to terrorists in different countries. And of course the murder of four Americans in Benghazi shows the continued existence of terrorists—even al-Qaida—the weakness of the government and the unpredictability of Libya's future. Indeed, the situation in Libya seems to be deteriorating seriously.

This is a complex picture. Four dictatorships have been overthrown and four elected governments replaced them. How to measure the change?

U.S. strategic gains? It is true that the removal of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein two of America's most active enemies was a clear gain. But once having said that, it is not clear that these four governments contribute much to real U.S. interests.

Egypt's change is negative. Libya is a client state yet its main usefulness has been to funnel arms and money to opposition Islamist groups in Syria. Iraq is not helpful on two priority U.S. interests, Iran and Syria. Afghanistan is still angry at the United States and continues to be a playground for Pakistani intrigues with anti-American Islamists. Plus the fact that Pakistan had obtained billions of dollars in U.S. aid while giving safe haven to the very al-Qaida leaders that the money was paid to have them help catch.

Now there come demands for an escalated U.S. intervention in Syria, as if none of these precedents need to be considered. Yes, the advocates of involvement usually don't seek direct military action. True, they are upset at the death of 70,000 people, with the number certain to rise higher. This is not a partisan issue. The Obama government's policy helped create this mess by helping to build up an Islamist leadership in Syria misled by the Turkish regime. But the Obama Administration's current apparent reluctance to escalate involvement is a good idea, though perhaps motivated by the wrong reasons.

-Yet what are the arguments on the other side?

—Does the United States want to fight on some level to install a radical Islamist regime in Syria that is certain to be anti-American?

—How will Americans feel if their aid and weapons are used in future to murder Alawites and Christians, perhaps some day to invade the Kurdish autonomous area, passed to terrorists in other countries, used to shoot down civilian airliners by such terrorists, and suppress moderate Sunni Muslims?

—Do Americans really expect gratitude or friendship or strategic cooperation from revolutionary Islamists for their help in winning the civil war?

—Is the United States then going to give billions of dollars to rebuild Syria's economy for an Islamist regime?

—Does the United States have the necessary influence and leverage to force Jabhat al-Nusra's (Syrian al-Qaida) allies to abandon it? No. It already tried to do so and failed miserably.

—Despite all the vague talk about moderate fighters how many such people actually exist? Ironically, most of them are defectors from Assad's army, who don't have such a pro-democratic record. But the main drawback is that they are very weak and disorganized. Talk of setting up a zone under their control is absurd. In fact, the latest trend is the massive defection of soldiers from the "moderate" Free Syrian Army, which is the great hope of U.S. policy, to al-Qaida!

Don't get me wrong. On balance, I'd like to see the Assad regime fall and to see an end to the suffering of Syrian civilians. From a strategic standpoint, though, the fact that the Sunni and Shia Islamists who both want to destroy U.S. interests and wipe Israel off the map are battling in Syria may not be the worst thing in the world.

Remember, too, that the United States covertly intervened in the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) on the side of Iraq, for reasons that could well be justified, but ended up fighting two wars against Iraq in the next fifteen years.

Remember that Americans cheered the downfall of the repressive shah only to see a more repressive, far more aggressive, and far more anti-American regime replace it, not to mention the seizure of American hostages.

Remember also that Americans cheered the downfall of the Libyan dictator only to see a raging anarchy in which American diplomats were not taken hostage but murdered. Today, their killers walk the streets of Benghazi providing security, untouchable by Libya's government, laughing at the Americans who empowered them.

Things in the Middle East are not so simple.

This article was published on PJMedia. Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

Presidents of ABC and CBS News Have Siblings Working at White House With Ties to Benghazi Cover Up

RICHARD GRENELL: I think the media's becoming the story, let's face it. CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi. Let's call a spade a spade.

Let's also show you why CNN did not go very far in covering these hearings because the CNN deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Hillary Clinton's deputy, Tom Nides. It is time for the media to start asking questions why are they not covering this. It's a family matter for some of them.

JON SCOTT, HOST: So they don't want to bring embarrassment upon folks who, who they're close to?

GRENELL: Who directly are related to this story. Absolutely. They're covering for them. There's no question about it.

For the record, Ben Sherwood's sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is the Special Assistant to Barack Obama.

Virginia Moseley's husband, Tom Nides, is the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/05/11/fox-abc-and-cbs-news-presidents-have-siblings-working-white-house-tie#ixzz2T7QU7kxc

John D. Trudel, Consultant Emeritus, Inventor, Engineer, Author, retired Adjunct Professor (U. of Oregon), and Novelist. Contact John D. Trudel at mail@trudelgroup.com

New revelations that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeted Tea Party and conservative organizations for additional review and investigation and that senior officials knew about the practice, despite earlier denials have shed light on the IRS's aggressive investigation of a new pro-Israel group, Z Street, in 2010.

Z Street was started as a conservative counterweight to the Obama administration's favored pro-Israel group, the left-wing J Street. The leaders of Z Street were alarmed when their application for non-profit status with the IRS was subject to additional scrutiny, including probing questions about the group's views that indicated a high degree of skepticism not toward the group's non-profit eligibility, but towards its substantive beliefs.

Remarkably, when challenged to explain its aggressive investigation, the IRS cited the possibility that Z Street might be involved in funding terrorism. As Lori Lowenthal Marcus of the Jewish Press notes:

For years the IRS has denied it took any such inappropriate actions and has done its best to prevent Z STREET from pursuing its claim of viewpoint discrimination. The IRS even took the position that because Israel is a country "where terrorism happens," the service was justified in taking additional time to determine whether Z STREET was involved with funding terrorism. Z STREET is a purely educational organization that has never funded anything, either in Israel or anywhere else.

The way Z Street which is now suing the IRS was treated parallels the way in which Tea Party groups were treated. Indeed, when Congress launches the government-wide investigation that Republican leaders now promise, it could emerge that both were targeted for the same reason: to intimidate and silence opposition.

In 2010, Matthew Hausman of the Jewish Policy Center raised the alarm about the way Z Street was being treated, noting that such tactics had been used before long before the Nixon administration (the historical parallel many politicians and journalists have drawn). Indeed, Jewish critics of the Roosevelt administration once faced similar harassment—a noteworthy example, given Obama's fealty to FDR's big government ideals:

The strategic abuse of IRS authority for political reasons is not a new phenomenon. On the contrary, it has been employed by Democrats as well as Republicans to punish ideological nonconformity since the institution of the income tax. During the Second World War, for example, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) requested the IRS to audit the Bergson Group's finances because of its outspoken criticism of Roosevelt's anemic response to the Holocaust and its support for the Irgun. The Bergson Group—unlike Rabbi Stephen Wise, the AJC, and other Jewish acolytes of Franklin Roosevelt was dedicated to publicizing the Holocaust as it unfolded and exposing FDR's refusal to take meaningful steps to prevent the slaughter. At the administration's request, Rabbi Wise, the AJC, and others attempted to discredit the Bergson Group and its supporters and derail their advocacy efforts.

Hausman also observed that the investigation of Z Street "occurred not long after the left-wing organization J Street announced its campaign to lobby the Treasury Department to revoke the tax-exempt status of Jewish charities that support religious and cultural institutions in Judea and Samaria."

That request may have had an impact. J Street enjoys privileged access to Democratic Party leaders and to senior members of the Obama administration. Its president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, once stated: "Our No. 1 agenda item is to do whatever we can in Congress to act as the president's blocking back." (To date, J Street, a non-profit, has never been reported as the target of IRS investigation as the result of its partisan political activities.)

J Street made clear at the time that it wanted its inquiry to be one-sided—that is, investigating only Jewish charities for activities in disputed regions of the Middle East, and not Muslim or Arab charities. As Ben-Ami said, when confronted in Chicago in July 2010: "I don't give a shit about Islamic charities."

At the time, Hausman wondered whether pro-Israel groups had been singled out. It seems likely that they were not alone that the targeting of Tea Party and conservative groups, which occurred from 2010 to 2012, was likely connected.

The common thread: opposition to Obama, and instigation or support of these IRS inquiries by left-wing groups and mainstream media institutions devoted to defending the administration.

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

1. Shavou'ot (Pentecost) was, originally, an agricultural holiday, celebrating the first harvest/fruit by bringing offerings (Bikkurim) to the Temple in Jerusalem. Following the destruction of the second Temple and the resulting exile in 70 AD - which raised the need to entrench Torah awareness in order to avoid spiritual and physical oblivion Shavou'ot became a historical/religious holiday of the Torah. The Torah played a key role in shaping the US Constitution and the American culture, as well as the foundations of Western democracies.

Shavou'ot is celebrated by decorating homes and houses of worship with Land of Israel-related crops and flowers, demonstrating the 3,500 year old connection between the Land of Israel (pursued by Abraham), the Torah of Israel (transmitted by Moses) and the People of Israel (united by David). Shavou'ot is the holiday of humility, as befits the Torah values, Moses ("the humblest of all human beings), the humble Sinai desert and Mt. Sinai, a modest, non-towering mountain. Abraham, David and Moses are role models of humility and their Hebrew acronym (Adam) means "human-being." Humility constitutes a prerequisite for studying the Torah, for constructive human relationships and a prerequisite to effective leadership.

Shavou'ot a spiritual holiday follows Passover a national liberation holiday: from physical liberation (the Exodus) to spiritual liberation/enhancement (the Torah), in preparation for the return to the Homeland.

2. The holiday has 7 names: The fiftieth, Harvest, Giving of the Torah, Shavou'ot, Offerings, Rally and Assembly. The Hebrew acronym of the seven names is "The Constitution of the Seven" -.

Shavou'ot reflects the centrality of "seven" in Shavou'ot and Judaism. The Hebrew root of Shavou'ot is the word/number Seven (Sheva), which is also the root of "vow" (Shvoua'), "satiation" (Sova) and "week" (Shavoua'). Shavou'ot is celebrated 7 weeks following Passover. God employed 7 earthly attributes to create the universe (in addition to the 3 divine attributes). The Sabbath is the 7th day of the Creation in a 7 day week. The first Hebrew verse in Genesis consists of 7 words. The 7 beneficiaries of the Sabbath are: you, your son and daughter, your male and female servants, your livestock and the stranger. God created 7 universes — the 7th hosts the pure souls, hence "Seventh Heaven." There are 7 compartments of hell. There are 7 basic human traits, which individuals are supposed to resurrect/adopt in preparation for Shavou'ot. 7 key Jewish/universal leaders - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aharon, Joseph and David — are commemorated as distinguished guests (Ushpizin in Hebrew) during the Tabernacle holiday, representing the 7 qualities of the Torah. 7 generations passed from Abraham to Moses. There are 7 species of the Land of Israel (barley, wheat, grape, fig, pomegranate, olive and date/honey. In Hebrew, number 7 represents multiplication Shiva'tayim. Grooms and Brides are blessed 7 times. There are 7 major Jewish holidays (Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Tabernacles, Chanukah, Purim, Passover and Shavou'ot); 7 directions (north, south, west, east, up, down, one's inside); 7 continents and 7 oceans and major seas in the globe; 7 world wonders; 7 notes in a musical scale; 7 days of mourning over the deceased; 7 congregants read the Torah on each Sabbath; 7 Jewish Prophetesses (Sarah, Miriam, Devorah, Chana, Abigail, Choulda and Esther); 7 gates to the Temple in Jerusalem; 7 branches in the Temple's Menorah; and 7 Noah Commandments. Moses' birth and death day was on the 7th day of Adar. Jethro had 7 names and 7 daughters. Joshua encircled Jericho 7 times before the wall tumbled-down. Passover and Sukkot (Tabernacles) last for 7 days each. The Yom Kippur prayers are concluded by reciting "God is the King" 7 times. Each Plague lasted for 7 days. Jubilee follows seven 7-year cycles. According to Judaism, slaves are liberated, and the soil is not-cultivated, in the 7th year. Pentecost is celebrated on the 7th Sunday after Easter.

3. Shavou'ot is celebrated 50 days following Passover, the holiday of liberty. The Jubilee the cornerstone of liberty and the source of the inscription on the Liberty Bell (Leviticus 25:10) is celebrated every 50 years. Judaism highlights the constant challenge facing human beings: the choice between the 50 gates of wisdom (the Torah) and the corresponding 50 gates of impurity (Biblical Egypt). The 50th gate of wisdom is the gate of deliverance. The USA is composed of 50 states.

4. Shavou'ot sheds light on the unique covenant between the Jewish State and the USA: Judeo-Christian Values. These values impacted the world view of the Pilgrims, the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Separation of Powers, Checks & Balances, the abolitionist movement, etc. John Locke wanted the 613 Laws of Moses to become the legal foundation of the new society established in America. Lincoln's famous 1863 quote paraphrased a statement made by the 14th century British philosopher and translator of the Bible, John Wycliffe: "The Bible is a book of the people, by the people, for the people."

5. Shavou'ot is the second of the 3 Jewish Pilgrimages (Sukkot -Tabernacles, Passover and Shavou'ot - Pentecost), celebrated on the 6th day of the 3rd Jewish month, Sivan. It highlights Jewish Unity, compared by King Solomon to "a three folds cord, which is not quickly broken" (Ecclesiastes 4:12). The Torah - the first of the 3 parts of the Jewish Bible — was granted to the Jewish People (which consists of 3 components: Priests, Levites and Israel), by Moses (the youngest of 3 children, brother of Aharon and Miriam), a successor to the 3 Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and to Seth, the 3rd son of Adam and Eve. The Torah was forged in 3 manners: Fire (commitment to principles), Water (lucidity and purity) and Desert (humility and faith-driven defiance of odds). The Torah is one of the 3 pillars of healthy human relationships, along with labor and gratitude/charity. The Torah is one of the 3 pillars of Judaism, along with the Jewish People and the Land of Israel.

6. Shavou'ot highlights the eternity of the Jewish People. Thus, the first and the last Hebrew letters of Shavou'ot constitute the Hebrew name of the third and righteous son of Adam & Eve, Seth (שת). The Hebrew meaning of Seth is "to institute" and "to bestow upon" (Matan in Hebrew). The Hebrew word for the bestowing of the Torah at Mt. Sinai is Matan Torah.

7. Shavou'ot is a derivative of the Hebrew word "Shvoua'" vow, referring to the exchange of vows between God and the Jewish People. The origin of Shavou'ot occurred 26 generations following Adam and Eve. The Hebrew word for Jehovah equals 26 in Gimatriya (assignment of numerical values to Hebrew letters). There are 26 Hebrew letters in the names of the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs: Abraham, Yitzhak, Yaakov, Sarah, Rivka, Rachel and Leah.

8. Shavou'ot highlights the Scroll of Ruth, who lived 3 generations before King David, son of Jesse, grandson of Ovad, the son of Ruth. The Scroll of Ruth is the first of the five Biblical scrolls, which are studied during five holidays: Ruth (Shavou'ot), Song of Songs (Passover), Ecclesiastes (Sukkot), Book of Lamentations (Ninth of Av), Esther (Purim). Ruth a Moabite Princess and a role model of loyalty ("Your people are my people and your God is my God") and gratitude stuck by her mother-in-law, Naomi, who lost her husband, Elimelech (President of the Tribe of Judah) and two sons. Naomi went through family, economic and social calamities, similar to those experienced by Job: both lost their close-ones and financial assets; both complained to God; both preserved confidence in God and reconstructed their families; both were role-model of faith-driven tenacity. Naomi's suffering constituted a punishment for emigrating from the Land of Israel upon difficult times. Leaders do not desert their people when the going gets rough! Ruth's Legacy: Respect thy mother in-law (!), be driven by conviction over convenience be cognizant of the central role played by women from Sarah, through Ruth, until today. The total sum of the Hebrew letters of Ruth in Gimatriya is 606, the number of laws granted at Mt. Sinai, which together with the 7 laws of Noah form the 613 Laws of Moses. According to the scroll, "Ruth [the daughter-in-law] was better than 7 sons."

The Scroll of Ruth highlights the Judean Desert and Bethlehem as the Cradle of the House of David and Jewish history - not "occupied territory."

9. Shavou'ot is the day of birth/death of King David (as well as the day that Moses was saved by Pharaoh's daughter), the great-grandson of Ruth, who united the Jewish People, elevating them to a most powerful position. The David-Torah linkage demonstrates that physical and spiritual leadership are mutually-inclusive, as long as governments are driven by values. According to Deuteronomy (17: 18-20), the king must write his own Torah scroll, in order to refine his character, gain knowledge and absorb leadership qualities, mostly humility. In contrast with King Saul, King David assumed responsibility and accountability for his sins. He didn't just talk the talk; he walked the walk! 150 candles are lit at King David's tomb on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem, consistent with the 150 chapters of Psalms mostly attributed to David. Number 150 is the numerical value of Nest, the warm environment of the Torah. David's personal history (from shepherd to king) - and Jewish history - provides a lesson for individuals and nations: Despair is not an option and every problem is an opportunity in disguise (from slavery in Egypt to the sublime deliverance at Mt. Sinai and then in the Land of Israel).

10. The two portions of the Torah, which are recited/studied around Shavou'ot, are and, which mean — in Hebrew - spiritual enhancement and elevation. Is the longest portion of the Torah (176 verses), highlighting the inauguration of the ancient tabernacle and altar. Highlights the Menorah (Candelabrum) of the ancient tabernacle, which had seven branches, similar to the seven weeks between Passover and Shavou'ot.

11. Dairy dishes consumed during Shavou'ot, commemorate divine providence. According to the Kabbalah (Jewish mystical school of thoughts), milk represents divine quality. Babies a divine creation are breast fed by mothers. Dairy dishes commemorate the most common (humble) food of shepherds like King David - during the 40 years in the desert, on the way to the Land of Milk and Honey, the Land of Israel. Unlike wine, milk is poured into simple glasses. The total sum of milk is 40 in Gimatriya, which is equal to the 40 days and nights spent by Moses on Mt. Sinai and the 40 years spent by the Jewish People in the Desert. 40 is also the value of the first Hebrew letter of key Exodus-Terms: Moses, Miriam, Manna, Egypt, Desert, Menorah, Tabernacle, Mitzvah-Commandment, etc. 40 generations passed from Moses who delivered the "Written Torah" to Rabbi Ashi and Rabbi Rabina, who concluded the editing of the Talmud, the "Oral Torah." The first and the last letters in the Talmud is the Hebrew "מ", which equals 40 in Gimatriya.

Happy Shavou'ot (Pentecost),

Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is an editor and consultant who lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il

Rav Yaakov Medan Shlita, a Rosh Yeshiva in Yeshivat Har Etzion speaks out following Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein addressing the 'exclusion of women', attacking the chareidi way of life and declaring gender separation illegal.

Rav Medan explains that the decision to declare these areas of life illegal is no accident, but "malice". In his column in the weekly Makor Rishon the rav states "I posit the attorney general would not take the same measures against Muslims or Druse which are also careful to maintain a standard of modesty between men and women. I believe it is being done against the chareidim davka at this time, because he now feels the blood of the chareidi tzibur is hefker as a result of statements from Finance Minister Yair Lapid and his assistant, Mickey Levi."

"The attorney general at present permits himself to set guidelines for people brushing against one another in a line, on a bus or elsewhere, and this is no mistake it is malice. Chareidim already view themselves persecuted for their beliefs vis-à-vis the government, and they are already entrenched in their homes, and we are now in danger of losing the achievements, the integration seen to date in the IDF and society at large."

Rav Medan adds "We are the ones who should be shouting, not the chareidim for after they are taken out of the picture we will be next in line."

(YWN Israel Desk, Jerusalem)

In the history of the world, no tyranny has ever voluntarily relinquished power or been replaced by peaceful means.

Aryeh Zelasko lives in Beitar Illit, south of Jerusalem. Visit (www.israelvisit.co.il) which provides information and an internet buying facility for American visitors to Israel.

The recent Israeli airstrikes outside of Damascus have refocused the United States' attention on the Syrian civil war. In the wake of the attacks, the phrases "red line," "game-changer," and "enormous consequences" have permeated the lexicon of the conflict, with each resonating differently in Washington and Jerusalem. In the U.S., the "red line" was thought to represent the point at which the White House would step off the sideline and act decisively to bring the conflict to an end. After several attempts at throwing down the gauntlet, President Barrack Obama finally placed it at Syria's use of chemical weapons. Were they to be used, he said, it would be a "game changer" and those that used them would be met with "enormous consequences."

But it turned out, as Senator John McCain pointed out last weekend, that Obama drew his "red line" in disappearing ink. Likewise, the game didn't really change. There is no kinetic response the president is considering that spells the difference between, say, European football and full-contact American football. Instead, the White House treated Americans to a fresh presidential vacillation when a senior aide to President Obama revealed to the New York Times that the term "red line" was an off-the-cuff remark that took his advisors by surprise.

The idea that the president was ad-libbing American foreign policy came as a shock to many inside Washington. That notion likely compelled Obama to clear the air the following day through his press secretary, Jay Carney, who stated that the president really meant to use the phrase, "red line." :However, he continued, the president "has never said what reaction he would take at a policy level to the proved crossing of the red line in Syria." While that may be true, on August 20, 2012, Mr. Obama clearly stated that crossing the "red line" would result in "enormous consequences." Now, just over a week after conceding that chemical weapons were used in Syria, the White House has been downplaying that phrase, which apparently amounted to presidential hyperbole on foreign policy matters vital to the interests of the United States.

If the verbal gymnastics from the Obama administration left analysts and journalists confused as they pondered the range of possible consequences, it was with good reason. After all, "serious consequences" were promised if Saddam Hussein did not comply when the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1441 in 2002 and the consequence was the U.S. led coalition that invaded Iraq a few months later. To be sure, President George W. Bush promised "shock and awe," lest there remain any doubt about his seriousness. And surely by definition, "enormous consequences" conjures something even larger than "serious consequences." But it appears the president has no desire to increase America's role in Syria or to fulfill his August 2011 policy pronouncement that called for Bashar Assad to "step aside."

In Israel, these key phrases have a different connotation. With regard to Syria, Israel has a "red line"in preventing the transfer of advanced weapons systems including weapons of mass destruction to Hezbollah. To that end, it is believed that Israel carried out an airstrike in January that targeted SA-17 surface-to-air missile (SAM) batteries. They were provided by Russia, sent to Syria, and destined for Hezbollah. Last week it is thought that Israel attacked Syrian facilities holding Fateh-110 ballistic missiles provided by Iran. The SA-17 would have been Hezbollah's only multi-targeting anti-aircraft system and the Fateh-110 missiles would put Tel Aviv in range of South Lebanon. If the rumors are true that Russia is gearing up to send Assad the even more advanced S-300 SAM system, it would present a challenge to any modern air force. In Israel's thinking, these weapons constitute a "game-changer" in terms of the threats facing the Jewish state from the north. Accordingly, Jerusalem enforces its "red line."

Likewise, successive Israeli governments had lines for the acquisition of nuclear weapons by hostile Middle East states. Netanyahu literally drew a "red line" on a cartoon-like drawing of a bomb when he addressed the UN General Assembly in September 2012. He indicated that if Iran amassed enough uranium purified to 20 percent, then the Islamic Republic would be 90 percent along the path of having sufficient weapons-grade material something Jerusalem will not tolerate. In this sphere, Israel also has a record of imposing "enormous consequences" when its "red lines" are crossed in the pursuit of "game-changing" nuclear weapons. The Israeli Air Force destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981 and Syria's al-Kibar nuclear facility in September 2007.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sets out his 'red line' for Iran on a cartoon bomb drawing during a September 27 speech to the General Assembly (photo credit: Avi Ohayun, GPO)

Contrast that with both words and deeds from the Obama administration. "I've stated repeatedly, publicly that red line, and that is we're not going to accept Iran having a nuclear weapon," President Obama said in a September 2012 interview with Telemundo. "I've been very clear about my position." But the administration has long suffered from mixed messaging on Iran; Syria is merely the latest example.

It's more than a matter of words. Israel understands the strategic environment in which it operates. By altering the rules of engagement in Syria, it ensures the balance of power does not shift in Iran's favor with the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah. Israel can punish Iran and its network in Syria. No such strategic clarity is forthcoming from the White House, where "red lines" are not "game-changers" and consequences seem paltry, as the administration appears bogged down in details and process. All of which augurs poorly for security guarantees Team Obama offers Israel. At a time when Israel requires a steadfast ally in America, those looking for "shock and awe" may be left with shock and disappointment.

Contact Jewish Policy Center at list@jewishpolicycenter.org

"Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression." --James Madison

Essential Liberty

"[A] top IRS executive admitted Friday that, beginning in 2010, the agency had specifically targeted for possible audits conservative groups with the words 'tea party' or 'patriot' in their names. Then over the weekend, we learned that that the IRS also targeted groups that 'criticize how the country is being run.' In March 2012, then-IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman told Congress that the IRS was not targeting conservatives in any way, a claim contradicted by the Associated Press, which reported that senior IRS officials were notified about the targeting of conservative groups back in 2011. Obama's two biggest second term agenda items are: 1) the implementation of Obamacare, which will largely be done by the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services; and 2) passage of immigration reform, which will require convincing conservatives that the federal government will implement border security after the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the country are granted amnesty. Both items were a tough sell before last Friday. Now they are even tougher." Washington Examiner's Conn Carroll

Political Futures

"On Friday, an Obama administration with an already appalling track record of scandals added an equally egregious revelation to the list. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) apologized for what they characterized as an 'inappropriate' targeting of tax-exempt conservative organizations, whose names included 'Tea Party' or 'Patriot,' during the 2012 election campaign. In other words, the Obama administration has another burgeoning scandal on its hands. Yet if one couples the administration's penchant for political calculation with a media determined to protect Obama and company at all costs, another scandal may be exactly what is needed right now. At the precise moment when the Benghazi atrocity is reaching critical mass, the public is forced to pay attention to yet another seeming abuse of power. As one scandal piles on top of another, including the green energy scandal, and the Fast and Furious gun running scandal, the White House intel leaks, the Benghazi coverup and now an abusive IRS all of which have engendered stonewalling from the White House, as well as ongoing investigations a pattern emerges. At this point, however, one can only hope the public has not reached 'information overload' and is not tuning events out on account of so much malfeasance occurring in such rapid succession. One can rest assured, the Obama administration is counting on this public uninterestedness. Obviously, such cynical calculations would have to be based on an almost unprecedented level of contempt for the public by the administration and its media water-carriers. There is little doubt that both the administration and the left-wing media establishment are more than up to the task." columnist Arnold Ahlert

Insight

"Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways; hence, there are an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, bonuses, subsidies, incentives, the progressive income tax, free education, the right to employment, the right to profit, the right to wages, the right to relief, the right to the tools of production, interest free credit, etc., etc. And it the aggregate of all these plans, in respect to what they have in common, legal plunder, that goes under the name of socialism." French economist Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

Government

"Hillary Clinton had denied ever seeing Ambassador Stevens's warnings about deteriorating security in Libya on the grounds that '1.43 million cables come to my office' and she can't be expected to see all of them, or any. Are murdered ambassadors like those 1.43 million cables she doesn't read? Just too many of them to keep track of? No. Only six had been killed in the history of the republic seven, if you include Arnold Raphel, who perished in General Zia's somewhat mysterious plane crash in Pakistan in 1988. Hicks is now America's head man in the country, and the cabinet secretary to whom he reports says, 'Leave a message after the tone and I'll get back to you before the end of the week.' Just to underline the difference here: Libya's head of government calls [whistleblower Gregory] Hicks, but nobody who matters in his own government can be bothered to. A real government would be scrambling furiously to see what it could do to rescue its people. Chris Stevens was the poster boy for Obama's view of the Arab Spring; he agreed with the president on everything that mattered. The only difference is that he wasn't in Vegas but out there on the front line, where Obama's delusions meet reality. Stevens believed in those illusions enough to die for them. One cannot say the same about the hollow men and women in Washington who sent him out there unprotected, declined to lift a finger when he came under attack, and in the final indignity subordinated his sacrifice to their political needs by lying over his corpse." National Review's Mark Steyn

Opinion in Brief

"Why couldn't the administration tolerate the idea that Benghazi was a planned terrorist event? Because they didn't want this attack dominating the headline with an election coming. It would open the administration to criticism of its intervention in Libya. In the weeks and months after the attack White House spokesmen said they were investigating the story, an internal review was under way. When the story blew open again, last week, they said it was too far in the past: 'Benghazi happened a long time ago.' Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, really said that. Think of that. They can't give answers when the story's fresh because it just happened, they're looking into it. Eight months later they don't have anything to say because it all happened so long ago. Think of how low your opinion of the American people has to be to think you can get away, forever, with that. It's a prime example of the stupidity of all-politics-all-the-time. You make some bad moves for political reasons. And then you suffer politically because you made bad moves." columnist Peggy Noonan

Re: The Left

"In the wake of Benghazi, the country endured an intense debate over how much free speech we could afford because of the savage intolerance of rioters half a world away. Obama and Clinton fueled this debate by incessantly blaming the video as if the First Amendment was the problem. Clinton and Obama both swore oaths to support and defend the Constitution. But after failing to support and defend Americans left to die, they blamed the Constitution for their failure. That's what difference it makes." columnist Jonah Goldberg

Reader Comments

"As an executive appointee with the Obama administration (yes, there are a few of us in DC who have retained our appointments even though we have now seen the light) I must say that nowhere have I seen analysis on Benghazi as good as Alexander's Special Report. I might add, his assertions about both the DoS response to the attack, and the White House scrubbing of the talking points, are bold and accurate." Obama administration SES (Name Withheld on Request), Maryland

"From a retired Naval Aviator: Mark Alexander's Friday Special Report on Benghazi is a powerful reminder of why I support The Patriot Post. When will the MSM actually do what they are supposed to do investigate rather than politicize?" Peter in Wodinville, Washington

"Tyranny? What Tyranny? was a fine essay, but I wish you had begun Barack Obama's quote one sentence earlier. I found that sentence to be very interesting: 'This country cannot accomplish great things if we pursue nothing greater than our own individual ambitions.' More than anything else among all that blather, this seems to be the core of Obama's philosophy. He thinks it is 'the country' which achieves things (great or otherwise), rather than the individuals who comprise it. He also clearly thinks that 'the country' is somehow separate from, and greater than, its people, and that our 'individual ambitions' are merely obstacles to its 'success' (as he would define it). He is, of course, wrong on all counts." Laird in South Carolina

The Gipper

"I've come to believe there is little, if any, honesty in the media, and ethic is a word they are totally unfamiliar with." --Ronald Reagan

For the Record

"The president finds himself in a terrible dilemma with Syria partly one of his own making, partly also due to the lose-lose nature of the Middle East. He appreciates how Iraq imploded the second term of the George W. Bush presidency. Without that unpopular war, fierce antiwar critic but otherwise relatively unknown and untried Barack Obama might have never won the Democratic presidential primary. Without a credible follow-up of using force, Obama's once-soaring warnings have become stale and no longer earn any deterrence. Even a Nobel Peace Prize laureate can only so many times thunder about 'red lines' and 'game changers.' In the end, we are left only with hope for change. Maybe Iran and North Korea will come to their senses and behave. Maybe Assad will finally fall. Maybe the Syrian insurgents will prove to be pro-American democrats after all. And maybe opportunistic senators and journalists will not play politics and one day abandon the very policies that they once urged their president to adopt. And then again, maybe not." historian Victor Davis Hanson

Faith and Family

"It is truly frightening to see the level to which political correctness has infected the minds of the American people, instilling in us fear to speak out against obvious lies and insane policies lest we be labeled as a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, xenophobe, or some other form of menace to civil society. Each day, we are treated to more and more news stories in which truth is not only ignored, but actively shunned, with those proclaiming truth castigated and hunted down with verbal pitchforks by the angry liberals of the social and media elite. These behaviors are destructive to society and to us as individuals. Just because we blithely ignore the truth does not mean that the consequences won't find us. For those of us who embrace biblical Christianity and traditional morality, we must be active defenders of that faith, and of our freedom to express it publicly and privately. We can and should treat those that disagree with us with dignity and respect, even as we challenge their erroneous positions. We can, as they say, disagree without being disagreeable. But a failure to defend these principles means capitulation and defeat without a fight, and all of the damaging consequences that go with it. If we fail to fight, we should not be surprised, nor complain, when the destruction arrives on our doorstep." Patriot Post Grassroots contributor Louis DeBroux

Culture

"What the elite teach is not only futile but counterproductive. For example, speaking standard English in an English-speaking country is critical for self-improvement. But that's not the lesson from the nation's multiculturalists, who call for the celebration of native languages and dialects. Sloppy-minded academics and assorted hustlers have taught that poor English, gangsta rap, men wearing pigtails and thug behavior should not be criticized but become a part of the celebration of diversity. Black people could benefit from an honest examination of the bill of goods they've been sold. Such an examination would not come from black politicians, civil rights leaders or the black and white liberal elite. Those people have benefited politically and financially from keeping black Americans in a constant state of grievance based on alleged racial discrimination. The long-term solution for the problems that many black Americans face begins with an absolute rejection of the self-serving agenda of hustlers and poverty pimps." economist Walter E. Williams

The Last Word

"So the State Department has asked the creator of the 3D gun design to remove the blueprint from his site. Because, you know, you can totally block people from downloading something especially by drawing attention to it with a government crackdown. Smart move, people. Totally got all that toothpaste back in the tube. Love how our government is basically filled with Einsteins no matter where you turn, there's a bureaucrat with crazy hair and a mustache. Like Einstein. Well, 3D gun printing has been stopped now and forever. Anything else we should talk about? Benghazi? No? Hillary in 2016? Alright." humorist Frank J. Fleming

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis! --Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team

The Patriot Post is the highly acclaimed "Voice of Essential Liberty," a daily digest promoting constitutional limits on government and the judiciary. Contact Patriot Post at no-reply@patriotpost.is

GENEVA, May 13, 2013 Iran will chair the United Nations' most important disarmament negotiating forum during the panel's May session, which opened today, sparking calls by an independent monitoring group for the U.S., the EU, and UN chief Ban Ki-moon to protest.

"This is like putting Jack the Ripper in charge of a women's shelter," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, the Geneva based non-governmental organization, which announced it will hold protest events outside the UN hall, featuring Iranian dissidents.

"Iran is an international outlaw state that illegally supplies rockets to Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, aiding and abetting mass murder and terrorism. To make this rogue regime head of world arms control is simply an outrage. Abusers of international norms should not be the public face of the UN."

U.N. officials say Iran's post is merely the result of an automatic rotation.

But UN Watch rejected attempts to downplay what it described as" fundamental conflict of interests" and "an act certain to be exploited by Iranian propaganda to legitimize the mullahs' cruel regime."

"UN Watch calls on U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, EU High Commissioner Catherine Ashton, and UN chief Ban Ki-moon to make clear that when the United Nations imposes four rounds of sanctions on Iran for illicit nuclear activities, condemns it for illegally arming the murderous Syrian regime, and denounces Tehran's massive abuse of human rights, this kind of appointment just defies common sense and harms the UN's credibility," said Neuer.

"Any member state that is the subject of UN Security Council sanctions for proliferation—and found guilty of massive human rights violations—should be ineligible to hold a leadership position in a UN body. The U.S. and Canada have asserted this principle in the past, and should do so again," said Neuer.

"We urge world leaders to declare that allowing Iran to chair a UN disarmament body is simply unacceptable, given the fundamentalist regime's illicit activities in precisely the opposite direction."

"The U.S., the EU, and other nations should call on Iran to pass the chair on to a credible country that will advance the disarmament agenda within the UN," said Neuer.

The Conference of Disarmament reports to the UN General Assembly and is billed by the UN as "the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community."

Iran will assume the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament on May 27 and hold it over four weeks, until June 23.

The conference chair helps organize the work of the conference and assists in setting the agenda.

The conference was established in 1979 after a special U.N. General Assembly session, and is made up of 65 countries. In the past, the conference and its predecessors negotiated major multilateral arms limitation and disarmament agreements. In recent years it has become paralyzed, with member states often divided even on setting the agenda.

UN Watch is a Geneva-based non-governmental organization whose stated mission is "to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter". Contact UN Watch at briefing@unwatch.org

Even as the Benghazi scandal is growing in the United States, the situation in Libya is deteriorating further. Ignoring the actual threat of revolutionary Islamist militias—and attributing problems to a video—plus the botching of the investigation of the attack—due to the cover-up has also led to a mishandling of post-attack U.S. Libya policy. As a result, the terrorists who murdered four Americans are going free; the group that carried out the attack is still enjoying popularity and even playing a role in running Benghazi. Libya itself was the biggest donor to the Muslim Brotherhood-led, U.S. handpicked Syrian opposition and a source of a massive outflow of arms to terrorists.

Consider the Benghazi scandal from the standpoint of Benghazi where the militia that murdered the Americans is one of the most powerful forces in the city and Libya itself. Suppose that from the beginning on September 11, 2012, the U.S. government announced that the U.S. facility was under attack by a militia group linked to al-Qaida. It would have had to explain why it had hired members of that militia group to guard the facility, a scandal in itself. We know 100 percent that this is true but it hasn't become an issue.

Next, there might have been a rescue attempt and a fire fight between American forces and that militia group in which casualties would have occurred on both sides. Note that as far as we know the militia took no killed or wounded, meaning that in its own eyes it achieved a total victory at no cost. At any rate, the United States would then have been in a military conflict with that militia. It would have to demand that the Libyan government take action and cooperate with U.S. efforts to punish it. On one hand, that would have been a headache for the Libyan government; on the other hand, it might have brought welcome aid to suppress a troublesome militia and help in getting control of the anarchy in the country (see below).

Congress would have given full bipartisan support to punishing those found responsible by a quick and conclusive FBI investigation, including putting forces on the ground in Benghazi.

Note and this is very important—that the scandal is not restricted to what happened on September 11, 2012, and the Washington cover-up that followed. As a result of the cover-up there has been no effort made to punish those who we know now to have murdered four Americans. Meanwhile, Libya is suffering serious problems that are undoing whatever good the Obama Administration's intervention to overthrow the old regime achieved.

In other words, as a result of the policy failure and cover-up, Libya faces a much greater threat of a revolutionary Islamist takeover, anarchy, and even becoming an al-Qaida base. (Imagine, for comparison, the situation if the U.S. government had denied al-Qaida involvement in earlier terrorist attacks.)

Here are some of the current developments in Libya where, a recent article in the Egyptian newspaper, al-Ahram, explains, "militias at the command of various ideological camps and rival interest groups" increasingly dominate the country's politics.

—"Since last week, the ministries of foreign affairs, justice and the interior in Libya have been under siege by armed militias demanding [passage of a] law that would ban all associates of the former regime from positions in government."

—There was a recent terrorist attack on the French embassy in Tripoli.

—"As though the situation were not fraught enough, more than 100 policemen stormed the Ministry of Interior headquarters where they began an open-ended sit-in to press previously voiced demands for adequate protection for the police in the course of the performance of their duties, health insurance, better job and pay conditions, and the restoration of the prestige and full rights of policemen."

—"The following day other militia bands stormed the Ministry of Finance located in downtown Tripoli and began to assault the guards. These quickly withdrew in order to avoid a confrontation with their attackers."

—A band of armed men attacked a Ministry of Justice police vehicle that was transporting prisoners and three escort vehicles." One prisoner was killed and several others were severely injured during the attack.

—Prime Minister Ali Zeidan warned that "if the violence and security breakdown continue, the international community may be compelled to intervene."

—Despite Zeidan's threats the militias are not scared.

—The Birka Police Station in downtown Benghazi was struck by a massive explosion that destroyed the building.

—In southern Libya, Chadian forces advanced 100 kilometers into Libyan territory without even encountering the Libyan armed forces. As al-Ahram remarks:

"The incursion further throws into relief Libya's weak security at a time when neither the army nor the militias are capable of controlling the country's far-flung borders.

"Yet, it appears that the militias nevertheless have the upper hand. They are better armed than the government forces and they are also said to possess sophisticated eavesdropping equipment which they use to spy on government officials."

—As a result of the violence the German embassy has suspended operations. British Petroleum has evacuated non-essential personnel.

What does this mean that NATO will return to shore up the regime it put into power? The UN resolution permitting intervention in Libya is still operative. But one additional element of the Benghazi cover-up is that it allowed the U.S. government to ignore the serious state of Libyan security. Remember that the Libyan operation was another of President Obama's supposed successes that must be made to seem triumphant during the 2012 election.

Prof. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan) This article appeared May 13, 2013 in the Rubin Center Research in International Affairs and is archived at
http://www.rubincenter.org/2013/05/as-benghazi-scandal-builds-libya-falls-apart/

A few conspiracy-minded observers have wondered if the Obama Administration dropped the IRS political-audit scandal to distract attention from the Benghazi scandal. It's starting to look as if the reverse conspiracy theory would be more plausible, because the IRS thing is going nuclear. Four days in, and we still haven't heard a single word from the President who bends our ears so relentlessly when he's got an agenda to push, even as more high-profile commentators most recently George Will, on ABC's This Week are reminding us that Nixon's fall was partly due to just this sort of politicized abuse of Internal Revenue Service power.

We've learned that the target list for these political IRS audits was far broader than we initially thought. Fox News got its hands on a timeline prepared by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration that shows this scurrilous operation growing even faster than most government programs do:

The internal IG timeline shows a unit in the agency was looking at Tea Party and "patriot" groups dating back to early 2010. But it shows that list of criteria drastically expanding by the time a June 2011 briefing was held. It then included groups focused on government spending, government debt, taxes, and education on ways to "make America a better place to live." It even flagged groups whose file included criticism of "how the country is being run."

By early 2012, the criteria were updated to include organizations involved in "limiting/expanding government," education on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and social economic reform.

In other words, basically every group that organized dissent against the Obama regime. The only bright side to this scandal is that it might win Obama some respect and admiration from the likes of Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Bashar Assad.

The Jewish Press adds suspicions that pro-Israel Jewish groups were also targeted for audits:

For example, in 2010, the passionately pro-Israel organization Z STREET filed a lawsuit against the IRS, claiming it had been told by an IRS agent that because the organization was "connected to Israel," its application for tax-exempt status would receive additional scrutiny. This admission was made in response to a query about the lengthy reveiw of Z STREET's tax exempt status application.

In addition, the IRS agent told a Z STREET representative that the applications of some of those Israel-related organizations have been assigned to "a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization's activities contradict the Administration's public policies."

Z STREET's lawsuit claims the IRS activity constitutes viewpoint discrimination and a violation of its constitutionally protected right of free speech. The organization is seeking, among other things, complete disclosure to the public regarding the origin, development, approval, substance and application of the IRS policy to treat pro-Israel organizations differently than it does other organizations.

And at least one purely religious Jewish organization, one not focused on Israel, was the recipient of bizarre and highly inappropriate questions about Israel. Those questions also came from the same non-profit division of the IRS at issue for inappropriately targeting politically conservative groups. The IRS required that Jewish organization to state "whether [it] supports the existence of the land of Israel," and also demanded the organization "[d]escribe [its] religious belief system toward the land of Israel."

The hilariously clumsy lie that all this was the work of a few "low-level IRS employees in Cincinnati" didn't make it through the weekend, as the Wall Street Journal cites more leaks from that Treasury Inspector General report to announce that "a high-ranking IRS official knew as early as mid-2011 that conservative groups were being inappropriately targeted nearly a year before then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told a congressional committee the agency wasn't targeting conservative groups."

The report concludes that "IRS senior leadership was not aware of this level of specific details" when Shulman gave testimony to Congress in March 2012, a reference to the detailed timeline of the scandal that Fox News described. But that's only the "senior" leadership, and the IG only absolves them of knowing very "specific details."

The high-ranking (but not "senior") official who did know what was going on, according to documents obtained by the IG, was Lois Lerner, who heads the agency's tax-exempt organizations division. She's also the one who introduced the phrase "low-level employees in Cincinnati" to the lexicon of American political scandals. According to the Wall Street Journal, Lerner was "raising concerns" about the politicized audits internally, as far back as July 2011, even as she somehow failed to relate these concerns to congressional Republicans who were investigating complaints from the targeted groups. The Associated Press says Lerner knew exactly what was going on, having been briefed on specifics during a July 29, 2011 meeting.

Not only President Obama, but the entire Democrat Party has been eerily silent about this outrage... to the point where Chuck Todd of NBC News actually made the suggestion I alluded to at the beginning of this post: the Democrats were too punch-drunk from the Benghazi hearings to wrap their rattled brains around the IRS scandal:

What a great defensive strategy! Hey, man, our Party has grown so corrupt under Obama that you can't expect us to focus on any one scandal. We can't say anything about the IRS because we're still working on our Benghazi excuses.

Republicans have not been as quiet as their friends across the aisle. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) told Fox News Sunday, "The conclusion that the IRS came to is that they did have agents who were engaged in intimidation of political groups. I don't care if you're a conservative, a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican, this should send a chill up your spine. It needs to have a full investigation."

"This is truly outrageous and it contributes to the profound distrust that the American people have in government," Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) told CNN's State of the Union. "It is absolutely chilling that the IRS was singling out conservative groups for extra review. And I think that it's very disappointing that the president hasn't personally condemned this."

Collins also said she wasn't buying the "rogue IRS employees" excuse, since "groups with 'progressive' in their names were not targeted similarly."

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chair of the House Oversight Committee, promised further investigations, and dismissed the IRS' weak efforts to get ahead of the story during an interview on NBC's Meet the Press. In fact, it sounds like Issa might be launching an investigation into the behavior of IRS officials just over the past weekend, as they tried to get the spin machines churning.

"This is something you have to institute changes to make sure it doesn't happen again," said Issa. "There has to be accountability for the people who did it. And quite frankly, up until a few days ago, there's got to be accountability for people who were telling lies about it being done. And lastly, to be honest, one of the most offensive parts is, my committee and Jim Jordan and I instigated this investigation, got the IG to do the investigation and before the IG's report comes to the public or to Congress as required by law, it's leaked by the IRS to try to spin the output. This mea culpa is not an honest one."

Contact Daily Events at HumanEventsDaily@email.humanevents.com

Tomorrow night begins the holiday of Shavuot (one day here in Israel, two days elsewhere), which celebrates the receiving of the Torah (or the Commandments) and is marked by study through the night.

A good time, once again, to mark our priorities: to remember what comes first and what must guide us. A time to turn our focus heavenward and step away from the political nonsense of every day.

And so, to all, a Chag Shavuot sameach.

~~~~~~~~~~

But for today, there is still that political nonsense.

Right now, we seem to be a whipping boy for the Syrians. On both sides. It's a great irony.

The rebels are saying that we are conspiring to keep Assad in power. The Turkish daily Zaman reports that the claim was made by Abdulkader Saleh, commander of the al-Tawhid Brigade, which, I am reading, has ties with the Muslim Brotherhood:

"The opposition was going to take over arms, so Israel attacked. There is evidence pointing to this. There were some high-ranking officers with whom [the opposition forces] got into contact. [Those officers] were going to defect from [the Assad administration], handing over arms to the opposition. Israel hit these posts in fear that the opposition would take over the arms."

"...This assault, of course, was intended to support the Assad administration."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167965

This is, of course, not exactly what was going on with the alleged Israeli hit on Iranian weaponry in Syria. The Israeli concern was and is that major game-changing weaponry such as sophisticated missiles not fall into hands of terrorists groups, whether Hezbollah or jihadist groups associated with the Syrian rebels, who would then turn those weapons on Israel. This was not about the sort of weapons defecting Syrian officers would likely be in a position to turn over to the opposition for use in fighting Assad.

What caught my eye, however, is that this rebel commander said that, "Assad [father and son, actually] has protected Israel's border for 40 years." This is as I wrote, and is one more indication that if rebels take Syria, they will feel no compunction about attempting to move into Israel.

~~~~~~~~~~

What intensifies the irony is the claim by the Syrian government that they can now go into the Golan whenever they want. According to the Syria SANA news agency, Syria's Information Minister, Omran al-Zoubi, claims this right because of Israel's act of aggression against Syria in hitting Syrian sites (that is, storage depots with weapons).

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167962

But, as was made very clear at the time, any Israeli attack on those sites (not officially acknowledged) would be to prevent a transfer of weapons and was not intended as an attack on Syria.

This is mostly saber-rattling, but....

~~~~~~~~~~

Putative PA president Mahmoud Abbas is doing his own version of saber-rattling these days. His accusation is that Israel is attempting to harm the Al-Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount:

"If Israel is dreaming about establishing facts on the ground through its daily attacks against the Al-Aksa Mosque, then it is deluded.

"Eastern Jerusalem is our capital city, Al-Aksa belongs to us, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher belongs to us, and we will not accept [the Israelis'] harassment."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167957

This, undoubtedly, is the come-back for recent statements regarding Jewish rights to pray on the Temple Mount. If our leaders are serious about asserting on rights, on the Mount and elsewhere, we must understand that the battle ahead will not be easy. But, it is necessary.

~~~~~~~~~~

I say "If" because of news that has broken today that is generating more than a little unease.

The major story is that secret talks were held two years ago between the Israel and the PA. Avi Issacharoff, writing in the Times of Israel, reports on information he has secured via an interview with the head of PLO Executive Committee, Yasser Abed Rabbo. And so even as I report on this, we must remember that it all comes from Abed Rabbo.

What he says is that there were secret meetings between Israel and the PA in late 2010 and early 2011 either in order to conduct negotiations or initiate them. A series of meetings was held between Yitzhak Molcho, Netanyahu's envoy, and Abed Rabbo, at Molcho's home in Israel. And then Prime Minister Netanyahu himself met with Rabbo, after which communication terminated.

"According to Abed Rabbo Netanyahu seemed ready to renew negotiations within the framework of two states based on the June 4, 1967, lines. But the prime minister subsequently backed away from the contacts and the channel was discontinued."

Not unsurprisingly, there is no comment from the prime minister's office.

~~~~~~~~~~

Abed Rabbo is reported as saying, with regard to his meetings with Molcho:

"We discussed all the issues. But I sat and demanded in those meetings that Israel present its map for a two-state solution concept, and publicly declare its willingness to speak about the 1967 lines as the framework for the meetings. Molcho was not prepared to present a map and the meetings were truly exhausting, a lot of chatter without agreement." (Emphasis added)

http://www.timesofisrael.com/revealed-netanyahus-secret-talks-with-the-palestinians/

Is Abed Rabbo's description of a Netanyahu who "seemed ready to renew negotiations within the framework of two states based on the June 4, 1967 lines" consistent with the picture of a Molcho who would not present a map and talked a great deal with no agreement?

"Molcho," says Abed Rabbo, "was willing to include a military official in the meetings, a map expert who would present Israel's security demands to me. Molcho emphasized in the meetings the importance of the Jordan Valley, settlement blocs, and early-warning stations on West Bank mountains. I ruled this option out. He claimed that he wanted to show me these considerations on a map, but I told him that Israel's security concerns are not a starting point it's a non-starter and under the pretense of 'security,' you can claim anything. I made it clear that, first of all, we need to agree to speak about 1967 lines, and then start debating security issues, or even both in parallel.

"...From our standpoint, it was possible to discuss borders and security issues, but it cannot be that 'security considerations' would determine the borders." (Emphasis added here and above)

Was Molcho, on behalf of the prime minister, prepared to talk about giving away the store? Myself, I would not talk about surrendering a square centimeter, but it doesn't sound like he was conveying a readiness to give it all away.

~~~~~~~~~~

Abed Rabbo describes a Netanyahu who was prepared to begin serious negotiations:

"Netanyahu didn't rule anything out. He mostly listened. He asked me about the idea of a joint committee to manage issues related to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as Olmert had suggested. In the end I said to him, 'If you want to start something serious, if you agree to the 1967 borders as a basis, including Jerusalem, then we can talk about the other things.'

"He asked if we were ready to start negotiations immediately. I said yes...

"He said to me, 'Give me two days and I'll get back to you.' We said goodbye. He asked me to send his regards to Abu Mazen. And from that point on, I didn't hear from Bibi or Molcho. A year later, I relayed him a message through a third party that I've been sitting waiting by the phone for a year, but Netanyahu did not respond."

We could speculate unendingly on what was going on here. Maybe Netanyahu was testing the PA; maybe he was serious and then thought better of it or was dissuaded. Perhaps Abed Rabbo read more into Netanyahu's words than was intended. The meetings were not documented.

~~~~~~~~~~

There are those who will panic at this, because Netanyahu allegedly met in secret with a PLO representative and asked about a joint committee for Temple Mount issues, as Olmert had proposed. But what I see in the end is that the prime minister did not pursue those talks and stonewalled Abed Rabbo. And, in fact, as the meetings were not documented, he left nothing on the record to weaken Israel's position. And there were no maps.

In point of fact, this interview may have been provided by Abed Rabbo right now as a political tool: a way to make Netanyahu look less than forthcoming on negotiations and thus bring pressure to bear.

I will state here what I have said many times: I do not always trust Binyamin Netanyahu. He has given me scant reason to do so. And, demonstrating a particular weakness, he is all too ready to show himself as accommodating which leads him down a dangerous and slippery slope. (See more on this below.)

I have never believed, however, that he is an Ehud Olmert clone, simply itching to give our country away. And, whatever my unease, whatever my distress, I have not yet seen clear evidence that he is that clone. I pray that I never do.

~~~~~~~~~~

What is disconcerting, annoying, worrisome is the announcement that the prime minister has ordered a delay of "at least three weeks" (we shouldn't hold our collective breath) in issuing tenders for building 1,500 units in Ramat Shlomo, which is over the Green Line, even though all procedures were in place.

According to the JPost, the holdup was because of "political sensitivity." You may remember when Vice President Biden was here and a routine announcement came out about building plans in Ramat Shlomo. US officials responded as if Israel had deliberately mortified their vice president, and used this issue to generate quite a scene (with Hillary Clinton doing quite a bit of that generating).

Ramat Shlomo construction was held up for some time after that, which was unfortunate, because new housing is needed in that neighborhood. It's not all about politics here, folks it's about needing places to live. If the project was now set to go forward, it should have gone forward.

~~~~~~~~~~

I will add here in closing, with regard to fears of our prime minister "giving away" eastern Jerusalem, that, to the very best of my understanding legislation is on the books since November 2010 that requires approval in a public referendum and the votes of at least 60 Knesset members before any withdrawal from East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3988447,00.html

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

I participated in the Dialogue for Peace Project for young Israelis and Palestinians who are politically involved in various frameworks. The project's objective was to identify tomorrow's leaders and bring them closer today, with the aim of bringing peace at some future time.

The project involved meetings every few weeks and a concluding seminar in Turkey.

On the third day of the seminar after we had become acquainted, had removed barriers, and split helpings of rachat Lukum [a halva-like almond Arab delicacy] as though there was never a partition wall between us, we began to touch upon many subjects which were painful for both sides. The Palestinians spoke of roadblocks and the IDF soldiers in the territories, while the Israeli side spoke of constant fear, murderous terrorist attacks, and rockets from Gaza.

The Israeli side, which included representatives from right and left, tried to understand the Palestinians' vision of the end of the strife "Let's talk business." The Israelis delved to understand how we can end the age-old, painful conflict. What red lines are they willing to be flexible on? What resolution will satisfy their aspirations? Where do they envision the future borders of the Palestinian State which they so crave?

We were shocked to discover that not a single one of them spoke of a Palestinian State, or to be more precise, of a two-state solution.

They spoke of one state their state. They spoke of ruling Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Akko, Haifa, and the pain of the Nakba [lit. the tragedy the establishment of the State of Israel]. There was no future for them. Only the past. "There is no legitimacy for Jews to live next to us" this was their main message. "First, let them pay for what they perpetrated."

In the course of a dialogue which escalated to shouts, the Palestinians asked us not to refer to suicide bombers as "terrorists" because they don't consider them so. "So how do you call someone who dons a vest and blows himself up in a Tel Aviv shopping mall with the stated purpose of killing innocent civilians," I asked one of the participants.

"I have a 4-year-old at home," answered Samach from Abu Dis (near Jerusalem). "If God forbid something should happen to him, I will go and burn an entire Israeli city, if I can." All the other Palestinian participants nodded their heads in agreement to his harsh words.

"Three weeks ago, we gave birth to a son," answered Amichai, a religious, Jewish student from Jerusalem. "If God forbid something should happen to him, I would find no comfort whatsoever in deaths of more people."

Israelis from the full gamut of political parties participated in the seminar: Likud, Labor, Kadima, Meretz, and Hadash (combined Jewish/Arab socialist party). All of them reached the understanding that the beautiful scenarios of Israeli-Palestinian peace that they had formulated for themselves simply don't correspond with reality. It's just that most Israelis don't have the opportunity to sit and really converse with Palestinians, to hear what they really think.

Our feed of information comes from Abu Mazen's declarations to the international press, which he consistently contradicts when he is interviewed by Al Jazeera, where he paints a completely different picture.

I arrived at the seminar with high hopes, and I return home with difficult feelings and despair. Something about the narrative of the two sides is different from the core. How can we return to the negotiating table when the Israeli side speaks of two states and the Palestinian side speaks of liberating Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea? How can peace ever take root in a platform which grants legitimacy to terrorism?

This is not the first time a group of Israelis who pine for peace have met with their liberal Arab counterparts only to find that they have no counterparts at all."

Lital Shemesh is a dynamic young Israeli journalist who lives in Tel Aviv. For years she reported on the political situation in Israel, and advocated dialogue with the Palestinians to promote a solution to the conflict.

The Three Whistleblowers at the Benghazi hearing spoke softly, but with the emotional wallop of The Three Tenors. They told the truth, and it blasted like thunder through Obama's tissue palace of lies.

Listening to these strong, solemn men, I heard the sound of old America: a place of hardworking people who love their country and believe in something bigger than their own power.

The America of Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson, and Eric Nordstrom won World War II, walked on the moon, and defeated Communism. But today, their America is forced to serve a different god: a cold, smiling man with a hollow heart and hands that get bloodier by the day.

Obama stands center stage in this tragic opera of America's downfall, cheapening, endangering, and destroying the lives of the best among us. The pile of corpses grows ever higher, and the lies more noxious.

Let's pay tribute to some of his many victims, and vow to honor their memory by holding him to account.

BENGHAZI: Ambassador Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods.

Obama failed to attend a single intelligence briefing in the week before September 11, 2012. As the Libyan consulate in Benghazi came under attack that day, he disappeared for the evening, then jetted off the next day for a Las Vegas fundraiser. Meanwhile, Ambassador Stevens was raped, murdered, and dragged through the streets by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists, while three brave Americans died trying to defend him.

Having ignored Ambassador Stevens's previous reports of a "security vacuum" in Libya, Obama allowed the abortion of two rescue missions ready to fly to Benghazi. Regional security officer Eric Nordstrom testified that " whether or not you're sitting off at a post, requesting resources, preparing for testimony before this committee, or standing on a building surrounding by an armed mob attacking you, the message is the same: 'You're on your own.'"

BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING: Martin Richard (age 8), Krystle Campbell, Lu Lingzi, and Sean Collier.

The Russians and the Saudis both say they warned Obama's security team about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of two jihad-crazed brothers who set off fatal bombs at the Boston Marathon finish line and then killed police officer Sean Collier. The FBI interviewed Tamerlan, found nothing, and failed to inform the Boston police of Russia's multiple warnings. The Tsarnaev brothers were free to pursue their murderous plot, while living the high life on taxpayer welfare.

After the city of Boston was put on lockdown, surviving brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured and began to talk about his schemes. But this potential life-saving information (reportedly, the brothers planned to attack New York) was squelched when Obama's Department of Justice rushed to charge him with a crime and read him his Miranda rights. Dzhokhar immediately shut up.

The feds refuse to let the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth release Dzhokhar's college records, claiming it would violate federal privacy law. Meanwhile, two illegal aliens have been arrested as accomplices; Obama's Department of Homeland Security allowed one of them to re-enter the U.S. in January without a valid student visa.

OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS: Brian Terry, Jaime Zapata, and hundreds of unnamed Mexicans.

Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, conducted a secret gun-running operation that supplied thousands of assault weapons to drug cartels in Mexico. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata were both murdered with Fast and Furious guns. Their families have filed wrongful death lawsuits against the federal government.

The Terry lawsuit claims that the federal officials "created, organized, implemented and/or participated in a plan code named 'Operation Fast and Furious' to facilitate the distribution of dangerous firearms to violent criminals" and that they "knew or should have known that their actions would cause substantial injuries, significant harm, and even death to Mexican and American civilians and law enforcement, but were recklessly indifferent to the consequence of their actions." Eric Holder has been found in contempt of Congress for refusing to release requested documented to congressional investigators, and he appears to have committed perjury in his testimony.

FORT HOOD: Juanita Warman, Libardo Caraveo, John P. Gaffaney, Russell Seager, Justin Decrow, Amy Krueger, Jason Hunt, Frederick Greene, Aaron Nemelka, Michael Pearson, Kham Xiong, Francheska Velez (and unborn child, and Michael G. Cahill.

On November 5, 2009, Army Major Nidal Hasan opened fire on a group of soldiers preparing to deploy to Iraq, killing 13 and wounding 32. Associates raised repeated questions about his strange behavior but were squashed by what they call the Pentagon's "political correctness." A devout Muslim, Hasan was in extensive communication with al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, printed up business cards that read "Soldier of Allah," dressed in Islamic martyrdom garb, and handed out korans the morning of the attack. He screamed "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire.

Nevertheless, Obama refuses to deem the largest attack on a U.S. military installation in history a terrorist assault, insisting that it be classified "workplace violence." Hasan's victims have been denied Purple Hearts. Fort Hood hero Kimberly Munley told ABC News that Obama "betrayed" her and the other victims. "Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of," she said. "In fact, they've been neglected."

NAVY SEAL TEAM VI HELICOPTER CRASH IN AFGHANISTAN, AUGUST 2011: Jonas B. Kelsall, Louis J. Langlais, Thomas A. Ratzlaff, Kraig M. Vickers, Brian R. Bill, John W. Faas, Kevin A. Houston, Matthew D. Mason, Stephen M. Mills, Nicholas H. Null, Robert J. Reeves, Heath M. Robinson, Darrik C. Benson, Christopher G. Campbell, Jared W. Day, John Douangdara, Michael J. Strange, Jon T. Tumilson, Aaron C. Vaughn, Jason R. Workman, Jesse D. Pittman, Nicholas P. Spehar, David R. Carter, Bryan J. Nichols, Patrick D. Hamburger, Alexander J. Bennett, Spencer C. Duncan, John W. Brown, Andrew W. Harvell, and Daniel L. Zerbe.

On May 2, 2011, members of SEAL Team VI invaded Osama bin Laden's Pakistani compound and killed him. Three months later, 30 American troops, most of them members of SEAL Team VI, were shot down by the Taliban over Afghanistan.

On May 9, 2013, families of the fallen held a press conference to accuse Barack Obama of complicity in their deaths. They charged Obama with endangering SEAL Team VI by breaking protocol and revealing its identity as bin Laden's killers. They also revealed that their sons were sent to battle with inadequate equipment and air support and denied requested pre-assault fire.

The families played a video of their sons' military funeral. No mention of the Judeo-Christian God was allowed, but the Pentagon invited a Muslim cleric to speak, who cursed their sons in Arabic as infidels condemned to hell.

Karen Vaughn, mother of fallen SEAL Aaron Vaughn, said, "Why was there no pre-assault fire? We were told as families because pre-assault fire damages our efforts to win the hearts and mind of our enemy. In other words, the hearts and mind of our enemy are more valuable to this government than my son's blood."

Alas, I have no room to name all the troops killed by Obama's crippling Rules of Engagement. "American troops are needlessly exposed to increased enemy attack, suffer unnecessary casualties, cannot secure or control the indigenous population and are not allowed to deny freedom of movement or maneuver to the Taliban," according to a tactical commander in Afghanistan. As a result, more than twice as many American soldiers have died in Afghanistan under four years of Obama than in eight years under Bush.

Nor do I have room to list all the Americans murdered and maimed by the illegal aliens to whom Obama shows such special devotion. This week, Chris Crane, president of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers union, said Obama has "attempted to shut down" border enforcement and "absolutely" tied law enforcement's hands. Recently, Obama released 5,000 criminal aliens from jail, blaming sequestration cuts, and created special protections against deportation for illegal aliens with "serious mental disorders."

In the White House lives the man with the blood-red hands. The screams and sobs of his victims grow louder by the day.

Contact ARNYBARNIE at ARNYBARNIE@aol.com

Bigots Co-operate When They Need Israel
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Israel-to-share-defense-data-with-Turkey-Arab-states-312077

Israel has been working toward a cooperative agreement in compliance with Turkey and three Arab states to implement an allied system of detection technologies to defend against Iranian ballistic projectiles.

The initiative, termed "4+1", reportedly proposes joint efforts to be taken by Israel along with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan to share access to radar and anti-missile technologies.

Under the initiative, Israeli technicians would gain access to data from radar technologies in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates in return for allowing experts from its partners to tap into Jerusalem's anti-missile and advanced radar defense systems, the report said.

The plan, brokered by the United States, aims to create a (temporary) "moderate crescent" in the region in contrast to the "fundamentalist crescent" consisting of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah.

Food for Thought by Steven Shamrak

Many countries, even China, are eager to "play a role" in the Middle-East peace process. They do not really care about bringing peace to Israel. Their main objectives are to perpetuate this conflict and promote themselves as major world political players. Otherwise they, including US, would not hinder Israel's ability to resolve the conflict.

Islamists Used Sarin and Blamed Assad?
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/UN-strongly-suspects-Syrian-rebels-used-sarin-gas-312178

UN human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent Sarin. (Instead of praising this unusually prompt and frank report from the UN investigating body, UN and US officials immediately started question the validity of this report, not seeing collected data, because it does not support their anti-Assad agenda!)

As Usual, China is Sitting on the Fence
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/05/09/after-pledging-support-to-palestine-china-pledges-support-to-israel/

China's president Xi Jinping pledged his support to the people of 'Palestine', and then did the same to Benjamin Netanyahu and the people of Israel on Thursday. Xi is not picking sides in this fight.

Hate Toward Israel Prevails
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/07/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=imi_c2

Turkey's prime minister, a staunch critic of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime, called Israel's recent airstrikes in Syria "unacceptable": "The air attack by Israel on Damascus is unacceptable. No rationale, no reason can excuse this operation. These attacks are a bargaining chip, an opportunity delivered on a silver platter to the hands of Assad, to the illegitimate Syrian regime." (There is no logic in this statement, as in the bigoted attitude of the international community toward Israel. Anti-Semitic hate unites mortal enemies Sunnis and Shiites, Muslims and Christians, Fascists and Communist.

Look Who is Talking http://www.debka.com/article/22957/US-to-arm-Syrian-rebels-Putin%19s-rebuke-Chinese-%1Cpeace-plan%1D-mar-Netanyahu%19s-Chinese-trip-

Israel's Binyamin Netanyahu, while in Shanghai, faced a sharp dressing-down from President Vladimir Putin on Monday, May 6 and a warning that further Israeli attacks on Damascus would not be tolerated. Putin said that he had ordered the acceleration of highly advanced Russian S-300 air defense systems supplies to Syria. (Must Israel supply weapons and training to Chechen separatists who were brutally crushed and suppressed by Russian army just a few years ago?)

Sunni Mosque Bombed in Baghdad
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/03/world/meast/iraq-violence/index.html?hpt=imi_c2

At least five people were killed and 30 others wounded after a bombing outside a Sunni mosque in northeastern Baghdad. he blast took place as worshippers were leaving the mosque in the al-Rashidiya neighbourhood following Friday prayers. There has been an uptick in violence lately between Shiites and Sunni Arabs. (No international condemnation or outcry? Just imagine the international response if this was Israeli attack!)

Netanyahu Does It Again!
http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-jerusalem-construction-our-natural-right/

Last week Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed his new Housing Minister, Uri Ariel, not to press ahead with government tenders for as many as 3,000 new homes in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem, breaking promises he made before January's general election. Netanyahu made a similar move in 2010 before the last round of peace talks with the Palestinians that ultimately proved to be fruitless.

'Palestinian' Puppets Have Many Masters
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/7/palestinian-militants-syria-get-go-ahead-strike-is/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Anwar Raja, who represents the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command based in Damascus, said the militant group got the "green light... to attack Israeli targets." The plan is to launch the attacks from areas of Golan Heights that are controlled by Syria. (So-called Palestinians serve the interests of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and they used to have masters in Iraq and Libya. Regardless of the shade of Islam, the goal is one - destruction of Israel)

Nuclear Ambition of PA's Murderous Thugs
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167855#.VifZZLyVsWM

A senior PA official, Jibril Rajoub Deputy Secretary of the Fatah Central Committee and Chairman of the PA Olympic Committee, has praised the use of violence against Israel and vowed during an interview with the Lebanese Al-Mayadeen TV channel: "I swear that if we had a nuke, we'd have used it this very morning." (So-called Palestinians have no affiliation with the Land of Israel. They are willing to pollute it with radiation for hundreds of years as long as Jews are exterminated!)

When Government has no Direction People Take Lead
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167856#.VifZwbyVsWM

The Shomron Regional Council has decided not to wait for others to take the lead on diplomatic efforts, and has established its own Foreign Ministry Department. The Shomron Liaison Office has been effectively reaching out to elected officials in the EU and elsewhere to provide them with a balanced picture of the realities in Judea and Samaria.

Explosion at Iranian Military Chemical Complex
http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en?CategoryID=483&ArticleID=2117

The explosions that occurred last week apparently destroyed a facility suspected throughout the past decade as part of an Iranian program for developing chemical weapons and producing fuel for surface-to-surface missiles.

Quote of the Week:

"The FBI's list of "Ten Most Wanted" fugitives dates back to 1950 but the list of "Most Wanted Terrorists" dates back to just after 9/11 and the sense that terrorism had become a strategic threat. Today, the list includes 31 individuals, all of them male and with a single exception, Daniel Andreas San Diego, an animal rights extremist, all of them Muslim!" - Daniel Pipes

Japan Leading Fight Against Islamisation
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/japan-and-muslims-must-read/question-3245027/?link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s

Have you ever read in the newspaper that a political leader or a prime minister from an Islamic nation has visited Japan? Have you ever come across news that the Ayatollah of Iran or the King of Saudi Arabia or even a Saudi Prince has visited Japan?

Japan is a country keeping Islam at bay. Japan has put strict restrictions on Islam and ALL Muslims:

a) Japan is the only nation that does not give citizenship to Muslims.

b) In Japan permanent residency is not given to Muslims.

c) There is a strong ban on the propagation of Islam in Japan.

d) In the University of Japan, Arabic or any Islamic language is not taught.

e) One cannot import a 'Koran' published in the Arabic language.

f) According to data published by the Japanese government, it has given temporary residency to only 2 lakhs, Muslims, who must follow the Japanese Law of the Land. These Muslims should speak Japanese and carry their religious rituals in their homes.

g) Japan is the only country in the world that has a negligible number of embassies in Islamic countries.

h) Japanese people are not attracted to Islam at all.

I) Muslims residing in Japan are the employees of foreign companies.

j) Even today, visas are not granted to Muslim doctors, engineers or managers sent by foreign companies.

k) In the majority of companies it is stated in their regulations that no Muslims should apply for a job.

l) The Japanese government is of the opinion that Muslims are fundamentalist and even in the era of globalization they are not willing to change their Muslim laws.

m) Muslims cannot even think about renting a house in Japan.

n) If anyone comes to know that his neighbor is a Muslim then the whole neighborhood stays alert.

o) No one can start an Islamic cell or Arabic 'Madrassa' in Japan

p) There is no Sharia law in Japan.

q) If a Japanese woman marries a Muslim then she is considered an outcast forever.

r) According to Mr. Kumiko Yagi, Professor of Arab/Islamic Studies at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, "There is a mind frame in Japan that Islam is a very narrow minded religion and one should stay away from it."

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. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com

The Left Party's branch in the northern German city of Bremen has staged pro-Palestinian events in the splendid Villa Ichon, a site operated by the local Cultural and Friendship Association. The series of seminars are offered by a forum called "Discussion Group Middle East."

The April 9 event where Professor Rudolph Bauer discussed his book, Who Can Save Israel? A State at the Crossroad created a public stir when an Israeli couple were denied entrance. The Bild published an account of the case, which provoked a response from Arn Stromheyer, a pro-Palestinian activist. Stromheyer makes the standard charge favored by the radical left in Germany, namely that Israel and its allies have tried to silence all critics of the Jewish state by defaming them as anti-Semites.

All this would have been rather unremarkable if it was not for the fact that Stromheyer uses Moshe Zuckermann, a professor of history at Tel Aviv University, to legitimize his position. He explains that in his book Antisemit?, Zuckermann has used the same argument. To impress his readers, Stromheyer boasts that Zuckermann's work is not a mere "pamphlet," but a book published by the respectable Vienna press.

Of course, both Zuckermann and Stromheyer are aware of the European Union Monitoring Center's "Working Definition of anti-Semitism" which considers anti-Zionism as a new form of anti-Semitism. The document, which was incorporated into the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, makes a careful and reasoned distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism. For instance, "nazification of Israel," that is comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany is classified as anti-Zionism. Zuckermann in particular, has demagogued the issue to score points with his pro-Palestinian audience in Germany. Indeed, Zuckermann, a frequent flier on the Israel German route, is due to appear at the "Discussion Group Middle East" scheduled for the end of May. He also plans to attend a lecture in Berlin to discuss the second volume of his essay Against the Spirit of the Times. Not surprisingly, Zuckermann presents himself as a victim of the Israeli authorities that allegedly try to silence his critique.

There is a certain irony in the situation. Had Zuckermann taught in Germany, he would have been much more careful; German faculty are considered government employees and are bound by a rather strict code of intramural and extramural speech. The anti-Semitic excesses of the Holocaust has weighted heavily on both the public and academic discourse. Holocaust denial is illegal; the Constitutional Court has issued a ruling on what should be considered a proper work of scholarship. The German Constitution makes a distinction between freedom of speech and academic freedom; faculty are held to a higher standard than laymen.

But in Israel where academic freedom is extremely expansive, there is virtually no limit on faculty members. They can compare Israel to Nazi Germany or claim that Jews are an invented nation. They can cease researching in the subject fields for which they were hired; they can use their free time to either engage in full time political activism or write polemical work on the Israeli Palestinian conflict. And, of course, they expect the taxpayer to fund their salaries and, in many cases, their oversees trips where they can delegitimize Israel.

Contact IAM e-mail at e-mail@isralr-academia-monitor.com

More than two years ago, the Times of Israel reports here for the first time, top PLO official Yasser Abed Rabbo held a series of meetings with the PM's peace envoy, Yitzhak Molcho, and ultimately met at length with Netanyahu himself, to discuss new negotiations. The prime minister seemed ready to restart talks on the basis of pre-1967 lines, but then discontinued the contacts

Israel and the Palestinian Authority tried to conduct backchannel negotiations, or at least initiate them, in late 2010 and early 2011 in a series of secret meetings between the prime minister's envoy, attorney Yitzhak Molcho, and the head of PLO Executive Committee, Yasser Abed Rabbo. Abed Rabbo revealed these contacts in an interview with this correspondent here last week.

According to Abed Rabbo, during the conversations, which culminated in a meeting between him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Molcho's house in central Israel, Netanyahu seemed ready to renew negotiations within the framework of two states based on the June 4, 1967, lines. But the prime minister subsequently backed away from the contacts and the channel was discontinued.

Abed Rabbo said he and Netanyahu met for two-and-a-half hours in mid-February 2011, and mentioned but did not negotiate over various final status issues, including borders, Jerusalem and refugees. There had been no further contact since that meeting, Abed Rabbo said.

"The meeting with the prime minister occurred in mid-February, I think on the 15th," Abed Rabbo recounted, beginning a detailed account of the contacts. "It was held in Molcho's house in Caesarea. There were only four people present: Bibi, me, Molcho, and his wife. However, there were a series of meetings beforehand I'd say 10 between me and an envoy for the prime minister. The meetings were held in Jerusalem, again in Molcho's house there.

We discussed all the issues. But I sat and demanded in those meetings that Israel present its map for a two-state solution concept, and publicly declare its willingness to speak about the 1967 lines as the framework for the meetings. Molcho was not prepared to present a map and the meetings were truly exhausting, a lot of chatter without agreements. They were kept secret until now, actually. The only ones who knew about them on the Palestinian side were Abu Mazen (the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas) and Salam Fayyad (the Palestinian prime minister). (Saeb) Erekat (the head of the Palestinian negotiating team) was not in the know.

"Instead of a map," Abed Rabbo went on, "Molcho was willing to a military official in the meetings, a map expert who would present Israel's security demands to me. Molcho emphasized in the meetings the importance of the Jordan Valley, settlement blocs, and early-warning stations on West Bank mountains. I ruled this option out. He claimed that he wanted to show me these considerations on a map, but I told him that Israel's security concerns are not a starting point it's a non-starter and under the pretense of 'security,' you can claim anything. I made it clear that, first of all, we need to agree to speak about 1967 lines, and then start debating security issues, or even both in parallel.

"These meetings were not documented. At a certain point I said to Molcho that if they agree to the 1967 framework, we can talk about limited land swaps and security arrangements. From our standpoint, it was possible to discuss borders and security issues, but it cannot be that 'security considerations' would determine the borders. In the background, the Arab Spring began to gain momentum, and we also spoke about it quite a bit. In one of the last meetings, Molcho said to me, 'I can't give you an answer on the approach you presented (first recognition of the framework, then discussions of security considerations). My understanding and my job end here. I will propose to the prime minister that you meet, and if you manage to reach an understanding, then that is something else entirely. Only the prime minister can take it from here.'

"And the meeting with Bibi did indeed take place. It stretched on for about two and a half hours. He began speaking, and unfortunately, from the outset I feared he was trying to bullshit me. This was classic Netanyahu. He spoke about 3,000 years of Jewish history, about his father and what he saw with his own eyes. When he finished his preface, I turned to him and said, 'Let me tell you something we don't trust you and we don't believe you. This is the general feeling among Palestinians and this is my feeling also.'

'Netanyahu spoke about how vital the Jordan Valley was for Israeli security, and noted the possibility that Iranian tanks could cross the Jordan' "I said to him that speaking about 3,000 years of Jewish history will not get us anywhere. I care about what is now and what was 60 years ago. My memories and my family, they're from Jaffa, where I was born. 'Do you want us to start to speak about that?' I asked, 'Let's leave it and move forward.'

"Netanyahu literally jumped up. 'You were born in Jaffa?' he asked. And he looked at me and said, "I promise you that after all this is over, I'll allow you to return to live in Jaffa.'

"I smiled. I told him I'm not asking for a house for myself in Jaffa but for a homeland a homeland for my people. And Bibi became serious again. He spoke about how vital the Jordan Valley was for Israeli security, and noted the possibility that Iranian tanks could cross the Jordan. I told him that I have a solution for this. I am always cynical even my wife gets upset with me when I'm too cynical but I couldn't help but respond in this manner. 'You know that the Jordan Valley and the river aren't barriers to Iranian armored columns, and the only thing that can protect us from an Iranian invasion is the Jordanian mountains east of the river. That's the only line of defense. So let's conquer Jordan together and we'll build a defensive line there.'

'I told Netanyahu that Arafat already told president Bill Clinton at Camp David that his ultimate preference was to solve the refugee problem in Lebanon. Netanyahu didn't rule anything out. He mostly listened. He asked me about the idea of a joint committee to manage issues related to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as Olmert had suggested'

"He said to me, 'I'm not joking.' And I explained that this won't get us anywhere. In the meeting he didn't mention the 'Israel as the Jewish national state' issue. I said to him that I was in the secret talks with [prime minister Ehud] Olmert and he showed us the map. 'We were ready for land swaps of 1.9 percent and Olmert demanded 6.4%. That's what we arrived at. We can start the conversations from here.' I told Bibi that in the final meeting with Olmert in his office in Jerusalem, he said to us explicitly, 'I'll leave the negotiations file to my successor.' And he told us that the one who would inherit it would be Bibi. He explained that he likes Tzipi Livni and she's very nice but she won't succeed in becoming prime minister. 'I'll leave it for Bibi,' Olmert said.

"Bibi jumped up again and said, "I never saw any file.' I said that we have something in common: 'Our files also went missing.' He laughed. I spoke to him about Jerusalem and about the refugees. I told him that Arafat already told [president] Bill Clinton at Camp David that his ultimate preference was to solve the refugee problem in Lebanon. Netanyahu didn't rule anything out. He mostly listened. He asked me about the idea of a joint committee to manage issues related to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as Olmert had suggested and I laughed and said that I see it looks like they did leave him a file, and he laughed. I told him it's a good idea to discuss it. In the end I said to him, 'If you want to start something serious, if you agree to the 1967 borders as a basis, including Jerusalem, then we can talk about the other things.'

'Netanyahu said to me, "Give me two days and I'll get back to you." We said goodbye. He asked me to send his regards to Abu Mazen. And from that point on, I didn't hear from him'

"He asked if we were ready to start negotiations immediately. I said yes. He asked who would be in the Palestinian delegation for the negotiations, and I told him that if he agrees to the principle I presented him, I would need a five-minute telephone call and I would return to him with the names.

"He turned to Molcho and said to him, 'You lead the Israeli delegation, along with two others you know who.' He asked me if these were all our demands and I said yes. He agreed that we needed a convenient place to speak, a secluded place where talks would be conducted that could last between two weeks and two months. He asked me to prepare the Palestinian delegation and I asked him if he agreed with what I had proposed. He said to me, 'Give me two days and I'll get back to you.' We said goodbye. He asked me to send his regards to Abu Mazen. And from that point on, I didn't hear from Bibi or Molcho. A year later, I relayed him a message through a third party that I've been sitting waiting by the phone for a year, but Netanyahu did not respond."

The channel between Abed Rabbo and Netanyahu has not been revealed until now. Direct conversations between Abbas and the prime minister in September 2010 preceded it, but ended without any results after Israel refused to extend the freeze on settlement building. Another round of conversations between Molcho, former Netanyahu aide Yoaz Hendel, and Saeb Erekat began in January 2012 and lasted for 20 days, this time in Amman. This too did not create a breakthrough that would lead to the renewal of direct negotiations between the two leaders.

In another week, US Secretary of State John Kerry is supposed to land in Israel, as part of his efforts to renew the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

The Prime Minister's Office refused to comment on the contents of this report.

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

During a Monday press conference, President Barack Obama dismissed concerns and congressional inquiries into the Benghazi attack that claimed the lives of four Americans including U.S. Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens.

"And suddenly three days ago this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story," Obama told reporters. "There's no there there."

Obama added: "Keep in mind by the way these so-called talking points that were prepared for Susan Rice, five, six days after the event occurred, pretty much matched the assessments that I was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing."

The careful parsing of Obama's statement indicates the Administration's sensitivity to the president's lackluster attendance record on daily intelligence briefings. As Breitbart News exclusively reported the day after the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack, Obama did not attend his intelligence briefings (known officially as the presidential daily brief, or PDB) for the week leading up to the attacks.

Indeed, the last time the White House calendar publicly confirmed Obama attending his presidential daily briefing was September 5th. (The White House did not provide an official public calendar for September 8-10.)

A report by the Government Accountability Institute found that in his first 1,225 days in office, Obama only attended 43.8% of his daily intelligence briefings.

Sergio HaDaR Tezza can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Tuesday to discuss ways to stabilize the Middle East and to halt the shipment of Russian-made S-300 missiles to the Syrian army, despite reports that they had already been delivered.

During their meeting Tuesday, Netanyahu told Putin: "The region around us is tumultuous, rough, unstable and volatile, therefore I am pleased with the opportunity to consider together way to stabilize the region and bring about security and stability."

The two leaders were set to discuss the delivery of the advanced S-300 Missiles just as reports surfaced that the missiles had already been delivered by Russia to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's army.

Israel media was reporting Tuesday that according to the London-based Arab paper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, the missiles are in Syria and under Russian supervision, but not yet operational.

The powerful weapon has a range of up to 200 kilometers (125 miles) and the ability to track and strike multiple targets simultaneously with lethal efficiency. It would signal a huge advancement in Syria's air defense capability and pose a strong challenge to any possible aerial campaign. Israel also fears that advanced Russian weapons could fall into the hands of Hezbollah, a key Syrian ally in neighboring Lebanon.

The Russian missile system is also capable of intercepting drones and cruise missiles.

Igor Korotchenko, a former colonel of the Russian General Staff who now heads the Center for Analysis of Global Weapons Trade, said the decision on the S-300 delivery would have a major effect on Israel's superiority in the region, Israel Hayom reported.

"It may lead to a new round of confrontation with the West," he said. "It will have a serious impact on the balance of forces, depriving Israel of its air superiority."

Korotchenko added that Syrian crews will have to spend up to one year in Russia training on how to use the S-300 systems. "Without that, the delivery would make no sense," he said. "It's a complex system, and only highly qualified crew can handle it."

The Algemeiner Journal is a New York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news. Contact Algemeiner at editor@algemeiner.com

Does anyone have pity on the Jewish victims in South Tel-Aviv, Eilat, Ashdod, and other areas of the country where the African (emigrant) menace's have crept. There are indeed pitiless people living in Israel, the likes of Ms. Orit Moron, or Marom is a member of 'a refuge aid" group, that for whatever bizarre reason enjoys bringing troublesome people into the midst of Jewish- Israeli society. They are not in the least bothered by the suffering that has enveloped Jewish Israeli's due to the horrific behavior of the African Moslem invaders.. Is there any other civilized government in the world that would allow it's people to be criminalized (like defenseless sheep).

To rectify the horrible mistakes that were made by the Olmert and Netanyahu governments in allowing these dredges of African society to enter in the first place what in the world is holding the present government from "finally' ridding Israel of this Egyptian borne 'plague.

{It all started with the inept govenment of Ehud Olmert, Israel's worst Prime Minister who opened a wide door to let the African illegals enter in an apparent action of appeasement.} A certain Moslem from Darfur, Abdullah Mustafa voiced the opinion of many other illegals, "Under the Olmert Government things were great for us" meaning Olmert placed a welcome mat at the Sinai-Negev border, and issued instructions to his then IDF Chief of staff not to obstruct the entry of the (dredges) from Africa he even urged the IDF to provide transportation for these intruders.

How many more Israelis have to be raped, murdered, and assaulted before the country realizes that they have an African epidemic of violence that is turning Israel into a Johannesburg.

Contact K at noahsworldtv@gmail.com

"Peace in Our Time" was proclaimed by Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in defense of his disastrous Munich Agreement with Hitler. History testifies that his policy of appeasement and failure to confront the aggressive Nazi barbarians virtually made World War II inevitable.

It was in August 1993, just 20 years ago, when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, strongly pressured by then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, embarked on what he described as a "gamble for peace" and consummated the Oslo Accords with the PLO, an act which bitterly divided the nation.

Passionate debates ensued, but in our desperate yearning for peace, until recently many of us deluded ourselves that we were engaged in an "irreversible" peace process. Some of us even mesmerized ourselves into believing that Yasser Arafat and his successor, Mahmoud Abbas were genuine peace partners, despite clear evidence from their own statements that in referring to peace, they did so with forked tongues and that their real objective was to end Jewish sovereignty.

In recent years the vast majority of us reluctantly concluded that the "gamble for peace" was a failure and that, in the absence of a Palestinian leadership genuinely committed to coexistence, any prospect for a genuine peace was a mirage. This has become especially obvious as Palestinian leaders even refuse to engage in negotiations without preconditions.

Yet, the vast majority of Israelis would still now endorse major concessions to the Palestinians if they were convinced that this would lead to a genuine peace.

Sadly, many including some of our friends fail to appreciate this and continue urging Israel to be more forthcoming about the peace process.

President Obama reversed his former confrontationist stance towards Israel and now even publicly endorses Israel's right to take preemptive military action to defend itself. Nevertheless, an Alice in Wonderland atmosphere still dominates US Middle East policy.

Thus, Secretary of State John Kerry waxes eloquent over an allegedly revised and improved version of the so-called Arab League Peace Initiative.

The imperative of placating the US obligates our government not to outrightly reject this initiative which "agrees" to accept minor territorial swaps from the 1949 armistice lines yet still incorporates the right of return of Arab refugees which would result in an end to the Jewish state.

Moreover, the genocidal Hamas with whom the PA seeks to merge has condemned the scheme and adamantly reiterated that it would never countenance any compromise.

No Israeli government could conceivably contemplate acquiescing to a formula in which the opening benchmark in negotiations required acceptance of the 1949 armistice lines. This would entail East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, as well as the major settlement blocs effectively becoming Palestinian territory until an agreement to engage in swaps is consummated. Precedents indicate that it is highly unlikely that agreement on swaps could be achieved with the current intransigent Palestinian leaders.

In this context, we must not ignore the reality that both Arafat and Abbas refused and even failed to respond with a counter offer when Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert offered them 97% of the territories over the green line.

Nor can we dismiss the criminal character of Palestinian society and the fact that the PA, no less than Hamas, inculcate children from primary school to kill Jews and become "martyrs" and publicly sanctify mass murderers and allocate state pensions to families of suicide bombers and terrorists in Israeli jails.

Indeed, even "respectable" Palestinian websites such as spokesperson Hanan Ashrawi's Miftach, recently published an article reviving medieval blood libels, explicitly accusing Jews of drinking Gentile blood on Passover.

The Palestinian state-sponsored anti-Semitic brainwashing in the media, mosques and schools is in fact as lethal as the Nazi propaganda which transformed Germans into willing accomplices of mass murder.

It is thus not surprising that recent polls show that Palestinians are globally the most supportive Moslem nation favoring suicide bombings, with over 40% justifying them.

Those promoting Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas as a "peace partner" or "moderate" would be hard pressed to quote a single positive statement by him about Israel to his own people. He may tactically have reached the conclusion that diplomacy is more effective for promoting Palestinian goals than terror. But while he consistently stresses that this is a pragmatic strategic approach, his Fatah subsidiary continues engaging in acts of terror and the PA continuously threatens to revert to the "armed struggle" if it fails to achieve its objectives by diplomatic means.

According to Palestine Media Watch, only this month Sultan Abu Al-Einem, a senior PLO official, "saluted the heroic fighter" who had stabbed an Israeli civilian to death. At the same time Jibril Rajoub, co-signer to the Oslo Accords and Deputy Secretary to the Fatah Central Committee, stated that "popular resistance - with all it entails - remains on our agenda" and that "if we had a nuke we'd have used it [against Israel] this morning".

Despite the fact that Abbas has breached the Oslo accords by unilaterally obtaining UN diplomatic recognition and is now constantly threatening to charge Israel with war crimes at the International Court of Justice, the world continues today to pressure us to maintain the manifestly false charade of engaging with a nonexistent peace partner.

Moreover, the "peaceniks" and their Western supporters, including some misguided Jews and Israelis, still demand that the Israeli government be more forthcoming with concessions.

We are called upon to engage in further "confidence building" measures and release terrorists, many of whom are likely to resume their activities; make further territorial concessions despite our disastrous experience after the unilateral withdrawal in Gaza; freeze building of new settlements despite the fact that we did this for 10 months and failed to even get the Palestinians to join us at the negotiating table.

We are urged to specify our desired borders, as if this can be done in isolation from security and other factors. Besides, every time the possibility of another concession is even hinted, the Palestinians insist that it represent a new opening benchmark for future negotiations.

We have made major concessions but there has been no reciprocity because clearly the PA will not and cannot concede anything. We face a calculated strategy to destroy Israel in stages in which our adversaries seek to obtain and absorb concessions without reciprocity and will continue to demand more and more until they exhaust us.

We should firmly restate to our friends our readiness and desire to separate from the Palestinians. But we must not again jeopardize our security and lives by engaging in yet another "gamble for peace" with the odds stacked against us.

Were we to have a genuine peace partner we could achieve a peace treaty and grounds for long-term coexistence in a matter of days. But until then our friends should not seek to impose upon us a Chamberlain style "Peace in our Time" formula.

Contact Yuval Zaliouk at ynz@netvision.net.il

America is becoming a more tolerant nation, we are told. Each new thing that we learn to tolerate makes us more progressive. But tolerance is a relative thing. For every new thing we learn to tolerate, there is a thing that we must stop tolerating.

Tolerance does not usher in some tolerant anarchy in which we learn to tolerate all things. Rather tolerance is a finite substance. It can only be allocated to so many places. While a society changes, human beings do not fundamentally change. They remain creatures of habit, bound to the poles of things that they like and dislike, the people that they look up to and look down on.

The balance of tolerance and intolerance always remains the same no matter how progressive a society becomes. A tolerant society allocates its intolerance differently. There is no such thing as a universally tolerant society. Only a society that tolerates different things. A tolerant society does not cease being bigoted. It is bigoted in different ways.

America today tolerates different things. It tolerates little boys dressing up as little girls at school, but not little boys pointing pencils and making machine gun noises on the playground.

The little boy whose mother dressed him up in girlish clothes once used to be a figure of contempt while the little boy pretending to be a marine was the future of the nation. Now the boy in the dress is the future of the nation having joined an identity group and entirely new gender by virtue of his mother's Münchausen-syndrome-by-proxy and the aspiring little marine is suspected of one day trading in his sharpened pencil for one of those weapons of war as soon as the next gun show comes to town.

The Duke of Wellington once said that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton. What battles will the boys playing on the playgrounds where dodgeball is banned and finger guns are a crime win and what sort of nation will they be fighting to protect?

The average school shooter is closer to the boy in the dress than the aspiring marine, but the paranoia over school shootings isn't really about profiles, it's about personalities. It's easier to dump the blame for all those school shootings onto masculinity's already reviled shoulders than to examine the premises. And mental shortcuts that speed along highways of prejudice to bring us to the town of preconceived notions are the essence of intolerance.

The trouble with tolerance is that there is always someone deciding what to tolerate. It is a natural process for individuals, but a dangerous one for governments and institutions.

In one of George Washington's most famous letters, he wrote to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport that, "All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights."

The letter is widely quoted, including on a site that bills itself as "Tolerance.org", mainly for its more famous quote of, "the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance". But the tolerant quoters miss the point.

George Washington was not advocating transforming the United States government into an arbiter of tolerance in order to fight against bigotry; he was decrying the very notion that the government should act to impose the condescension of tolerance on some perceived inferior classes.

Tolerance is arrogant. A free society does not tolerate people, it allows them to live their own values. And a tolerant society is not free. It is a dictatorship of virtue that is intolerant toward established values in order to better tolerate formerly intolerable values. A free society does not tell people of any religion or no religion what to believe. A tolerant society forces them all to pay for abortions because its dictators of virtue have decided that the time has come to teach this lesson in tolerance.

An open society finds wisdom in its own uncertainty. A tolerant society, like a teenager, is certain that it already knows all the answers and lacks only the means of imposing them on others. It confuses its destruction of the past with progress and its sense of insecurity with righteousness.

To the tolerant, intolerance is the most powerful act possible. They solve problems by refusing to tolerate their root causes. School shootings are carried out with guns and so the administrative denizens of the gun-free zones run campaigns of intolerance toward the physical existence of guns, the owners of guns, the manufacturers of guns, the civil rights groups that defend gun ownership and eventually toward John Puckle, Samuel Colt, John Moses Browning and the 82nd element in the periodic table.

None of this accomplishes a single practical thing, but it is an assertion of values, not of functions. The paranoid mindset that cracks down on little boys who chew pop tarts into deadly shapes, little boys who point pencils and fingers at each other, is not out to stop school shootings, but is struggling to assert the intolerance of its tolerant value system over the intangible root of violence.

It's not about preventing school shootings, but about asserting a value system in which there is no place for the aspiring marine, unless he's handing out food to starving children in Africa in a relief operation, serving as a model of gay marriage to rural America or engaging in some other approved, but non-violent activity.

To understand the NRA's argument about the moral value of a gun deriving from the moral value of the wielder would require a worldview that is more willing to accept a continuum of shades, rather than criminalizing pencils and pop tarts for guilt by geometric association. A free society could do that, but a tolerant society, in which everything must be assigned an unchanging value to determine whether it will be tolerated and enforced or not tolerated and outlawed, cannot.

A tolerant society is as rigidly moralistic as the most stereotypical band of puritans. It is never at ease unless it has assigned an absolute moral value to every object in its world, no matter how petty, until it represents either good or evil. If good, it must be mandated. If evil, it must be regulated. And everything that is not good, must by exclusion be evil. Everything that does not lead to greater tolerance must be intolerable.

The FDA is proposing to regulate caffeine. The EPA is regulating carbon emission and encouraging states to tax the rain. Schools are suspending students for the abstract depiction of guns on such a symbolic level that Picasso would have trouble recognizing them. There is something medieval about such a compulsive need to impose a complete moral order on every aspect of one's environment.

These policies take place in the real world and in response to assertions of real threats, but they are largely assertions of values. The debates over them tap into a clash of worldviews. That is as true of Newtown as it is of Boston. The same tolerant liberalism that can see deadly menace in a pencil or a pop tart, is blind to the lethal threat of a Chechen Islamist. If a gun is innately evil, then a member of a minority group, especially a persecuted one, is innately good. The group certainly remains above reproach.

The arrogance of tolerance does not allow for ambiguity. There is no room for guns in schools or profiling of terrorists. Instead all guns are bad and all Muslims are good. In the real world, it may take bad guns to stop good Muslims, but the system just doubles down on encouraging students to recite the Islamic declaration of faith while suspending them for chewing their pop tarts the wrong way.

Liberal values are at odds with reality and they are not about to let reality win. In their more tolerant nation, there is more room than ever for little boys who dream of one day setting off pressure cooker bombs at public events in the name of their religion, but very little room for little boys dreaming of being the ones to stop them.

As a society we have come to celebrate the helplessness of victimhood and the empowerment of "speaking out" as the single most meaningful act to be found in a society that has become all talk. The new heroism is the assertion of some marginal identity, rather than the defense of a society in which all identities can exist. That is the difference between freedom and tolerance.

The little boy in a dress has put on the uniform of tolerance while the little boy making rat tat noises with a pencil is showing strong signs of playing for the wrong team. The wrong team is the one that solves problems by shooting people, rather than lawyering them to death or writing denunciations of them to the tolerance department of diversity and othering.

The complainer is the hero and the doer is the villain. Reporters and lawyers are the heroes because they are the arbiters of tolerance. Soldiers and police officers are the gun-happy villains because they respond to realities, rather than identities. They unthinkingly shoot without understanding the subtext. A free society is practical. It acts in its own defense. A tolerant society acts to assert its values. The former fights terrorists and murderers, while the latter lets them go to show off its tolerant values.

A free society teaches little boys that the highest value is to die in defense of others. A tolerant society teaches them that it is better to die as recognized victims than to become the aggressor and lose the moral high ground.

This is the clash of values that holds true on the playground and on the battlefield of war. On the playground, little boys are suspended for waving around pencils and on the battlefield, soldiers are ordered not to defend themselves so that their country can win the hearts and minds of the locals in the endless Afghan Valentine's Day of COIN that has stacked up a horrifying toll of bodies.

In their cities, men and women are told to be tolerant, to extend every courtesy and to suspect nothing of the friendly Islamists in their neighborhoods. It is better to be blown up as a tolerant society, they are told, than to point the pop tart of intolerance on the great playground of the nanny state.

Contact Yaacov Levi at ylevi1993@gmail.com

The temporary marriage, or nikah mut'ah, is an ancient Islamic practice that unites man and woman as husband and wife for a limited time. Historically it was used so that a man could have a wife for a short while when travelling long distances. So why are young British Muslims adopting the practice now?

"It allowed us to meet without breaking the bounds of Sharia [Islamic law]. We both wanted to date, to go out for dinner or go shopping and just get to know each other better before getting married, which we wouldn't have been able to do otherwise," says Sara.

She is a 30-year-old pharmacist from Birmingham, a Shia Muslim of Pakistani heritage.

'It's basically a contract'

Sara was temporarily married for six months before committing to a full marriage to her partner.

"It's basically a contract. You sit down and stipulate your conditions for a girl who hasn't been previously married, you do need the father's permission," she said.

"We stipulated the duration, my father's conditions, and I requested what you would call a dowry where the guy gives a gift to the girl. It's simple, straightforward and doesn't take long at all," Sara added.

She is one of a significant number of young British Muslims using a temporary marriage as a way of balancing their religious beliefs with their modern Western lifestyle.

Because of the informal nature of the union there are no official statistics to show how many temporary marriages there are in the UK. But a number of senior Shia Muslim scholars and Muslim student organisations told BBC Asian Network there is something of a revival.

There is a sectarian divide among Muslims on temporary marriage. The mut'ah is practised by Shia Muslims while Sunni Muslims generally consider it haram forbidden.

The mut'ah is particularly popular on university campuses and, according to Omar Farooq Khan, president of the Ahlul Bayt Islamic Society at Bradford University, the practice is on the increase among Shia students.

"Definitely nikah mut'ah is on the rise now due to students becoming more aware about it. Students are educated people so obviously they look around for a solution to their problems from an Islamic perspective," said Mr Khan.

"What else are they going to do? They can't just have a cold shower because it doesn't work and otherwise they just end up doing the haram thing and having a girlfriend or boyfriend. Many people won't talk about it though, because it is still a taboo subject," he added.

'Strictly not allowed'

Khola Hassan, a Sunni Muslim and spokesperson for the UK Islamic Sharia Council, says the practice is strictly not allowed. She says it is equal to prostitution because of the time limit applied to the union.

"I have never come across a Sunni scholar, throughout history, who declares mut'ah marriage to be halal," said Mrs Hassan.

"There is no difference between mut'ah marriage and prostitution. There is a time limit on the marriage, and the mahr given as a gift [from the man to the woman] is the equivalent as a payment to a prostitute," she added.

The nikah mut'ah consists of a verbal or written contract in which both parties agree the length of time and conditions for the marriage.

The union can last for a few hours, days, months or years and when the contract ends so does the marriage.

It can include stipulations such as "no physical contact" or "no funny business", as one parent put it - and the procedure is completed with the mahr.

Sayyad Fadhil Milani, spiritual leader at the Al-Khoei Centre in Brent, north-west London, is widely regarded as the UK's most senior Shia Islamic scholar and has written about the mut'ah marriage in his book Islamic Family Law.

Sectarian divide

"At the time of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, it was practised widely, especially when men were travelling away from home on business or at war," he said.

Ayatollah Milani said: "Islam does not permit relationships like those between a boyfriend and a girlfriend. So a nikah mut'ah gives them an opportunity to get to know each other before committing themselves to a full marriage."

He admits there is a sectarian divide over the issue: "Umar [ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph of Islam], himself said that the mut'ah was lawful at the time of the Prophet but he banned it and said he would punish everyone who does it.

"So some Muslims [in this case Sunni Muslims] are against it because they follow the interpretation and the suggestion made by the second Caliph. The Shias say that we stick to the Koran and the practices of the Prophet."

Although nikah mut'ah is a Shia concept, other types of informal marriages are practised by Sunni Muslims, such as misyar and urfi.

Misyar allows a couple to live separately through mutual agreement while urfi is done without the public approval of the bride's guardians. Neither of these, however, has time limits as with nikah mut'ah.

Way of legitimising sex

Critics of these informal marriages, both Sunni and Shia, argue they allow a person to have multiple sexual partners and are used as an "Islamic cover" for prostitution or the exploitation of women, with men taking on multiple "wives" for a number of hours.

Contact GWY123 at GWY123@aol.com

The best evidence of the unlamented death of the Arab Spring (2010-2013) was the nervous response in Washington D.C. to the Syrian crossing of the Red Line.

The Red Line had been set up so that Assad would eventually run afoul of it, whether by using chemical weapons or by taking the blame for chemical weapons use by the rebels; as the UN alleges happened. Once the Red Line was crossed, the Liberators of Libya would use the opportunity to enforce the will of the people; at least those people with Qatari RPGs and Turkish machine guns.

But instead of carving out a No Fly Zone and then telling the American people about it three days later, Obama blinked. No sooner did Assad supposedly cross the Red Line than Obama aides rushed out to explain that paying attention to the colorful line was misreading what Obama had really meant to say.

"How can we attack another country unless it's in self-defense," one official asked, with no sense of irony. "If he drops sarin on his own people, what's that got to do with us?"

Two years ago, Obama had declared that he was the defender of Benghazi, protecting it against a massacre that was never going to happen. And once Benghazi was liberated to be under Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood rule, the man who had sent in the air force to protect Benghazi Islamist militias against Gaddafi, couldn't be bothered to send in the planes to protect his diplomats against the militias.

The Arab Spring may have died on that September 11. Or it may have died when Obama's aides rushed to retreat across the Red Line. But one thing is certain; it's deader than Monty Python's blue parrot.

Obama looked into the Syrian abyss and pulled back. Maybe the timing of the war would have been a distraction from amnesty and gun control, but more likely the responsibility-to-protectors just couldn't sell anyone on their happy ending.

There is not one single place where a major Arab Spring transformation has led to a happy ending.

Egypt is a political, social and economic disaster. Obama had been counting on Islamists transforming Egypt into another Turkey on a slow and sensible schedule. But Morsi had a little too much in common with Obama. Like Obama, he couldn't wait a decade to crush his opponents and enact repressive policies that would fracture the country. He could barely wait a month.

Egypt isn't unique. Tunisia, the birthplace of the Arab Spring, is just as shattered, and one Islamist government has already gone down to be replaced by another. The same tensions between liberals and Islamists are playing out in Morocco. Meanwhile countries like Bahrain or Yemen in the Saudi sphere of influence either suppressed domestic protests or engaged in ritual transfers of power.

The Arab Spring was truly tested in Libya. NATO went in and left behind a country overrun by terrorists whose instability endangers its diplomats, the entire region and the world. Most of the advocates of intervention in Libya understand that the same thing will happen in Syria, but on a much larger scale.

Assad may be the prisoner of Damascus, but so is everyone else. The Syrian Civil War has stalemated all the powers leaving them stuck in a holding pattern. Russia is stuck helping Assad, even though it wishes that a transition could be arranged at the negotiating table, and the NATO powers are stuck trying to arrange some sort of Syrian rebel alliance, even though they know it will just be a gang of militias using Sharia courts and RPGs to fight over bakeries and oil wells.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron, sounding more desperate than ever, has argued that the only way to keep the Al Nusra Front from winning is to arm the moderate opposition. But Cameron knows that there is no moderate opposition. The only options are to choose from a palette of Islamist militias and hope that works out better than it did in Libya or to let Russia control a transition that will put one of its own allies into power. And for the moment, it looks as if Obama and Cameron are going along with that plan.

Whatever happens next, the Syrian Civil War isn't going anywhere.

Western politicians and pundits completely misread the Arab Spring as a series of popular uprisings. In fact they were austerity protests hijacked by political activists backed by Western democracy establishment NGOs and Islamist plotters backed by Qatar and its Al Jazeera propaganda network.

The Arab Spring was a campaign by Sunni Islamist countries to overthrow the governments of secular countries. With most of those governments overthrown, with two notable exceptions, it has moved into its next phase as a religious war between Sunni Islamists and the Shiite alliance of Syria, Iraq and Iran.

Only an idiot would mistake Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda shooting it out in the ruins of Syrian cities for any kind of popular indigenous uprising. There are still calls to arm the moderate opposition, but how can there be a moderate opposition when Turkey and Qatar, the two big players of the war, are not moderate except in the imaginations of New York Times columnists?

And how then could the Arab Spring be moderate and democratic when its backers and planners were neither moderate nor democratic?

The dividing lines in the Middle East were never between democracies and dictatorships. hey are the sectarian lines that divide Sunni from Shiite and the ethnic nationalisms that divide the old Persian and Turkish empires from the ragged bands of Arab conquerors.

The Arab Spring was not new. It was very old. It was as old as the Islamic conquests that transformed more open Arab cultures into Islamist tyrannies and then repeated the process in historical cycles. The pattern continued with the clashes between Islamists and Arabs giving way to fighting between Sunni and Shiite. And that fighting must inevitably give way to the next phase of Islamist infighting.

This isn't a new phase of history that will transform the Middle East into some ethnic copy of Europe. It is the same old history of the region repeating itself again and again like footprints in the sand.

The Arab Spring is dead. It was dead a thousand years ago. It isn't a new idea, but a very old war whose adherents are cursed to battle each other for eternity over the same power struggles.

The desert air breathes out mirages and generations of Westerners have found themselves caught in astonishing vistas of lost kingdoms and flourishing oases, but the harsh realities of war have a way of dissolving illusions.

The Western nations that bought the myth of the Arab Spring from the wily Qatari shopkeeper thought that they were purchasing democracy and stability, when they were actually buying a piece of an old civil war. Now they have a choice between fighting one more war in the hopes of saving an Arab Spring that never existed or stepping back from the abyss.

Contact GWY123 at GWY123@aol.com

A statement from a member of Parliament of the ultra-conservative Salafist Nour Party has argued that Shia are "more dangerous than naked women" in comments that have brought on an onslaught of sardonic comments as well as anger from Egypt's activist community, who have urged the government to make it clear that discrimination will not be tolerated.

According to a report in al-Ahram a government-run daily newspaper members of the committee called on Tourism Minister Hesham Zaazou to discuss the issue in the council, the country's upper house of parliament which is holding legislative powers until a house of representatives is elected.

The committee, headed by Fathy Shehab El-Din of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), reportedly had an argument on the effects Iranian tourists could have on Egypt.

"The Shias are more dangerous than naked [women]," MP Tharwat Attallah of the Salafist Nour Party said during the meeting.

"They are a danger to Egypt's national security; Egyptians could be deceived into [converting to] Shiism, giving it a chance to spread in Egypt," he added.

Activist Nora Osman said that "this fear of the Shia is ridiculous in this country. We've had them traveling here for decades and there was no problem, but now with the rise of the conservatives, it has become one. Doesn't make sense to me."

Egypt's minority Shia Muslim population has long struggled for acceptance in the majority Sunni country. It is not looking to get better for the group, however, with the country's Grand Mufti warning of the spread of Shiism.

"Propagation of Shiism means spreading rifts and divisions," said Sheikh Ali Goma'a, Egypt's former state-appointed Grand Mufti two years ago.

"We advise the wise people among the Shiites against the misplaced propagation of Shiism, which will cause instability and threaten social security," Goma'a said at a lecture during a week-long forum hosted by the Islamic Research Center, an influential arm of the Sunni world's most prestigious institution al-Azhar.

In 2012, Shia activists were detained by Egyptian officials in what was seen as another attempt to push the group outside the norms in Egypt. With the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to the top of the government, Shia in Egypt continue to face hardships in practicing their faith.

The February detentions came less than one month after Egypt's security closed the Hussein Mosque, arguing that the Sunni majority in Egypt would become enraged over seeing Ashura celebrations in Cairo. The celebrations mark the killing of the Prophet Mohamed's grandson Imam Hussein.

"It is not new for us Shia in Egypt," said Ali, 34.

"This is my country, but I feel there is so much pressure on me to be someone I am not and to believe in things that are not my own," he said.

The reason is simple: he is Shiite. In Egypt, a predominantly Sunni Muslim country, the minority Shia have been arrested and forced into silence.

In 2011, Egyptian police arrested at least four Shia Muslims, including a visiting Australian citizen. They were charged with insulting and denying tenets of religion, judicial sources were reported saying.

Security officials reported that the Shia men were part of a group of 24 that were rounded up last week in Cairo. According to the police, most have been released, but it is still unclear how many remain behind bars.

"This is the struggle we face on a daily basis and have been forced to live in silence and fear of what the police would do if they found out we were Shia," Ali continued.

The Australian man's family alerted the Australian authorities after Safaa al-Awadi, 44, did not return to Perth when scheduled.

He was freed one month later after facing charges of blasphemy.

Seven other Shiites have been in detention since mid-2009 and charged with "forming a group trying to spread Shi'ite ideology that harms the Islamic religion."

In 2010, Egypt's Minister of Religious Endowments, Mahmoud Hamdy Zaqzouq, said in statements during a meeting with the Grand Mufti of Mount Lebanon, Sheikh Mohamed Ali Jouzo, that Egypt has "no mosques belonging to any religious or sectarian schools." He added that there are no Shia Mosques in Egypt.

The minister stressed that all mosques and religious institutions that number some 104,000 are subject to full supervision of the Ministry of Religious Endowments.

Followers of Shia doctrine believe the Prophet Mohamed should have been succeeded by his cousin Ali rather than his companion Abu Bakr, who is considered the first Imam. Ali was the fourth in traditional Sunni belief.

Making matters difficult in Egypt is that Sunnis believe any suggestion that Abu Bakr was not the rightful successor is akin to blasphemy.

"We live under these conditions every day and most of the time I keep my mouth shut, but for our government to insist that we don't exist is insulting and wrong," added Ali.

Contact GWY123 at GWY123@aol.com

An Iranian Assemblies of God (AOG) pastor, his wife and two church workers have been returned to jail after their one year sentences for converting to Christianity and "propagation against the Islamic regime through evangelism" were upheld by a High Court on 1 May.

Pastor Farhad Sabokrooh, his wife Shahnaz Jayzan and church workers Naser Zaman-Dezfuli and Davoud Alijani were initially arrested in December 2011, after authorities in the southern town of Ahwaz raided their church's Christmas celebrations and detained everyone in the building, including children attending Sunday School.

According to Iranian agency Mohabat News, all four were charged with "converting to Christianity and propagating against the Islamic Republic through evangelism", and were each sentenced to one year in prison by the Revolutionary Court in Ahwaz. They were temporarily released, but were summoned to court on 1 May 2013 and re-arrested. Mr Alijani was transferred to Ahwaz's Karoon Paarison to complete his sentence, while Pastor Sabokrooh, Shahnaz Jayzan and Mr Zaman-Dezfuli were taken to Sepidar Prison.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) has also been informed that Mostafa Bordbar, a Christian arrested in Tehran in December 2012 and whose case details were obscure, is now confirmed to be detained in Ward 350 of Evin Prison, along with Church of Iran member Alireza Seyyedian and AOG Pastors Farshid Fathi and Saeed Abedini. Pastor Abedini, who had been placed in solitary confinement for taking part in a peaceful protest against prison conditions, has now been returned to Ward 350 after being taken to hospital this week following a further deterioration in his health.

Mohabat News reports that a Christian prisoner in Adel-Abad Prison in Shiraz is in urgent need of medical attention. Vahid Hakkani, who was arrested in February 2012 along with eight others during a raid on a prayer meeting, is reported to be suffering from internal bleeding and has been informed by prison doctors that he needs surgery urgently, but so far this has not occurred.

CSW has also learned that in April 2013, Ebrahim Firoozi, who was arrested for a second time in March 2013 and charged with launching and administering a Christian missionary website, distributing Bibles, cooperating with student activists and involvement in actions against national security, was temporarily released from Ward 350 of Evin Prison after 53 days in jail, following a bail payment of approximately 20,000 USD.

CSW's Chief Executive Mervyn Thomas said, "Pastor Sabokrooh and others have been jailed for exercising their right to change their religion and to manifest their new faith both privately and in communion with others. This right is protected by Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which as a signatory, Iran is obliged uphold. We continue to call on Iran to fulfill its legal obligations by guaranteeing freedom of religion or belief for all of its citizens. We also urge the authorities to ensure that as occurred in the case of Pastor Abdedini, every prisoner in urgent need of medical attention is given access to medical facilities and appropriate treatment."

Contact GWY123 at GWY123@aol.com

The painting below is Moritz Oppenheim's "The Return of the Volunteer from the Wars of Liberation to His Family Still Living in Accordance with Old Customs." It was the painting I wanted to have on the cover of my book, Assimilation and its Discontents, but was overruled by the publisher in favor of a post-modernist monstrosity.

[Assimilation and its Discontents, a history of Jewish assimilation and identity debates, can be found here. For downloading instructions see the end of this article.]

The painting shows a Jewish soldier who had fought for Prussia against Napoleon. Now the war was won, the land liberated, and he returned home to his family, presumably in 1814.

He is the center of attention for, presumably, his loving parents, two older sisters, and younger brother. The second brother is examining something else. I'm also surprised to see, in this Orthodox Jewish family, a cat emerging from under the table.

So even if they still follow the "old customs," that is a pious Judaism, they have modernized already to some extent. Notice the clothing which is quite contemporary and the furnishings. This is a German middle class family very much attuned to the surrounding society which is also an Orthodox Jewish family.

Thus it is not quite true that Oppenheim, one of the greatest German painters, sees them as fully traditional. Of course, by saying the "old customs," he is implying that they are outdated customs. The theme of the painting is the contrast between the two role models, the two paths that Jews could take: complete modernization, secularization, and German patriotism versus a traditional Jewish life, built around religion and keeping some distance from the surrounding society.

Yet Oppenheim thought it possible to combine the two. He was highly honored by both the existing German elite, during a time when antisemitism was at a relative low, and the intellectual leaders of Jewry.

Oppenheim was born in Hanau in 1800 and died in Frankfurt in 1882. In his own life, he balanced out the Jewish and German worlds. At the time, the Wissenschaft des Judentums movement which sought to study Judaism with scholarly methods to both preserve and modernize it. While those involved didn't know it, by rethinking Jews as being a people with secular aspects, too, they were forerunners of Zionism.

The New York Jewish Museum's description of the painting points out two significant factors.

First, he has been wounded in the defense of his country, thus having shed his blood for his country. And he is wearing the Iron Cross, a German medal but also as a cross a symbol of the conflict between his Jewishness and the Christianity of the state he has served.

Second, he has just arrived home by traveling on the Sabbath, thus breaking a major tenet of Jewish law. His family, delighted to have him back alive, doesn't seem to care about that point.

The painting was made in 1834, at a time when anti-Jewish forces were beginning to rise again and seeking to restrict Jewish rights as citizens. It was intended as a pointed reminder of Jewish services and loyalty to Germany, of attempts to assimilate without necessarily losing their distinctive characteristics. It was not making a case for Multiculturalism but rather for pluralism.

At any rate, the project of German Jewish assimilation failed, in part because it was too successful, and German Jewish sacrifices in World War One did not avail them two decades later. Indeed, Adolf Hitler's lieutenant during the war was a Jew, who the Nazi dictator later did spare.

There are, however, two additional ironies related to the painting's story. Napoleon was, in fact, the liberator of the Jews and Prussia was the oppressor. The soldier proved his patriotism while fighting against his real interests. As soon as the Prussians had won, they began restoring discrimination against the Jews.

The second is a story that fascinates me and I think should be emblematic for these issues. It concerns a young man who was the real-life contemporary of the soldier in the painting, Moritz Itzig.

One day in 1811, Itzig's aunt, Sarah Levy, a highly cultured woman with many connections among Christians, held a concert in her home. One of the guests was the wife of Ludwig Achim von Arnim, a 30-year-old Prussian writer. Von Arnim came to pick up his wife and insulted several Jewish guests with antisemitic slurs.

Itzig, then 24 years old, wrote a letter challenging von Arnim to a duel. The aristocrat rejected the challenge, responding with a bunch of signed statements from his peers that since a Jew had no honor he could not be engaged in a duel and adding additional insults.

One afternoon, I tzig came up to von Arnim and beat the larger man with his cane. Von Arnim, who whined for help rather than defending himself, turned over the matter to a court, which ruled that since Itzig had been provoked he was not guilty of any crime. Itzig's family even persuaded some of those who had provided von Arnim with letters to retract them.

When war with Napoleon restarted, Itzig volunteered to fight for Prussia and was killed in 1813. Von Arnim stayed on his estate and did not fight at all. He lived until 1831.

The irony of the patriotic Jew and the cowardly poser who hypocritically impugned the former's noble nature and love of country has been repeated many times. In fact, I can think of some good contemporary examples in another country across the seas from Germany.

Contact Zvi November at tsvinov@gmail.com

A mass exodus of Christians is currently underway. Millions of Christians are being displaced from one end of the Islamic world to the other.

We are reliving the true history of how the Islamic world, much of which prior to the Islamic conquests was almost entirely Christian, came into being.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recently said: "The flight of Christians out of the region is unprecedented and it's increasing year by year." In our lifetime alone "Christians might disappear altogether from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt."

Ongoing reports from the Islamic world certainly support this conclusion: Iraq was the earliest indicator of the fate awaiting Christians once Islamic forces are liberated from the grip of dictators.

In 2003, Iraq's Christian population was at least one million. Today fewer than 400,000 remain—the result of an anti-Christian campaign that began with the U.S. occupation of Iraq, when countless Christian churches were bombed and countless Christians killed, including by crucifixion and beheading.

The 2010 Baghdad church attack, which saw nearly 60 Christian worshippers slaughtered, is the tip of a decade-long iceberg.

Now, as the U.S. supports the jihad on Syria's secular president Assad, the same pattern has come to Syria: entire regions and towns where Christians lived for centuries before Islam came into being have now been emptied, as the opposition targets Christians for kidnapping, plundering, and beheadings, all in compliance with mosque calls telling the populace that it's a "sacred duty" to drive Christians away.

In October 2012 the last Christian in the city of Homs—which had a Christian population of some 80,000 before jihadis came was murdered. One teenage Syrian girl said: "We left because they were trying to kill us because we were Christians. Those who were our neighbors turned against us. At the end, when we ran away, we went through balconies. We did not even dare go out on the street in front of our house."

In Egypt, some 100,000 Christian Copts have fled their homeland soon after the "Arab Spring." In September 2012, the Sinai's small Christian community was attacked and evicted by Al Qaeda linked Muslims, Reuters reported. But even before that, the Coptic Orthodox Church lamented the "repeated incidents of displacement of Copts from their homes, whether by force or threat.

Displacements began in Ameriya [62 Christian families evicted], then they stretched to Dahshur [120 Christian families evicted], and today terror and threats have reached the hearts and souls of our Coptic children in Sinai."

Iraq, Syria, and Egypt are part of the Arab world. But even in "black" African and "white" European nations with Muslim majorities, Christians are fleeing.

In Mali, after a 2012 Islamic coup, as many as 200,000 Christians fled. According to reports, "the church in Mali faces being eradicated," especially in the north "where rebels want to establish an independent Islamist state and drive Christians out there have been house to house searches for Christians who might be in hiding, churches and other Christian property have been looted or destroyed, and people tortured into revealing any Christian relatives." At least one pastor was beheaded.

Even in European Bosnia, Christians are leaving en mass "amid mounting discrimination and Islamization." Only 440,000 Catholics remain in the Balkan nation, half the prewar figure.

Problems cited are typical: "while dozens of mosques were built in the Bosnian capital Sarajevo, no building permissions [permits] were given for Christian churches." "Time is running out as there is a worrisome rise in radicalism," said one authority, who further added that the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina were "persecuted for centuries" after European powers "failed to support them in their struggle against the Ottoman Empire."

And so history repeats itself.

One can go on and on:

• In Ethiopia, after a Christian was accused of desecrating a Koran, thousands of Christians were forced to flee their homes when "Muslim extremists set fire to roughly 50 churches and dozens of Christian homes."

• In the Ivory Coast—where Christians have literally been crucified—Islamic rebels "massacred hundreds and displaced tens of thousands" of Christians.

• In Libya, Islamic rebels forced several Christian religious orders, serving the sick and needy in the country since 1921, to flee.

To anyone following the plight of Christians under Islamic persecution, none of this is surprising. As I document in my new book, "Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians," all around the Islamic world in nations that do not share the same race, language, culture, or economics, in nations that share only Islam Christians are being persecuted into extinction. Such is the true face of extremist Islamic resurgence.

Contact UCI by email at info@uc4i.org or visit their website at http://unitycoalitionforisrael.org

The Freedom Out Post and the Oath Keepers all had anti-Israel and anti-Jewish comments against me when I was running for President. These people who are members of these right-wing Christian groups try to remind Jews that this is a Christian Country and they are openly against Israel and Jews. Adam has the guts to speak up against Jewish Establishment Organization that pretend to be for Jews when they remain silent against the Muslims who are attacking Jewish American and Israeli Students on the College Campus.

These group continue with their Anti-Semitic remarks by insisting that Adam Kokesh has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood like they said I had ties too when I don't. I am against prayer in the school. By being against Prayer any prayer in the schools I am now against Christianity and their Lord who they made into a G-d.

Christians talk about Christian values stating they are Judea-Christians and follow the "Golden Rule". They claim they follow the 10 (ten) Commandments which is only 10 out of the 613 Commandments given to Moses. And these same Christians bare false witness by saying you are going to Hell if you don't believe in Jesus or all the Jews in the world Killed Jesus let's not forget the blood libels that Jews make matzo out of the blood of young Christian children which is still spread today in various Churches such as the Coptic Church who persecuted the Jews in the Islamic Countries and joined them during the Middle East Pogroms.

Many of these same "good" Christians have committed adultery and then go to Church thinking that because they pray they are exempt from their own sins against the "Golden Rule"

According to Ann Coulter, the pious bitch, Christians are on a fast track and all Jews are sinners. This is the type of person who would light the first match during a burning of Jews who refuse to convert during the Spanish Inquisition. Yet these righteous Christians screw with the minds of their own children telling them to take Jesus in their hearts and then point at innocent people like Adam Kokesh, a Jew whose sense of humor is Jewish humor, because he said he might as well convert back to Islam knowing you can't leave Islam without a death sentence over your head. Yet these same people are on a witch hunt to discredit any Jew from running for office because they want a "Good Christian" in office because ALL the Jews Voted for Barack Hussein Obama and because the Jews voted for him it was the Jewish Vote who got him into office. Just like the Blood Libels, just like being blamed for the death of Jesus, Jews again are being blamed for the mere fact that America was asleep with bad government and that these "Good " Christians kept voting into office the same "Good Christians" like James Strom Thurmond who literally died in office with dementia at the age of 100 years old. But he was elected in South Carolina because he was a "Good" G-d fearing Christian who did his best to keep the blacks in South Carolina in their place. Need I say more.

These Oath Keepers and Freedom Outpost organizers worship people like McCarthy and his Communist witch hunt when he stated that all the Jews in Hollywood were Communist and members of the Communist Party without proof. They in fact, if you listen to past Tea Party.Org radio shows with their host Jim (James) Seigfried, kept stating where is McCarthy now when you need him and we need to vote in another McCarthy.

I separated myself from the Tea Party after numerous racial remarks against Jews and this is happening over and over again with these "Good" Christians who believe because a few Jews voted for Obama ALL THE JEWS PUT OBAMA INTO OFFICE and when they see a Jew standing up to them and telling them they are liars like Adam then we become CRAZY and INSANE!

http://leahlaxforisrael.blogspot.com/2013/05/crazy-and-insane.html

Contact Leah Lax at member@linkedin.com

A unique project emphasizes coexistence and religious freedom in Israel.

Israel Apartheid Week (IAW), that takes place in South Africa this year from March 11-17, is an annual series of events in over 250 cities across the world. The professional and well funded activities in support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) include huge, expensive billboards, rallies, lectures, cultural performances, music shows, films and workshops that are superlative examples of the scientific marketing principles practiced by international commercial institutions. Highly skilled, the purveyors of these defamatory products are rapidly churning out offensive propaganda and getting away with it.

The no-expenses-spared nature of the events, and the extensive professional organization involved, are mind-boggling.

It reminds one of the frenetic activities of the recent US election campaign with the difference that IAW is international and occurs every year.

BDS offers people around the world a hard-to-resist opportunity to feel good by enrolling in the global IAW campaign. And to make it easy, it says contact an IAW representative in your city, community or university and if there is no representative there, they will instruct you how to become the local organizer.

Popular music is politicized to mobilize the masses. As part of IAW, the Mavrix Music Band with the "South African Artists Against Apartheid" is launching a new political music album, Amandla Intifada II.

It will even be available for free download, and members of the public are urged to assist in launching the album in their various cities.

Street artists are recruited to join "Paint for Palestine" with "Israeli Apartheid" as the theme. T hey are rewarded by public showing of their photos and videos.

BDS provides eloquent speakers to any person wishing to arrange an event or a protest against a store selling Israeli products and the public is urged to build mock Israeli walls and checkpoints, organize flash mobs, host music concerts, arrange poetry readings, erect posters and distribute flyers.

But this year in Cape Town, opponents of BDS have decided to show another side to the coin. Although totally outmatched by the well-financed and professionally organized BDS movement, these Capetonians have adopted a proactive, imaginative approach with an "Israel Peace Week."

AT THE center of this inspiring initiative is an enormous "Abraham's Tent" on the main plaza of the University of Cape Town campus. There, visitors will enjoy the patriarch's hospitality falafel, pita, Israeli salad, coffee and juices.

Exhibits will emphasize coexistence and religious freedom in Israel with photos of various religions, holy sites etc. (Christian, Bahai, Druse and Muslim) and a history of Israel and the peace process in a media presentation.

Visitors to Abraham's Tent will learn about gender equality and tolerance of homosexuals in Israel and that Tel-Aviv is the gay capital of the Middle East. With Cape Town being South Africa's "Pink City," pro-Palestinian Capetonian gays will have to face the truth that Israel is the only area in the Middle East they could safely visit openly. It's not Israel saying this but a world-wide survey hosted by GayCities.com and American Airlines, that voted overwhelmingly in favor of Tel Aviv, pushing it way ahead of strong contenders New York, Toronto and London "as the world's best gay travel destination."

Should gays cross the borders of Israel to any of its Arab neighbors, only ridicule and persecution would await them. They have only to meet the many Palestinian gays who have found arefuge in Israel. And if gays face persecution under the Palestinian Authority, in Gaza under Hamas it would mean death row.

And in Abraham's Tent visitors will be welcomed to seek refuge from the lies and deceit of the IAW organizers and their minions, as described in one article, "What the BDS organizers should have told us but didn't."

ISRAEL'S ATTACKERS, quick to label the country with the nonsensical and libelous appellation of "apartheid," will be met in Abraham's Tent by five Israeli Ethiopian university students who will expose the apartheid lies.

The students are all from IDC Herzliya, and their trip has been sponsored by the university, the South African Zionist Federation in South Africa, and duly assisted by Truth be Told (TbT), a new group in Israel committed to presenting the truth to the endless false accusations leveled against the Jewish state.

Warned before they left what to expect from a hostile student body in South Africa, these delightful, educated and bold students are more than ready to "tell their stories" and talk about life in Israel. About apartheid, they will be able to speak from experience.

'SURE, WE know about apartheid. We heard all about it from our parents who experienced it not in Israel, but in Ethiopia, where they were treated as second class citizens today in Israel, after our rescue by Israel, we are free."

And if there is any disbelief, the Ethiopian students will ask of the perplexed to give some thought to the question: "Why if Israel is an apartheid state do thousands of black Africans risk life and limb to travel through Egypt and the hazardous Sinai desert to reach it? Why do they not seek refuge in neighboring Egypt?"

Contact Maurice Ostroff at maurice-ostroff@googlegroups.com

Daniel Pipes has taught Islamic history at several universities, runs the Middle East Forum, and founded Campus Watch and Islamist Watch. He finds that the Left has a "death grip" on university political thought. Universities keep hiring anti-Israel faculty [who abuse their power over students to indoctrinate and to spread slander].

Philanthropists who want to endow a chair for a pro-Israel but fact-based professor offer the necessary funds to universities, in good faith. They make their wishes known. The university administration seems to agree. The money passes hands. Then the university uses the funds to hire another professor biased against Israel.

When the donor protests, the university administration explains that it doesn't accept the terms or the donor's direction. It defends its decision as exercise of academic freedom. The money is now the university's to spend at its discretion. Sometimes the university will refund the donation, sometimes not.

This is a widespread problem. Usually philanthropists are advised to shop for a university more carefully, find a supportive faculty member, and define the goals. Dr. Pipes considers this advice problematic. He suggests a new approach.

The new approach is for the donor to find and pay for his own scholar. Then seek a university that would accept the scholar, expenses paid, rather than the money. If the scholar leaves, so does the money [unless the donor finds an acceptable substitute].

Universities having weaker finances may accept this kind of subsidy that reduces their control over hiring.

This approach probably means not donating based on alma mater. It may mean not memorializing oneself permanently. All this requires an awakening by alumni to the Left's control over higher education and organizing a solution.

In order to make this approach work, philanthropists probably must set up a new organization. "That institution will have to oversee the complex process of (1) inspiring, bringing together, and guiding donors, especially generous and prominent ones, in a common purpose, (2) serving as a clearing house to match donors and scholars, (3) finding a suitable university for each team, (4) counseling teams as they negotiate with universities, and (5) monitoring the scholars and notifying donors when they leave a university's employ." The new organization would enable donors to move faster and start tax deductions when they want them. The proposal is not the whole answer to leftist bias at universities, but it is a good start (Daniel Pipes, Philanthropy Daily, 2/12/13 http://www.danielpipes.org/12544/smart-university-giving). The proposal also reduces the funding for leftist and biased professors. Imagine this approach used for Israeli universities, once alumni realize how anti-Israel the social studies faculty are in most universities there!

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 richardshulman5@aol.com.

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE "DOESN'T KNOW" IS SHOCKING!

The White House is responsible for nothing and they don't know about anything going on in their government.

They didn't know about the DOJ's covert seizure of the Associated Press's phone records until Monday.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said in a statement Monday evening that the phone records story was purely a Justice Department affair. White House officials didn't even know about it until they read press accounts Monday afternoon, Carney said.

"Other than press reports, we have no knowledge of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the AP. We are not involved in decisions made in connection with criminal investigations, as those matters are handled independently by the Justice Department," Carney said in a statement given to the press pool travelling along with President Obama on fundraising trips to New York Monday. "Any questions about an ongoing criminal investigation should be directed to the Department of Justice."

The White House also didn't know about the IRS targeting conservatives, people who want limited government or disagree with the government. President Obama didn't know. He found out Friday with the rest of us.

"Let me take the IRS situation first. I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this I think it was on Friday. [He's not even sure if it was Friday. The IRS knew in 2011 and they are an arm of the Executive Branch.]

President Obama didn't know that Benghazi was an al Qaeda attack. He thought it had something to do with a video protest gone awry even though the intelligence community knew it was a terror attack on the night of the attack.

The White House didn't know the Talking Points were changed.

The White House didn't know that terror training camps were sprouting up all around the Benghazi consulate and they didn't know about the 200+ attacks in Libya prior to the 9/11 attack. The White House didn't know about the security requests.

"We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there," Joe Biden said.

Obama didn't know his BFFs Jay-Z and Beyonce were going to Communist Cuba on holiday. He doesn't know how they got the visa to go.

Read More Things They "Didn't Know":
http://www.independentsentinel.com/

Read more: http://MinuteMenNews.com/2013/05/what-the-white-house-doesnt-know-is-shocking/#ixzz2TNtIvNn9

Contact John D. Trudel at mail@trudelgroup.com

Of course a day like today replete with the incoming details of administrative scandals fraught with authoritative overreach and corruption could, for this guy, only end with one possible explanation for all of the complaints about President Obama's governing prowess. When in doubt, revert to that ol' progressive standby: Racism and white supremacy, obviously.

The problem is there are people in this country, maybe ten percent, I don't know what the number, maybe twenty percent on a bad day, who want this president to have an asterisk next to his name in the history books, that he really wasn't president. They want to be able to say, well, he didn't really have that batting average; he really wasn't the first African American president; he really didn't do health care; he really didn't kill bin Laden. There's an asterisk, and they have been fighting for that, the people like Donald Trump, since day one. They can't stand the idea that he's president, and a piece of it is racism. Not that somebody in one racial group doesn't like somebody in another racial group, so what? It's the sense that the white race must rule, that's what racism is, and they can't stand the idea that a man who's not white is president. That is real, that sense of racial superiority and rule is in the hearts of some people in this country. Not all conservatives, not even all right-wingers, but it always comes through with this birther crap and these other references and somehow trying to erase ObamaCare, erase his record in history, and a big part of it is bought into by people like John Boehner, who's not a bad guy, but he knows the only way he can talk to the hard right is talk their language.

Well, that devolved quickly. Firstly, I would merely point out that, no actually, racism isn't merely white supremacists' attitude toward everybody else, and that no category of racism is deserving of a "So what?" dismissal. But, more importantly what the what? From where is he pulling this 'ten-to-twenty percent of Americans are white supremacists' number, and then extrapolating from that the fact that this racist fraction of the American population is somehow the ruling voice of and force behind the entire conservative movement? I'm pretty sure that the mass opposition to the government commandeering of the entire health-care industry stems from fiscal and economic concerns about you know the government commandeering of the entire health-care industry, rather than from the white supremacy curdling inside of these conservatives' hateful hearts. To hear this guy tell it, you'd think that everybody really, really wanted universal healthcare, but they just can't stand that a black man should get the credit for the legislation, or something. Yes, as Chris Matthews says, all of these instances of bureaucratic abuse do indeed help make the conservative case for small government and his rejoinder is that they really just can't get over their racism? Good one.

Contact Errol Phillips by email at ep@pinehurst2.com. Visit his website at www.pitchforkpatriots.com

Successes and Failures of the BDS Campaign

A concerted and well-organized campaign calling for "Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions" (BDS) against the State of Israel has been in effect for several years. In spite of its constant use of belligerent, violent, and deceitful tactics, the BDS movement has very little to show in the way of success regarding sanctions or divestment. However, the cultural boycott is a different story.

• In the academic sphere, while low-level bodies have declared their intention to divest from companies invested in Israel, higher-level and managerial bodies usually reject the idea. This same dynamic is manifested in boycott and divestment attempts by religious bodies.

• The cultural field has proven itself the most successful tier of the boycott movement, when international artists cancel performances in Israel. One reason for bands canceling their scheduled concerts is in order to stop belligerent attacks from BDS operatives. Such attacks vary from bombarding the band's website, Facebook, and Twitter pages to the point that the sites often collapse, to direct threats against the artists personally. Another reason bands cancel their concerts is in order to avoid negative press coverage.

• The counter-effort often adopted by Israelis and Israel-supporters of engaging these operatives and attempting to debate, explain, and hopefully reach some sort of resolution, is usually counter-productive and may achieve the exact opposite effect. Arguing with BDS operatives online merely generates more exposure for their cause.

• What, then, can be done? Counter-BDS efforts need to focus on direct contact with the performers, their producers, agents, or anyone involved in the decision to play in a specific location. In addition, artists should be encouraged to come to Israel a

• And state their opinions, as critical as they may be.

Few Successes on Sanctions or Divestment

A concerted and well-organized campaign calling for "Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions" (BDS) against the State of Israel has been in effect for several years now. The aim of this boycott is to inflict tactical damage to a wide variety of academic, commercial, and cultural interests, as well as strategic damage to Israel by way of constant erosion of its national and international legitimacy.

While the movement's self-defined operations include boycott, divestment, and sanctions, this definition is not an accurate one, since divestment is itself a form of economic boycott and sanctions are an action reserved solely for countries. The title BDS should therefore be regarded as a brand-name rather than a description of the movement's activity.

In spite of its constant use of belligerent, violent, and deceitful tactics, the BDS movement has very little to show in the way of success regarding sanctions or divestment. The cultural boycott, however, has proven the most efficient and effective channel for this campaign, due to several unique characteristics discussed below.

There has been very little success in the way of divestment, although the movement claims to have brought about several such acts. There is no shortage of examples of the movement claiming responsibility for such acts despite the fact that they never actually took place, as well as several so-called acts of divestment that had nothing much to do with pressure exerted by the movement or with political considerations, but were rather the result of simple financial considerations.

An example of this dynamic can be seen in the case of the U.S.-based Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (TIAA-CREF)[1] of 2009, when BDS activists demanded that TIAA-CREF withdraw from investments in an Israeli corporation Africa-Israel.[2] Unfortunately, this call to boycott coincided precisely with Africa-Israel entering a financial crisis and being unable to meet its liabilities to bondholders. Several investors opted to withdraw or discontinue investments while an atmosphere of uncertainty prevailed, among them TIAA-CREF. As BDS-related websites proclaimed victory, TIAA-CREF released a statement saying that it had discontinued its holdings in Africa-Israel due to the company's losses and the fact that it had been removed from the global equity index that TIAA-CREF follows.[3] There was, in fact, no political context whatsoever to this decision, and TIAA-CREF continues to hold stock in other companies on the BDS "blacklist."

The biggest success the movement has to show, one it often publicizes and showcases, is the case of the Veolia divestment. Veolia, a French transport company that was part of the Jerusalem Light Rail Transit (JLRT) master plan team, came under BDS pressure due to their involvement in the project

[4] and were taken to court in 2007 by the Association France Palestine Solidarity, which sought the cancellation of Veolia's involvement in the project. The French court found no breach of law, either French or international, in JLRT or Veolia's involvement therein.

[5]However, in the wake of continued pressure, Veolia did eventually announce that it would pull out altogether from the project (of which it owned 5 percent of the stock). Nevertheless, to date it has yet to do so. Veolia still operates bus lines that run both alongside the Jerusalem Light Railway and in other locations beyond the 1949 Armistice line (the so-called "Green Line"). While the BDS movement declares this a "success," it actually falls short of an ideological agreement on the part of Veolia and appears to be a more expedient matter of the company paying lip-service in order to avoid dealing with continued pressure.

University Efforts at Boycott and Divestment

Several other divestment attempts originated from universities, mostly in the United Kingdom. These can be regarded both as divestment efforts as they were aimed at banning sales of Israeli goods by academic unions and as academic boycotts because they tried to exploit the academic community as a platform for implementing a boycott.

The overwhelming majority of academic boycott or institutional divestment attempts follow the same recurrent dynamic, recognizable since the outset of the current boycott movement in 2004 (PACBI)[6] and through to the latest attempt at the University of Berkeley California, according to the following dynamic: 1. Low-level bodies or unions declare their intention to divest from Israel or from companies invested in Israel. 2. Higher-level and managerial bodies reject the idea.

The 2009 British University and College Union (UCU) divestment attempt is a clear example of this dynamic. At the UCU Congress, a resolution was passed to boycott Israeli academics, academic institutions, and trade unions. But as soon as the resolution had passed, the UCU leadership declared it invalid, after a warning by their own legal advisors that "a boycott of that kind could trigger legal action against the union.'[7] The response to the UCU's boycott activity was, in fact, so adamant that the public debate around it moved from whether or not a boycott is a legitimate tool, to whether the UCU itself is anti-Semitic.

As more and more members resigned from the union, citing anti-Semitism as the reason, the union turned down a motion opposing anti-Semitism[8] and eventually voted to disassociate itself from the EU's working definition of anti-Semitism and adopted instead one that allows for the singling out of Israeli institutions. This move created outrage and generated condemnations from all Jewish organizations, as well as a statement from the British Communities and Local Government Secretary MP Eric Pickles, who stated that the UCU's "actions suggest that their true goal is not, and cannot be, to secure freedom of speech, but to silence dissenting opinion."[9]

BDS Efforts by Religious Bodies

This same dynamic is manifested in boycott and divestment attempts by religious bodies. When the Toronto assembly of the United Church of Canada (UCC) voted to boycott goods produced in Jewish settlements in the territories,[10] the national umbrella UCC declined to support a boycott and instead encouraged "pro-peace investment."

The Presbyterian Church USA also attempted to divest from Israel and Israeli companies, only to achieve the same result as described above. In 2005, the Committee on Mission Responsibility through Investment (MRTI), an important part of the Presbyterian Church hierarchy, called for "voluntary, selective divestment from companies that profit in a significant way from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands."[11] However, before this statement could be voted on by the General Assembly, the church's Committee on Peacemaking and International Issues toned down the rhetoric and replaced it with a general call for the church to invest only in "peaceful pursuits" in Israel and Palestine. The committee also stated that the call to divest "caused hurt and misunderstanding," adding that the church "grieves the pain" and accepts responsibility for the flaws in the process of adopting the divestment decision.[12]

Boycotts by Musical Performers

Where, then, can the BDS movement claim any kind of success?

The cultural field has proven itself the most successful tier of the boycott movement. This type of success is achieved mostly by way of bringing about cancellations of concerts in Israel by international artists, such as Roger Waters, Venessa Paradis, August Burns Red, Pete Seeger, Carlos Santana, Elvis Costello, The Pixies, and many others. Such cancellations have attracted the international exposure and attention that the BDS campaign so desperately seeks. This field enjoys certain inherent advantages over other BDS spheres of operation, as it is based on the artists' popularity, rather than clear cost-benefit and economic considerations.

The relationship between the arts (in this case, predominantly music) and politics has always been a tricky one. Since ancient times, music has served as a method of distribution for political messages and ideologies. It is still used for public mobilization and creating a "rally-round-the-flag" sentiment, which can and often does deteriorate into a mob mentality. Also inherent in the arts is an element of moral criticism and protest, making it the ideal vessel for the BDS slander campaign.

Some musical acts possess an innate political context and there are specific musical genres that can be generally associated with various political ideologies. Other such associations may derive from the content and icons identified with specific artists. The obvious association of Pink Floyd's "The Wall" with Israel's security barrier is a good example, and the endorsement that BDS received from Roger Waters, founding member of Pink Floyd, remains one of their biggest achievements to date.[13]

However, a review of the acts that have performed in Israel, as well as those that have cancelled, shows no correlation between a band's level of politicization and its willingness to play in Israel. Bands associated with radical left-wing ideologies, such as British rockers Napalm Death, have taken to the stage in Israel, whereas artists with little to no political context such as Mexican musician Carlos Santana[14] have canceled scheduled concerts while releasing much-celebrated press announcements claiming ideological and conscientious justification.

Why Bands Really Cancel Concerts in Israel

However on the basis of several interviews this writer conducted with visiting artists, such statements should usually be regarded as nothing more than lip-service. The main reasons for canceling concerts in Israel are generally not empathy for the suffering of Palestinians, ideological convictions, or a will to punish or boycott Israel.

One reason for bands canceling their scheduled concerts after being approached or targeted by BDS campaigners is in order to stop belligerent attacks from BDS operatives. In their attempts to bring about cancellations, these operatives carry out coordinated, simultaneous, and multi-dimensional attacks on the band, its individual members, its record company, its ongoing activities and scheduled concerts, as well as various fan-sites.

Such attacks vary from bombarding the band's website, Facebook, and Twitter pages to the point that the sites often collapse, to direct threats against the artists personally. A good example can be found in the courageous reaction of Angela Gossow, lead singer for the Swedish band Arch Enemy, who, prior to playing in Israel in 2012, was attacked by BDS activists:

If the constant threats, bullying, and slander of Arch Enemy via email and online does not stop immediately, we will publish some of the threats we have received from your supporters, where they claim they will come to some of our shows and threaten to attack us, both verbally and physically. I am making Amnesty International aware of your criminal methods and your breach of freedoms. It is not yours to tell us what to do and to force your will upon us....You make us fear for our safety. SHAME ON YOU.[15]

Another example can be found in the reaction of Christophe Deghelt, manager of jazz musician Jacky Terrasson, who was scheduled to play the Red Sea Jazz Festival earlier this year:

We noticed that Erik and Jacky's Facebook pages were overrun with intimidating comments, not from our fans but from activists. Some of these comments are really obnoxious, rising to the level of sheer harassment and blatant denigration. Facebook has become a battleground for BDS campaigners, our fans, Israelis, and those supporting Israel. Your attempt to railroad artists into a black-and-white dilemma is intellectually dishonest. Your activism and your intolerance are abominable. Phony Facebook "fans" have posted messages expressly asking our musicians not play in Israel. This is sheer harassment. Moreover, it's really quite surprising because these fans purporting to sway the artists are not fans at a' Facebook pages.

What bothers me the most about your effort is your hatred of Israel, a pathological hatred, blind and most assuredly hidden behind a veil of "political correctness." our actions don't demonstrate a love or defense of Palestinians but rather a hatred for Israelis. It's not by advocating violence (both intellectual and verbal) and intolerance that you'll help Palestine.[16]

Another reason bands cancel their concerts is in order to avoid negative press coverage. BDS operatives publicize the scheduled concert in a negative context: Artists booked to play in Israel will immediately be accused of ignoring the suffering of the Palestinians and supporting institutional Israel and its policies sweepingly summed up by the slanderous term "apartheid." his can be seen in the titles of most web pages urging a specific artist to boycott Israel. See, for example, "Moby Please don't play for Apartheid Israel,"[17] or the campaign to cancel Alicia Keys' concert in Israel, titled, "Alicia Keys: Don't be Fallin' for Apartheid, Cancel Israel."[18]

In short, the motive for concert cancellations and the source of BDS success in the field of cultural boycott does not appear to be hostility towards Israel on the part of the artists, but rather concerns due to explicit threats of harm to their persons and/or income.

How Not to Respond to BDS Attacks

Given that it is not ideological empathy that prompts these cancellations but rather practical considerations, the response must be constructed accordingly. Entering into a substantive, content-based debate with a BDS operative is usually an exercise in futility. These operatives do not enter into dialog (be it on online chat forums, Facebook and Twitter pages, picketing venues, or disrupting concerts) for the purpose of discussion. They are not there to be convinced. For the most part such operatives are ignorant of the actual issues between Israel and the Palestinians and incapable of conducting a substantive debate.

The counter-effort often adopted by Israelis and Israel-supporters of engaging these operatives and attempting to debate, explain, and hopefully reach some sort of resolution, is usually counter-productive. While the intention may be to prevent a concert from being cancelled, it actually has the power to achieve the exact opposite. Every post countering a BDS comment will usually be met with multiple talkbacks, mostly based on the BDS "Key Term" check list (apartheid, ethnic cleansing, illegal, racist, etc.)[19] and linked to relevant BDS/anti-Israel websites. The more that comments countering or challenging BDS comments are posted, the further the discussion will deteriorate until it becomes nothing more than a slander-fest. Also, the more talkbacks a comment receives online, the higher the rating that the site/webpage will have and therefore the greater the number of people who see it. Arguing with BDS operatives online merely generates more exposure for their cause and arguments.

This is not to say there is no room for mass online activism by Israel supporters or people disagreeing with the BDS cause and tactics. It simply means that this should be done selectively and cautiously, preferably through a comprehensive campaign empowering and utilizing activists. Any such discussion should not take place in locations virtual or otherwise where the BDS campaigners hold the upper hand.

How to Respond to Attacks Against Performers

There is a need to redefine the objective of counter-BDS efforts, specifically in the field of the cultural boycott. The aim of such efforts should not be simply to claim, explain, or protest that "Israel is right and BDS is wrong." However true this claim may be, it is not one that will win the battle. The aim of such efforts needs to be avoiding cancellation of concerts. A cancelled concert is a BDS victory. Every concert cancelled endangers future concerts, as it puts the burden of proof on the band/artists and requires them to justify and explain why they choose to play where others have chosen not to. Along the same logic, every concert that goes ahead eases future pressure on the next scheduled concert and the next boycott battle.

What, then, can be done?

There is a need for a comprehensive campaign aimed at emphasizing specific values that speak to the heart of the artistic community. This campaign should not be aimed at educating and convincing the public at large, but rather should be tailored to suit the interest of the artistic community and demonstrate how those values are fulfilled in Israel. In order to accomplish this, there is a need for a study identifying these values, determining their priorities, and connecting them to relevant and specific Israeli examples.

Counter-BDS efforts need to focus on direct contact with the performers, their producers, agents, or anyone involved in the decision to play or not to play in a specific location. These efforts should not be carried out by the public at large, but rather by professional policy analysts familiar with BDS operations and methods, who can put BDS slander in perspective and present an unbiased picture of reality. Creative Communities for Peace, a U.S.-based civic action group consisting of pro-Israel media and music industry personnel, is doing something similar to what is suggested here, with mostly positive results. CCFP utilizes personal and professional relations in order to get its message through to the relevant artists or decision-makers.

The truth may not generate a loud and public debate such as the one conducted online by BDS operatives but it stands a greater chance of prevailing when explained directly to someone who is actually willing to listen. There is an impressive cadre of think tanks and research institutions in Israel that have studied BDS activity as part of a greater anti-delegitimization effort. Many of these bodies would gladly put themselves or their personnel at the disposal of such a worthy cause.

Outside of Israel, such a task might perhaps be entrusted to the Israeli Cultural Attache at the embassy closest to the artist's residence. However, it cannot be assumed that artists would be enthusiastic about communicating with official Israeli institutions, especially if they come under BDS attack. In any case, the State of Israel needs to be alert to the problem and the methods of dealing with it, and be willing and able to support, as well as recommend, both official and unofficial advocates on its behalf.

It is inadvisable for Israeli producers and concert promoters to try and tackle this problem by themselves, or even put out a public appeal to Israeli fans to counter-attack the BDS websites or boycott pages. Their time and energy would be better spent consulting with professional analysts, people closely acquainted with the relevant professional discourse and terminology, as well as BDS activities and tactics.

Artists should be encouraged to come to Israel and state their opinions, as critical as they may be. Israel enjoys a free press and freedom of expression, elements that are crucial to the artistic community and that provide them with a dignified and more constructive alternative to boycotting Israel. Many artists have used the performance stage in Israel to release critical political statements, and have received applause for it.

Notes

1. Since this fund serves teachers, this instance could have been addressed both as an academic boycott and a financial one.

2.http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-pension-fund-giant-confirms
-divestment-from-israel-firm-1.8029

3. http://www.tiaa-cref.org/public/about/news/gen0909_185.html

4.http://electronicintifada.net/content/pressure-continues
-veolia-and-alstom-halt-light-rail-project/8665

5. http://www.veolia.com/en/medias/focus-on/jlrt.htm

6. http://pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=868

7.http://www.jta.org/news/article/2009/06/01/1005531/british-
union-votes-to-boycott-israeli-universities-academics

8.http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/ucu-conference-
votes-down-amendment-to-investigate-antisemitism-related
-resignations/

9. http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/51002
/ucus-chilling-vote

10.http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/06/22/qa-united-
church-group on-boycott-of-israel-friendly-companies/

11.http://www.umc.org/site/c.gjJTJbMUIuE/b.886089/k.A105/
Two_United_Methodist_gatherings_urge_selective_divestment_
from_Israel.htm

12. http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=25377

13.http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/we-stand-you
pink-floyds-roger-waters-announces-palestine-solidarity-forum-brazil

14. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3841916,00.html

15. http://www.inminds.co.uk/article.php?id=10530

16. Original in French, translated by Creative Communities for Peace.
http://www.creativecommunityforpeace.com/Articles.asp?AID=188

17.http://youthanormalization.blogspot.co.il/2011/04/bds-moby-
please-dont-play-for-apartheid.html

18.https://www.facebook.com/No.Fallin.For.Apartheid.AliciaKeys?sid =0.7161121948156506

19. http://pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1047

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is the Director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy (ACD) and the Economic Warfare Institute (EWI). She has authored hundreds of articles and several books on terrorist financing and political corruption. Adam Shay who is a senior program coordinator and researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, specializing in battling the cultural boycott. He holds an MA in political science from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is regularly called upon by producers and concert promoters to help battle BDS activists in their attempts to pressure artists into canceling shows in Israel. This article appeared May 16, 2013 in the ACD/EWI and is archived at
http://acdemocracy.org/how-the-arab-boycott-of-israel-works/

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il View this art graphic and others at
http://4batya.blogspot.com/ and http://nowthese.blogspot.com/

Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon has frozen a plan to build a new Palestinian Authority Arab city which would have taken away 2,000 dunams of Israeli land, the Ma'ariv daily reported on Tuesday.

Yaalon's decision came a day after the same newspaper reported that the Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria is working diligently on advanced plans for establishing a new PA city near Jericho.

Ma'ariv reported that Nu'aimah, as the city stands to be called, is intended to house tens of thousands of residents and that Israel will transfer close to 2,000 dunam (500 acres) of land from the Jordan Valley Regional Council to the PA for the ambitious project.

The Civil Administration claimed that the establishment of Nu'aimah will reduce the phenomenon of illegal construction by PA residents.

The move was met with anger by the Yesha Council, which responded to the report by calling it "the theater of the absurd."

"The state of Israel is advancing programs for thousands of dwelling units in Area C [which under Israeli security control] while there are wide sections of Areas A and B [under PA control] where they can be settled and they are stopping the tenders for building for Israeli settlement in Area C," said the Yesha Council.

Following the Ma'ariv report, the Yisrael Sheli (My Israel) movement asked its many supporters to contact Minister Yaalon via Facebook and demand that he halt the plans.

MK Motti Yogev (Bayit Yehudi), who heads a subcommittee of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee which deals with issues pertaining to Judea and Samaria, contacted Yaalon as well, asking for details about the project. According to Ma'ariv, Yaalon told Yogev that upon learning of the plan he ordered that it be immediately stopped.

An Israeli defense official confirmed the details, telling Ma'ariv that the Defense Minister is interested in learning the details of the plan and any consequences that may result from its application, and has asked that it be delayed until he can formulate a position on the issue.

Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon told Arutz Sheva on Monday that he is not aware of the plans for the new city, but said that he does not believe that the PA should be given any rewards so long as terrorism in Judea and Samaria and the PA's incitement continue.

"What are they talking about? Giving a prize to the Palestinians today? I do not understand the logic behind it," he said.

Arutz Sheva's North American Desk is keeping you updated until the start of the Shavuot holiday in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)

Contact Ted Belman at tedbel1@israelpundit.net

The only logical conclusion that can be derived from Stephen Hawking's decision to join the academic boycott of Israel, coupled with his enthusiastic visits to Iran and China, is that he actively endorses and supports the repression practiced by the Iranian mullahs and the Chinese party bosses. Why else would he single out the world's only Jewish state for his academic boycott?

Prior to the cancelation of his academic talk in Israel, it might have been argued that his visits to Iran and China reflected not support for the regimes but rather a neutral approach to academics, or a refusal to participate in academic boycotts. No longer can this justification work. The only possible justification for distinguishing between Israel on the one hand and Iran and China on the other hand would be if Israel's actions were worse than those of Iran and China. Only a knave or a fool would believe that to be so. Israel's academies are among the most open, diverse and free in the world. Israeli universities have affirmative action programs for Palestinians and other minorities. Political dissenters receive tenure and thrive at Israeli universities.

The very concept of an Iranian university is an oxymoron. There are no free and open places of learning in that repressive theocracy. Dissenters are not given tenure; they are murdered, after first being tortured. Blasphemy, which is broadly defined, is punished. Gays are not only excluded from Iranian universities, but are imprisoned and killed. Women are oppressed. Baha'is are persecuted and killed. There is no freedom in Iran a country that is seeking to develop nuclear weapons so that they can wipe the State of Israel off the map.

Yet Iran is a country that Stephen Hawking visited. He did not boycott that Islamic country. He limited his boycott to the democratic nation state of the Jewish people.

Not only did Steven Hawking visit China, he praised it effusively. Although Chinese universities are considerably better than Iran's, there is no real freedom to criticize the government or the Communist party. The people who brought us Tiananmen Square still hold positions of authority in China. Dissidents are persecuted. There is no semblance of fair trial. Censorship reigns.

Yet Stephen Hawking did not boycott China. He boycotted only Israel the only country of these three with real academic freedom and the only country where people with disabilities are fully-integrated, first-class citizens of society. In China, many disabled children are aborted due to the country's one-child policy. In Iran many disabled people are kept hidden within families because of prevalent cultural taboos.

Israeli universities have an unmatched record of developing devices that assist people with disabilities in their daily tasks. Ironically, Israeli universities have developed the very microchips that allow people suffering from motor neurone disease, like Stephen Hawking, to communicate. I do not know why Hawking, whose intellectual accomplishments are beyond reproach, uses these devices now to call for the boycott of the very country that enables to him to communicate in the first place. But we have long ago learned that people who are brilliant in some areas may be utter fools in other areas.

The burden is now on Steven Hawking to justify on the face of what looks like a double standard, hypocrisy and bigotry. If Israel were not the nation state of the Jewish people, I do not believe Hawking would participate in a boycott against it. Has he stood up for the right of the Chechnyas against Russia? Has he championed the rights of the Armenians against Turkey? Did he protest America's policies in Afghanistan when he accepted the Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama? Was he on the forefront of opposing Britain's repressive actions against those seeking independence for Ireland? I do not remember hearing his voice when genocides were being committed in Rwanda, Darfur, and Cambodia. But now suddenly, having accepted an invitation to participate in an academic conference sponsored by the peace-loving President of Israel, Shimon Peres, Hawking has become the most famous and visible face of an academic boycott directed at the Middle East's only democracy and only country where academic freedom prevails.

Nor can Hawking's argue that his joining of the academic and cultural boycott against Israel is simply a demonstration of his disapproval of Israel's presence in the West Bank. The boycott movement that he joined opposes the very existence of the state of Israel and applies only to Jewish citizens of Israel, not to its Arab citizens.

J'accuse Stephen Hawking of bigotry. Let him defend his actions in the court of public opinion. I don't think he will be able to.

I don't know whether Hawking is a fool or a knave. Perhaps he is simply an ignoramus who didn't bother to learn the fact at first hand and simply followed the bigoted British academic crowd in lemming like fashion. Let him explain. Let him try to justify but do not allow him to remain silent in the face of these serious accusations of double standard, hypocrisy and bigotry.

For shame Stephen Hawking. History will not remember you kindly for your foolish foray into the oldest of bigotries.

Contact Udi Schayat at udischayat2yahoo.com

There exists in the Middle East a basic willingness to use WMD against civilians with no hesitancy involved and with full Islamic religious justification. The US and the EU are trying to find a diplomatic solution to a problem that does not have one. It is Iran that must be struck. If it is, the other players will get the message. There is nothing to fear from an Iranian military retaliation so long as Iran does not have an atomic bomb. Once it does, it will be too late.

Political scientists and orientalists in the West who think that the nuclearization of the Middle East is containable, and not an existential threat to them, are making a serious mistake. These political scientists seem to think Iran's nuclear weapons, Pakistan's bomb and Syria's chemical arsenal are just local problems. Most of these scholars do not speak Arabic and do not understand the Middle Eastern mindset: they deeply wish to believe it is a mirror image of how they think.

It is not. Had Hitler possessed weapons of mass destruction, does anyone doubt that he would have used them against the Russians and Americans? In north Yemen in 1967, Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser sprayed poison gas on civilians; in Halabja in 1988, Iraq's Saddam Hussein sprayed poison gas including mustard gas and sarin on his Kurds, and now Bashar Assad is pouring chemical weapons on his fellow Syrians.

The use of weapons of mass destruction by leaders in the Middle East against their own people is an indication of just how light the trigger finger is of many tribal leaders and religious fanatics running wild in that region. There exists in the Middle East a basic willingness to use WMD, whether chemical or nuclear, against civilians with no hesitancy involved and with full Islamic religious justification.

If the extremists in Iran, the Hezbollah or the mujahideen of the global jihad get their hands on nuclear or chemical weapons, the world will immediately become a very difference place. Unfortunately, a substantial proportion of the so-called "free Syrian army" is cast in the same radical Islamic mold as Al-Qaeda and the Al-Nusra Front. If the West provides the anti-Assad forces with advanced weaponry, or intervenes to collapse the Assad regime, it is entirely possible that fanatic Islamists will take control of Syria the same scenario the Americans have already seen played out in Afghanistan and Egypt.

America, which withdrew from the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan abandoning the people there to the mercy of merciless extremists racked up painful statistics on the loss of American soldiers' lives, the loss of military equipment and a mounting economic damage that threatens domestic stability. Since then, the world, as it did after the Second World War, has been aligning itself into two camps, one represented by the enlightened, if faltering, West, and the other by the forces of reaction and repression: namely North Korea, Russia, China, and Iran along with its satellites, Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas in addition to countries and terrorist organizations spread throughout the African continent.

In this divided world, the leaders of the United States, who are also the leaders of the free world, have been standing at the sidelines, looking on, apparently not wanting to put their hands into the dirt. Historically, such a stand is seen by countries you would not want to live in as an invitation to take over all abandoned ground.

The Arabs, as usual, whose brothers are being massacred in Syria, will wait on the sidelines until someone has taken out Assad for them; as far as they are concerned, the best candidate for this job is America. The leaders of the Arab states excel in taking no action whatsoever while repeating empty slogans the most common of which is, "The Liberation of Palestine" while at the same time either ignoring the Palestinians or treating them like trash.

The wealthy Arab states, at most, are willing to fund jihad missions, including suicide bombings carried out by unfortunate, brainwashed Islamists whom they send, as part of the global jihad, to blow themselves up along with innocent Arabs and Westerners.

This sorry fact recently came up in a class action lawsuit against the Arab Bank: at the request of various Arab countries, the Bank both financed suicide terrorist attacks, then paid reparations to the families of the suicide bombers.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar self-righteously proclaim they oppose terrorism and hold media-covered seminars for de-radicalization while funding madrasas [Muslim religious schools] in which children and impressionable adults are pumped full of radical Islamic ideology. They build "Cultural Centers" throughout Europe while sending emissaries of the da'wah [Muslim outreach] to incite terrorist operatives to commit acts of violence around the globe.

The hypocrisy and duplicity of the Arab-Muslim world is staggering. Last month, the Prime Minister of Qatar and Arab League representatives met with American Secretary of State John Kerry to present a revised version of the 2002 Arab League Israeli-Palestinian peace plan. To look as if they were moving their peace initiative forward, they included "the (possibility) of comparable and mutual agreed minor swap of the land" (two percent) to allow for the Israeli retention of blocks of settlements while the flow of funds from Qatar to the terrorist organization, Hamas, continued uninterrupted, and still does.

As Hamas, since its inception, has not only rejected any agreement with Israel, but also flatly stated its refusal to accept the right of Israel to exist, the head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, Ismail Haniya, not only immediately rejected the Arab League's proposal, he reemphasized Hamas's demand for the destruction of Israel and the establishment on its ruins of an Islamic Palestinian state. Shortly after that, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal repeated the same intent, that Israel should be obliterated.

Qatar not only inundates Hamas with millions of dollars, it also produces Al-Jazeera TV which daily broadcasts from Qatar programs in Arabic such as "The Right that Refuses to be Forgotten," that perpetuate and immortalize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and incite the Palestinians to reject any possible arrangement other than the total destruction of the Israeli state.

While tension between the United States and Russia makes direct American action in Syria problematic, the Arab countries do not have that predicament. As the primary concern of Arab leaders is self-preservation, no Arab leader is prepared to take the risk of directly confronting the Syrian regime and personally backing up his empty talk.

As for Russia, the request by American President Obama that President Vladimir Putin help arm the Syrian rebels sounded nothing short of surreal: Does Obama really expect the Russian fox to guard the Syrian chicken coop and collaborate with him against Russia's interest which is assuring the survival of the Assad regime and keeping the price of oil as high as possible? Diplomatic meetings have borne no fruit; when John Kerry sat down with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, evidently the best they could come up with was to agree not to agree.

Without a doubt Obama's discomfort is great: he is trying, with European cooperation, to find a diplomatic solution for a problem that does not have one. It can only end with the death or exile of Bashar Assad. Worse, just as the Taliban in Afghanistan made use of American support to overcome the Russians, the "free Syrian army," composed as it is of operatives from the Al-Nusra Front and Al-Qaeda, once it takes over the country will do just the same. This is not a straightforward black-hat-white-hat American Western in which good triumphs in the end, but a devious, intrigue-ridden, back-stabbing Middle Eastern affair.

The duplicity of the Arab leaders was also seen early in May after the Israelis bombed an Iranian arms convoy on its way from Syria to Lebanon to supply Hezbollah. The Israelis apparently also bombed military targets of the Assad regime. While Israel refuses to comment, it is clear that the attack also served the anti-Assad rebels. But while the American President justified the action, two-faced Arab leaders were quick to condemn it, and fell back on the claim that Israel had violated Syrian sovereignty, as though this were a problem that kept them up night.

Without a doubt, the joint maneuvers held by 41 countries, led by the United States and Britain, in the Persian Gulf as well as the gradual detente between Israel and Turkey and the recent Israeli air attack in Syria not only send a message to Syria, but also to Iran, which is currently putting the finishing touches on a nuclear device that will threaten every Arab and European within striking distance. If Iran has nuclear-tipped missiles pointing at every capital of Europe, it would not even need to launch them: the threat alone would be enough. All one has to do is look at Europe's refusal to declare Hezbollah a terrorist group — despite its attacks for fear of inviting even more attacks.

Nevertheless, an American decision to provide the Syrian rebels with weapons is a gun the Americans would be using to shoot themselves in both feet. It is Iran that must be struck. If it is, the other players will get the message. Once Iran has been revealed as vulnerable, the arrogance of Hamas, Hezbollah, and even North Korea will wither. The leaders of the Middle East will lower their tone, say thank you nicely, and the sheriff will return to the conflicted Middle Eastern town stronger and more admired.

America does not even need to send troops on the ground, just exploit its air superiority to strike deep at the heart of Iran's nuclear project and the rule of the Ayatollahs. There is nothing to fear from an Iranian military retaliation so long as Iran does not have an atomic bomb. Once it does, it will be too late.

Contact Israel-Politics2 at israel_politics2@yahoogroups.com

The lost history of Christians forced to convert to Islam or die is reemerging, figuratively and literally. According to the BBC: "Pope Francis has proclaimed the first saints of his pontificate in a ceremony [last Sunday] at the Vatican a list which includes 800 victims of an atrocity carried out by Ottoman soldiers in 1480. They were beheaded in the southern Italian town of Otranto after refusing to convert to Islam."

The BBC adds in a sidebar: "The 'Martyrs of Otranto' were 813 Italians beheaded for defying demands by Turkish invaders to renounce Christianity. The Turks had been sent by Mohammed II, who had already captured the 'second Rome' of Constantinople."

Historical texts throughout the centuries are filled with similar anecdotes, including the "60 Martyrs of Gaza," Christian soldiers who were executed for refusing Islam during the 7th century Islamic invasion of Jerusalem. Seven centuries later, during the Islamic invasion of Georgia, Christians refusing to convert were forced into their church and set on fire. Witnesses for Christ lists 200 anecdotes of Christians killed including some burned at the stake, thrown on iron spikes, dismembered, stoned, stabbed, shot at, drowned, pummeled to death, impaled and crucified for refusing to embrace Islam.

If history is shocking, the fact is, today, Christians—men, women, and children are still being forced to convert to Islam. Pope Francis alluded to their sufferings during the same ceremony: "As we venerate the martyrs of Otranto, let us ask God to sustain those many Christians who, in these times and in many parts of the world, right now, still suffer violence, and give them the courage and fidelity to respond to evil with good."

Consider some recent anecdotes:

In Pakistan, a "devoted Christian" was butchered by Muslim men "with multiple axe blows [24 per autopsy] for refusing to convert to Islam." Another two Christian men returning from church were accosted by six Muslims who tried to force them to convert to Islam, but "the two refused to renounce Christianity." Accordingly, the Muslims severely beat them, yelling they must either convert "or be prepared to die the two Christians fell unconscious, and the young Muslim men left assuming they had killed them."

In Bangladesh some 300 Christian children were abducted in 2012 and sold to Islamic schools, where "imams force them to abjure Christianity." The children are then instructed in Islam and beaten. After full indoctrination they are asked if they are "ready to give their lives for Islam," presumably by becoming jihadi suicide-bombers. (Even here the historic patterns are undeniable: for centuries, Christian children were forcibly taken, converted to and indoctrinated in Islam, trained to be jihadis extraordinaire, and then unleashed on their former Christian families. Such were the Janissaries and Mamelukes.)

In Palestine in 2012, Christians in Gaza protested over the "kidnappings and forced conversions of some former believers to Islam." The ever-dwindling Christian community banged on a church bellwhile chanting, "With our spirit, with our blood we will sacrifice ourselves for you, Jesus."

Just as happened throughout history, Muslims today regularly "invite" Christians to Islam, often presenting it as the only cure to their sufferings sufferings caused by Muslims in the first place.

In Pakistan, a Christian couple was arrested on a false charge and severely beaten by police. The pregnant wife was "punched, kicked and beat" as her interrogators threatened to kill her unborn baby. A policeman offered to drop the theft charge if the husband would only "renounce Christianity and convert to Islam," but the man refused.

In Uzbekistan, a 26-year-old Christian woman, partially paralyzed from youth, and her elderly mother were violently attacked by invaders who ransacked their home, confiscating "icons, Bibles, religious calendars, and prayer books." At the police department, the paralyzed woman was "offered to convert to Islam." She refused, and the judge "decided that the women had resisted police and had stored the banned religious literature at home and conducted missionary activities. He fined them 20 minimum monthly wages each."

In Sudan, Muslims kidnapped a 15-year-old Christian girl; they raped, beat and ordered her to convert to Islam. When her mother went to police to open a case, the Muslim officer of the so-called "Family and Child Protection Unit," told her: "You must convert to Islam if you want your daughter back."

Indeed, because Christian females are the most vulnerable segments of Islamic societies, they are especially targeted for forced conversions. In 2012, U.S. Congress heard testimony about the "escalating abduction, coerced conversion and forced marriage of Coptic Christian women and girls [550 cases in the last five years alone]. Those women are being terrorized and, consequently, marginalized, in the formation of the new Egypt."

As my new book Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians documents, wherever there are large numbers of Muslims—whether in the Arab World, Africa, Asia, or even in the West Christians are being persecuted. Forced conversions are the tip of the iceberg, and certainly not anomalies of history.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Middle East and Islam specialist and author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007). His writings have appeared in a variety of media, including the Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst, Middle East Quarterly, World Almanac of Islamism, and Chronicle of Higher Education; he has appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, C-SPAN, PBS, Reuters, Al-Jazeera, NPR, Blaze TV, and CBN. Ibrahim regularly speaks publicly, briefs governmental agencies, provides expert testimony for Islam-related lawsuits, and testifies before Congress. He is a Shillman Fellow, David Horowitz Freedom Center; a CBN News contributor; a Media Fellow, Hoover Institution (2013); and a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow, Middle East Forum. This article appeared May 16, 2013 in the Blaze and is archived at http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/islamic-forced-conversions-past-and-present/

Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) went on the Hugh Hewitt Show tonight and dropped this bombshell. The Holder-Obama Justice Department seized the phone records of the Capitol.

HH: The idea that this might be a Geithner-Axelrod plan, and by that, the sort of intimation, Henry II style, will no one rid me of this turbulent priest, will no one rid me of these turbulent Tea Parties, that might have just been a hint, a shift of an eyebrow, a change in the tone of voice. That's going to take a long time to get to. I don't trust the Department of Justice on this. Do you, Congressman Nunes?

DN: No, I absolutely do not, especially after this wiretapping incident, essentially, of the House of Representative. I don't think people are focusing on the right thing when they talk about going after the AP reporters. The big problem that I see is that they actually tapped right where I'm sitting right now, the Cloak Room.

HH: Wait a minute, this is news to me.

DN: The Cloak Room in the House of Representatives.

HH: I have no idea what you're talking about.

DN: So when they went after the AP reporters, right? Went after all of their phone records, they went after the phone records, including right up here in the House Gallery, right up from where I'm sitting right now. So you have a real separation of powers issue that did this really rise to the level that you would have to get phone records that would, that would most likely include members of Congress, because as you know...

HH: Wow.

The cloakrooms serve as a place for members to socialize, eat, and take naps without leaving the building. These rooms are closed to all except for Senators and Representatives, and a few of their trusted staffers, and even have their own phone numbers.

UPDATE: House staffers wrote to clarify that Rep. Nunes meant the Capitol and not the cloakrooms. He was explaining that those records would reveal a lot of conversations between the press and members of Congress, since reporters often speak to Members from the press gallery phones.

Professor Mordechai Kedar: An Open Letter to the Arab League

The article below was written by Dr. Modechai Kedar who is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University. He served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. Thoroughly familiar with Arab media in real time, he is frequently interviewed on the various news programs in Israel. This article appeared May 21, 2013 in the Arutz Sheva and is archived at
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/13322#.VjfPB7yVsWN

To the Honorable Leaders of the Arab States,

We in Israel received with great pleasure your agreement to normalize relations with Israel on condition that we agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state and exchanges of territories between that state and Israel. The Palestinian state that you propose to establish in Judea and Samaria would be the second Palestinian state, since the first Palestinian state was established six years ago in the Gaza Strip, and you clearly recognize it as such in practice.

How else can the state visits of the Emir of Qatar and the secretary of the Arab League in Gaza be understood? Now you propose the establishment of a second Palestinian state? Perhaps a third!! Because Jordan is also a state with a Palestinian majority. And all of these states were established as you know on land that the League of Nations had designated for a Jewish state at the San Remo Conference, in April of 1920.

So why should we agree to exchange territories with any state or states that have been established or will be established on our land?

And if indeed a second Palestinian state will arise in Judea and Samaria (that which you call "the West Bank") can you promise us that this state will not at some time in the future become another Hamas state? Do you not recall that Hamas won a clear majority of the seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council in January 2006? Did you not see how Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip with bombs, fire and kalashnikovs in June of 2007? Will you send a military force to get rid of Hamas after this terror organization also takes over by means of elections or revolution the new Palestinian state as well? Or perhaps you will leave us bleeding as a result of the problem that you have created?

We in Israel are very touched by the fact that you, as an Arab collective, not as individual states that have made a peace agreement with us, finally agree to accept us as an existing state in the Middle East. Indeed, it has taken you 65 years to understand that we are here, on the land of our fathers, that we have come back to stay in our land forever and ever until eternity.

But why do you call to displant Jerusalem, the historical capital of the Jewish people, from the Jewish state? Was Jerusalem ever a capital of something connected to the Arab world or Islam? Throughout all of history, did an Emir, Sultan Caliph or Arab or Islamic King rule in it even for one day? Do you not remember that since the Islamic conquest in 637, the capital of "Jund Filastin" (the region of Palestine) was called Ramle? Then why has Jerusalem suddenly emerged as a candidate for capital of the second Palestinian state? Just because it is our capital?

Just to remind you: Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria were under Jordanian occupation for 7000 days, from May of 1948 until June of 1967. You had 7000 golden opportunities to establish a Palestinian state on this territory with Jerusalem as its capital. Why didn't you do it? Why did you think of it only after the Jewish people liberated the territory from the Jordanian occupation whose legality even you, the Arab League, never recognized? What did you know all those years about "the rights of the Palestinian people" that you don't know today? And why is Israeli "occupation" worse than Jordanian occupation?

Just imagine that we had made a peace agreement with Assad's Syria. Would the Saudi Arabian jihadists, followers of al-Qaeda who want to eliminate Assad, honor the peace agreement that he signed with the Zionists?

And what about the Palestinians in Jordan if they rise up and overthrow the royal house that the British imported from Saudi Arabia, are you sure that they would honor the agreement that that royal house signed with us over the Palestinians' objections?

Are you willing to assure us that the Muslim Brotherhood, which has taken over Egypt, will always honor the peace agreement with Israel after all the years that they said that they would cancel it when they could?

Just to remind you, Israel has had agreements of mutual recognition on different levels with Qatar, the United Emirates and Tunisia. Why did they cancel these agreements and close the Israeli diplomatic missions? Is this what your signature is worth?

And in general, why should we, the citizens of Israel, believe you? Is your promise worth anything? Does the Arab League indeed function as a relevant and effective body?

In the covenant of the Arab League, which all of the Arab states have signed, there are articles that state principles of behavior among yourselves, but you behave in the totally opposite way!! Article 5 prohibits your states from using force against each other. Were there not wars between Egypt and Libya? Between Egypt and Sudan? Between Saudi Arabia and Yemen? Between Iraq and Kuwait? Between Syria and Iraq?

And while we're on the subject of Syria and Iraq, Article 6 of the League's covenant states that if a foreign state attacks an Arab state, the League must take measures against this attacker. What did you do when your brother, Saddam Hussein, was attacked in 2003 by foreign states? Not only did you not help him but you joined the attackers!!! So can anyone trust you?

And when Syria occupied Lebanon what did you do? And in August 1976, when Syria slaughtered Palestinians in the Tel al-Za'atar refugee camp in Lebanon, what did you do? and when Kuwait eliminated many thousands of Palestinians after it was liberated from Iraqi occupation, what did you do to your Palestinian brothers?

And what did you do in order to solve not perpetuate the problem of your brothers, the "Palestinian refugees" since 1948? Why have you not allowed those "refugees", who originally came to Israel from your countries before 1948, to return to their homes in your countries after they fled the wars that you started?

And when Qadaffi slaughtered 50,000 of his citizens, what did you do as an Arab collective besides calling on Europe to do your work for you, to rescue Arabs from the knife of the Arab butcher! When 'Ali abdAlla Salah, the former dictator of Yemen, slaughtered his citizens what did you do? And during the past two years, while your brother Bashar Assad, has been slaughtering 80,000 of his citizens, where have you been?

If this is the way you behave, allowing so very many thousands of Arabs, your brothers, to suffer and be killed in vain, only because they want to live the normative lifestyle of a human being, then why should we, citizens of Israel, think that you would care at all about us? Would you come to our aid if one of your countries decided to attack us?

The way you relate to one another is so terrible that we are not sure that we want anything to do with you. Can an Arab travel to another Arab state without a visa? How does any Arab state treat foreign workers who come from other Arab states?

And why do the Egyptians kill Sudanese living in Egypt when they demonstrate against the humiliating way they are treated by their Egyptian brothers? And what did the Iraqis do to the Palestinians who were in Iraq until 2003? Did they not persecute them and chase them with knives into refugee camps of Rawishad on the Iraqi-Jordanian border and al-Kaaam on the border of Iraq and Syria?

And why have Arab citizens of Lebanon been slaughtering Arab citizens of Syria for the past year? Only because the killers are Shi'ites and the victims are Sunnis? And why does Saudi Arabia send criminals to Syria in order to slaughter Assad's soldiers, who only wanted to slaughter Syrian citizens?

And why does the Sudanese government slaughter its citizens in Darfur? Is this any way for a nation that proposes peace to the citizens of Israel to behave?

And what has the Arab League ever done in order to bring a little calm to the Arab nation? Why do people say that the Arab League is like a frozen body in a morgue, that no one has the courage to declare as dead?

And even if we assume that there will be peace between us and all of the Arab states, what will that give us? Will you be able to buy our products? Do you think that we will allow tourists from your countries to visit us freely? We tried this in the nineties, when hordes of tourists came from Jordan, and more than a hundred thousand of them "disappeared" into Israel. We have learned the lesson, and many years will pass until we'll want to see your tourists in Israel again.

But the most important thing is the fact that despite the terrible Holocaust, in which the Palestinian Mufti your brother, Hajj Amin al-Husseini took an active part, and despite the wars and the terror between the wars that you have imposed upon us, we have established a democratic and developed country, and we have proven to the whole world that we need you, our dear neighbors, about as much as we need a headache.

We have managed very well without you, and according to all the signs, we will continue to manage not at all poorly without you. You have nothing to offer us besides the poverty, unemployment, corruption, backwardness, violence and neglect that characterizes your societies and countries. Believe us, nothing, absolutely nothing, makes us want to connect ourselves with you. Do you want peace with us? We're willing but what do you offer us in return? What will you give to us in exchange for our agreement to get into the same picture frame with you and to sit around the same table with you?

Peace with you will come only after we see that you really want peace. As long as you encourage and arm terror organizations who act against us, incite against us in your media, erase the state of Israel from the geography books in your schools and act against us in international arenas, why should we believe that you indeed want peace?

A peace agreement should be a recognition of actual peace in the field, for one important reason: when we see how you act among yourselves, no one in Israel believes one word of yours, because you have no idea what peace is. If you want peace with us, show us that you have some concept of meaning of the term "peace". Begin with making peace within your countries, continue with peace between your countries and then perhaps we will believe that you know what peace is.

And if anyone thinks that our requirement is absurd, because there will never be peace in the Arab world, this is the proof that we are right. There is a saying in Arabic "Faqd a-Shay la y'atiha" "He who has nothing, cannot give to someone else." How can a nation that has no notion of peace, give peace to others?

In conclusion, dear neighbors, we citizens of Israel want very much to live in Peace, in a region of peace where you and we enjoy it together. But we do not think that there is any point in signing an agreement with someone who is here today and is in a grave tomorrow, and whose successors won't honor his signature.

When the Middle East becomes a region of peace, give us a call, perhaps we will join the peace that you have created in the Middle East. Until then, please leave us alone.

Contact Dzubow at roberta731@comcast.net

I participated in the Dialogue for Peace Project for young Israelis and Palestinians who are politically involved in various frameworks. The project's objective was to identify tomorrow's leaders and bring them closer today, with the aim of bringing peace at some future time.

The project involved meetings every few weeks and a concluding seminar in Turkey.

On the third day of the seminar after we had become acquainted, had removed barriers, and split helpings of rachat Lukum [a halva-like almond Arab delicacy] as though there was never a partition wall between us, we began to touch upon many subjects which were painful for both sides. The Palestinians spoke of roadblocks and the IDF soldiers in the territories, while the Israeli side spoke of constant fear, murderous terrorist attacks, and rockets from Gaza.

The Israeli side, which included representatives from right and left, tried to understand the Palestinians' vision of the end of the strife "Let's talk business." The Israelis delved to understand how we can end the age-old, painful conflict. What red lines are they willing to be flexible on? What resolution will satisfy their aspirations? Where do they envision the future borders of the Palestinian State which they so crave?

We were shocked to discover that not a single one of them spoke of a Palestinian State, or to be more precise, of a two-state solution.

They spoke of one state their state. They spoke of ruling Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Akko, Haifa, and the pain of the Nakba [lit. the tragedy the establishment of the State of Israel]. There was no future for them. Only the past. "There is no legitimacy for Jews to live next to us" this was their main message. "First, let them pay for what they perpetrated."

In the course of a dialogue which escalated to shouts, the Palestinians asked us not to refer to suicide bombers as "terrorists" because they don't consider them so. "So how do you call someone who dons a vest and blows himself up in a Tel Aviv shopping mall with the stated purpose of killing innocent civilians," I asked one of the participants.

"I have a 4-year-old at home," answered Samach from Abu Dis (near Jerusalem). "If God forbid something should happen to him, I will go and burn an entire Israeli city, if I can." All the other Palestinian participants nodded their heads in agreement to his harsh words.

"Three weeks ago, we gave birth to a son," answered Amichai, a religious, Jewish student from Jerusalem. "If God forbid something should happen to him, I would find no comfort whatsoever in deaths of more people."

Israelis from the full gamut of political parties participated in the seminar: Likud, Labor, Kadima, Meretz, and Hadash (combined Jewish/Arab socialist party). All of them reached the understanding that the beautiful scenarios of Israeli-Palestinian peace that they had formulated for themselves simply don't correspond with reality. It's just that most Israelis don't have the opportunity to sit and really converse with Palestinians, to hear what they really think.

Our feed of information comes from Abu Mazen's declarations to the international press, which he consistently contradicts when he is interviewed by Al Jazeera, where he paints a completely different picture.

I arrived at the seminar with high hopes, and I return home with difficult feelings and despair. Something about the narrative of the two sides is different from the core. How can we return to the negotiating table when the Israeli side speaks of two states and the Palestinian side speaks of liberating Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea? How can peace ever take root in a platform which grants legitimacy to terrorism?

This is not the first time a group of Israelis who pine for peace have met with their liberal Arab counterparts only to find that they have no counterparts at all.

Contact GWY123 at GWY123@aol.com

So, the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups (or, more precisely, groups displaying a bit too much gusto for limited government) was far more widespread than its initial apology would have led Americans to imagine.

Yes, it is disturbing a dangerous abuse of power, no doubt. What's more disturbing or should be, at least is the fact that the IRS has the capacity to undermine free speech in the first place. Despite President Barack Obama's assurances, there are no safeguards that can be put into place to stop abuses of power.

The IRS doesn't just collect taxes. It also enforces speech codes. Americans assembling to gripe about Washington should not have to petition Washington for the right to do so. Yet Democrats (and Republicans such as John McCain) have, for a long time, advocated deputizing the IRS with deep and wide-ranging powers over free speech.

Some liberals have argued that it's reasonable for the IRS to pay special attention to the flood of tea party groups asking for 501(c)(4) applications (even though similarly motivated left-wing groups experienced little problems doing the same). In a 2012 editorial, in fact, The New York Times' editorial board praised the IRS for targeting tea party groups because they did not "primarily" engage in "social welfare," the designation used to merit tax exemption under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code.

I suppose I would argue that any organization advocating unfettered free markets is advocating social welfare. Somehow I assume The New York Times has other ideas about the world. The real mystery is why the IRS should have any opinion on the matter at all.

Washington already knows that the 501(c) designations are a joke, as those involved rhetorically tiptoe around any exceptionally partisan phrases. But to engage in a concerted political effort doesn't pivot on the need for direct communication when, intuitively speaking, everyone knows what to do.

Example: It's not as if the Obama administration sends The New York Times' editorial board talking points, yet The New York Times' editorial board always seems to get it just right.

Why have so many on the left been defensive? Well, politics, of course. But there are other reasons. Just listen to the left treat tax-exempt status as a privilege bestowed by government. Taxes have morphed from a societal obligation into moral code. And our convoluted tax structure reflects this mindset, allowing politicians to favor trade and offer populist giveaways to solidify political power. Any simplification or flattening of that code would strip Washington of its most effective tool.

Any attack on the credibility of the IRS matters because soon enough, it will be forcing us to buy things, as well as regulating speech. Obamacare's unprecedented expansion tasks the IRS as dispenser of the "penalty" coercing Americans to partake in a collective health insurance scheme and discerning the intent of more than 40 new taxes, to boot. This will be handled by the same fine organization that was recently hit with a class action suit alleging it improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10 million Americans some 60 million medical records, including psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment data.

Yes, reasonable people understand that government isn't systematically trying to find out what they had for breakfast or what they watch on TV. That would be as paranoid as believing that the National Rifle Association and the Koch brothers have the power to control millions of voters. But rational people understand that abuse happens. If you're worried about the government's invading your privacy, there is no agency with more means to do it than the IRS.

So though this is a fine time to push the politics of scandal because occasionally, politics is substantive it would be more constructive for the GOP to push for tax and IRS reform.

Contact Daily Events at HumanEventsDaily@email.humanevents.com

The NYTimes ran a piece yesterday in which it directly quoted a "senior Israeli official" — who according to the JPost had contacted the Times (emphasis added):

"Israel is determined to continue to prevent the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah. The transfer of such weapons to Hezbollah will destabilize and endanger the entire region.

If Syrian President Assad reacts by attacking Israel, or tries to strike Israel through his terrorist proxies, he will risk forfeiting his regime, for Israel will retaliate."

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/If-Assad-reacts-to-Syria-strike-Israel-will-retaliate-313265

~~~~~~~~~~

There was no response to this report from the prime minister's office, but I will tell you that these are not just idle words: Israel's government is absolutely determined to prevent sophisticated, game-changing weapons from reaching Hezbollah. The official hinted that more strikes such as the ones we (presumably) just saw may be in the planning.

Author Avigdor Haselkorn, writing in the JPost today, in "The war over preemption," has provided one of the clearest explanations I've seen yet as to the dynamics involved and why Israel ain't just foolin' here (emphasis is added):

Hezbollah allegedly already in possession of some 50,000 rockets and missiles capable of reaching Israeli population centers does not need more of the same to hit Israeli cities, says Haselkorn.

"The solid-fuel, highly accurate, long-range (300 km) Fateh-110 missiles, armed with half-ton warheads, which was reportedly targeted by the IAF in the latest strike in Syria were not meant to attack Israeli cities. The Fateh-110 is a counter-force weapon designed to attack high value, pinpoint military and strategic targets. Indeed, it is all but certain that the provision of such missiles by Iran to Hezbollah is another step in the undeclared Israeli- Iranian war over preemption already underway.

"...by equipping Hezbollah with the latest version of Fateh-110 the MOD 4 Iran is hoping to accomplish three strategic goals: First, to deter Israel from launching a preemptive strike on its nuclear facilities by holding hostage Israel's Dimona reactor as well as other strategic installations identified in the foreign press as housing the Israeli nuclear arsenal and/or its delivery platforms.

"As well, Tehran is signaling Washington that any thought of a surgical strike on Iranian facilities is a dangerous hallucination as the outcome would be a nuclear catastrophe in the Middle East, given Iran's ability to accurately attack Israeli nuclear installations via Hezbollah's upgraded missiles.

"Second, by providing its Lebanese proxies with highly accurate missiles the Iranians are attempting to turn the tables on Israel they are developing their own capability to launch a preemptive strike against Israeli strategic facilities. Iranian leaders have already threatened to undertake such action...

"Third, by boosting Hezbollah's stock of highly accurate missiles Tehran is seeking to enable its proxy to launch heavier salvos, perhaps in conjunction with the Syrian-provided Scud-D missiles reportedly already in Hezbollah's arsenal. The aim is to assure hits on key strategic targets despite Israel's missile defenses. Clearly, irrespective of its pooh-poohing of its capabilities, Tehran is worried by the recent stellar performance of the Iron Dome system.

"The bottom line is that Iran is laboring hard to prevent an Israeli preemption while developing its own option via Hezbollah of launching a preemptive attack on Israel's most vital strategic assets.

"It should be noted that the Iranian effort is being pursued despite repeated Israeli warnings and forceful action to stop it. Some in Israel have interpreted this Iranian determination as forced by growing fears of the mullahs and their Hezbollah brethren that they will not be able to make use of the Tehran-Damascus-Beirut corridor much longer to transport arms and fighters. However, a more important reason is Iran's fear of an imminent Israeli preemptive attack. In spite of Iran's public ridicule, it appears it views with mounting concern Israeli statements that 2013 would be a year of decision.

For its part, Israel, by acting to destroy new additions to Hezbollah's counter-force capabilities and the means to defend them signaled its determination to keep its preemptive option open. Further, the operational successes of the IDF's recent military undertakings in Syria communicate to Tehran the credibility of Israel's intentions and capabilities in this regard. Thus, as long it races toward the bomb, Iran is likely to persist if not escalate its efforts to block and/or counter the Israeli preemptive option.

"The ongoing conflict over preemption has produced two paradoxes. First, even before any military strike had been unleashed against a nuclear facility, armed conflict has erupted. The Israeli threat to use force as a last resort to stop Iran's nuclear march had the effect of forcing Jerusalem to exert its military muscle without delay, ostensibly to preserve the final option."

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-war-over-preemption-313261

So it's going to get tougher before it's over, but in point of fact, Israel is already at war with Iran.

~~~~~~~~~~

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu took action of another sort in an attempt to prevent an escalation of the situation in Syria with a potential shift in the balance of power: On Tuesday morning he flew to the Black Sea city of Sochi to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, with regard to the announced intention of Russia to sell state-of-the-art anti-aircraft S-300 missiles to Damascus.

Netanyahu was accompanied by National Security Council Head Ya'akov Amidror, Head of Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi, and Deputy Foreign Minister Ze'ev Elkin, a native Russian speaker. Press was not permitted to participate. Kochavi is believed to have provided Putin with intelligence regarding the situation in Russia.

~~~~~~~~~~

All we have from that meeting is a joint press conference during which they declared their intention to keep in touch, both personally and between special services.

~~~~~~~~~~

As for Putin, it is clear and this is hardly new that he is motivated at least in part by a desire to subvert Western, and particularly, American involvement in the area. We might say that he gave the old one-two to Obama with the announcement of intention to sell those missiles, which followed almost immediately an announcement about Russia and the US working together to address the crisis in Syria:

Last week Moscow and Washington had announced an agreement to facilitate political dialogue between the Assad regime and rebels, and to facilitate an international conference on Syria.

(A reflection of the tenuous relationship between Russia and the US can be found in the arrest on Tuesday by the Russians of CIA agent Ryan Christopher Fogle, who was working in the American Embassy in Moscow and was caught in a sting operation when trying to recruit Russian double-agents.)

~~~~~~~~~~

The placement of those anti-aircraft missiles in Syrian hands would be no small matter for Israel, and worse still should they be transferred to Hezbollah.

I have picked up reports unconfirmed, for example from Al-Quds Al-Arabi that the missiles may already be in Syria. In one version, it was said that only Russian technicians were managing them, in another, there was indication that Syrian technicians were already trained.

~~~~~~~~~~

For the first time this morning, mortar shells fired from Syria hit Mount Hermon in the Golan. There were no casualties.

And, for the first time it is clear that the mortars didn't cross the border with Syria accidentally, during the course of fighting between Assad's troops and rebels.

This time, a group by the name of (are you ready?) Shahid Brigades of the Abd al-Kajr al-Husseini Jihad Brigades which is part of the "Free Palestine Movement" took credit via a video it released. It said that the mortars were fired for "Nakba Day," which was just observed by Palestinian Arabs as a day of mourning that marks Israel's founding.: "We tell the Zionists that we are opening a campaign of revenge."

I have no information about the source of fire being identified and destroyed. IDF patrols in the area have increased and the IDF is now re-evaluating the earlier determination that the other mortars hit Israeli soil by accident.

~~~~~~~~~~

It was announced just days ago that the Civil Administration (which means the administration of Judea and Samaria that works under the Ministry of Defense) was working diligently to establish a new Palestinian Arab city near Jericho, reportedly to be called Nu'aimah, which would house tens of thousands of residents and require the transfer of almost 2,000 dunam (500 acres) of land from the Jordan Valley Regional Council to the PA for the project.

The Yesha Council responded to this insanity immediately:

"The state of Israel is advancing programs for thousands of dwelling units in Area C [which is under full Israeli control] while there are wide sections of Areas A and B [under full and partial PA control] where they can be settled and they are stopping the tenders for building for Israeli settlement in Area C."

Before I had the opportunity to write about this, came the announcement that Minister of Defense Moshe Ya'alon has frozen the project. According to Israel National News:

"MK Motti Yogev (Bayit Yehudi), who heads a subcommittee of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee which deals with issues pertaining to Judea and Samaria, contacted Yaalon asking for details about the project. According to Ma'ariv, Yaalon told Yogev that upon learning of the plan he ordered that it be immediately stopped.

"An Israeli defense official confirmed the details, telling Ma'ariv that the Defense Minister is interested in learning the details of the plan and any consequences that may result from its application, and has asked that it be delayed until he can formulate a position on the issue."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/168021

Well then, a small sigh of relief and a tentative "bravo" to Minister Ya'alon. Now we'll have to wait to see what position he formulates.

~~~~~~~~~~

If truth be told, actions by the government are so schizoid that it's difficult to determine precisely what policy truly is or, for that matter, where our prime minister stands.

Here we have some very good news with an announcement that the State is seeking to authorize four communities called outposts in Judea and Samaria. The announcement came in a statement to the High Court submitted on Tuesday with regard to a Peace Now petition with regard to six communities. Good old Peace Now had demanded removal of them all.

The four communities: Givat Assaf, in the Binyamin region of Samaria; Givat Haroeh, one of the largest unauthorized communities, in the Shomron; Maale Rekhavam, in the Gush Etzion region; and Mitzpe Lakhish, in the South Hebron Hills.

Three had been determined to have been built on State land, so there was no legal barrier to their authorization.

Some portion of the fourth, Givat Assaf (pictured here), was built on what had been privately owned Arab land, but residents of this community some 30 families had told the court that they had purchased that land.

Now the State has accepted the residents claims. According to the JPost, orders had come from the "upper political echelon" to the Civil Administration to "weigh the possibility of legalizing Givat Assaf."

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/State-seeks-approval-of-four-West-Bank-outposts-313292

The State is working out compromises for the other two communities mentioned in the Peace Now petition, as well: In Mitzpe Yitzhar, near Yitzhar in the hills of the Shomron, two homes built on private Palestinian Arab property had been taken down and a third home would also be demolished; the implication here is that ultimately authorization may be possible for this community as well.

In the case of Ramat Gilad, some of its homes are on State land and an agreement has been reached with its residents for many of the homes to be moved to a different part of its hilltop location.

~~~~~~~~~~

Contrast the upbeat position by the government, above, with this shameful action. I had mentioned the issue of an Israeli failure to assert sovereignty the other day, and here we are:

A plan had been set in place to bring Jewish children to the Temple Mount today, as an educational follow-up to Shavuot, which was a time when first fruits were brought to the Temple.

In response to chatter on Islamic websites that the children would be met by rioters, police closed entry to the Temple Mount to all non-Muslims, out of concern for "public safety."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I don't care how many police or soldiers would have had to have been called out to protect the children, it should have been done. To cave before threats of violence, so that Jewish rights are denied, is a bad move.

What is more, Jews who made it to the Mount over Shavuot (yesterday) and the day prior were severely harassed by Muslims and received scant police protection. At one point Jewish entry at the Mughrabi Gate was blocked by Muslims. When a riot broke out, the Jews were removed from the Mount.

I am ashamed to write this, but I must. What is ours must be claimed as ours, and our rights made clear.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/168039

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

The Daily Mail reported shortly after the identities of the Boston jihad bombings were revealed that dead jihadist Tamerlan Tsarnaev's "only American friend" had his 'throat slit' in an unsolved murder in 2011." It struck me as odd, especially when the media said Tsarnaev was "changed" after the murders. I was stunned shortly afterward to learn that the boy who had his throat cut was Jewish. Worse still, there were two more victims with their throats slit.

This unsolved triple murder was of three young Jewish men (two devout). It was originally reported that the murders took place on Sept. 12, 2011, but that too was wrong. The bodies were found on the 12th, but these Jewish boys were murdered on Sept. 11, 2011, the 10th anniversary of jihadi attack on American soil that killed 3,000 people. When I first heard that the older jihad bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was one of the victims' best friends, it sickened me. The media called one of these Jewish victims the "bomber's only American friend."

I knew better. Beheading Jews on Sept. 11? It had to be devout Muslims. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a devout Muslim who opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq because they fought against jihadists. He read Islamic supremacist websites and literature that claimed that the CIA was behind the jihad attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that (of course) the Jews controlled the world.

I tried to hire a private investigator to look into the case, but no one would touch it. It was white-hot and active. But it only became active after the Boston Marathon jihad bombing, a year-and-a-half after the murders. What took the police so long? If they had solved this murder, there would have been no bombing at the Boston Marathon.

Throat-slitting is a jihad specialty. Under Islam, slaughtering Jews is the most "righteous" of all murder of infidels. Sébastien Selam was a popular disc jockey at Queen, a hot Parisian nightclub. In 2004, a Muslim neighbor of Selam slit his throat and gouged his eyes out. Then he cried out, "I killed my Jew. I will go to heaven!" Ilan Halimi was a young Jewish man kidnapped by a Muslim gang in France. He was targeted, tortured for weeks and ultimately murdered because he was Jewish.

The murder of Ilan Halimi can only be described as an unspeakable horror. A group calling itself the Muslim Barbarians targeted Jewish men for torture and murder. Halimi was held captive for weeks in an Islamic homemade concentration camp that the Muslim Barbarians had set up. Apartment dwellers, all Muslims, heard Ilan's screams and cries of torture over a period of three weeks, and yet did not call the cops. The screams must have been loud, because the torture was especially atrocious: The thugs cut bits of flesh off the young man. They cut his fingers and ears. They burned him with acid. They poured flammable liquid on him and set him on fire. Not only did the Muslims in the building not go to the police they did nothing at all. Worse, many took part in the tortures.

It's not just in Europe or in most obviously and viciously anti-Semitic Muslim countries in the Middle East. It's here in America. A Muslim gang plotted to blow up synagogues in New York City. Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Snyder said, "These were people who were eager to bring death to Jews. It's hard to envision a more chilling plot."

Emerson Begolly, an American convert to Islam indicted on terror charges in 2011, wrote songs and posted them on jihadi websites. Sample lyrics: "When the Jew's blood reds my knife, then my life is free from strife shoot and kill Jews one by one." Zachary Chesser, another U.S. convert to Islam who was arrested trying to join a jihad terror group, wrote: "May Allah blow up the Jews."

And there are so many others like these. While Hamas-CAIR whines and moans about a mythical "anti-Muslim" backlash following in the wake of the Boston jihad bombings, or about a photo of the World Trade Center left on the grounds of a mosque, let me be perfectly clear: The murders of Brendan Mess, Erik Weissman and Raphael Teken were hate crimes. Jihad is a hate crime. slamic Jew hatred is a hate crime.

Every news story about the triple murder of these three young Jews omits the most crucial fact in the case as to motive. These boys were Jewish, and that is why they were practically beheaded by these Muslim supremacists. Islamic Jew-hatred Jews the world over (and most assuredly in Israel) know it well has persisted for 1,400 years. The Quran says: "Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews."

And Muhammad said that "the last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him" (Sahih Muslim 6985).

New evidence has come to light in the triple murder of these three boys. ABC News is reporting that forensic evidence at the crime scene links the Boston jihad bombers to the murders, and that their cell phone records show that they were in the area at the time of the killings.

Will this horrific slaughter get the same media attention as the Jody Arias case? Will the media speak to the motive of the mass slaughter of the Jews? Or they will continue to whitewash and scrub the most vicious, brutal ideology on the face of the earth?

Contact Israel Commentary at israelcommentary@comcast.net

Last Friday, the Western Wall underwent an unwelcome transformation from sacred site to media circus as the group known as the Women of the Wall sought to hold a decidedly non-traditional prayer service.

Not content with the idea that their worship would be seen by our Father in Heaven, the women went one step further and made sure that plenty of writers, journalists and cameramen from Israel and abroad were there to film their disregard for time-honored Jewish practice.

Waiting there to greet them were thousands of young religious women who had heeded the calls of leading rabbis to demonstrate support for maintaining the status quo at the site.

Not surprisingly, it didn't take long for things to get out of hand, and hundreds of policemen were needed to prevent an outbreak of violence.

What a disgrace.

As Jerusalem Police Commander Yossi Parienti said, "It pains me to see the Western Wall become a battlefield."

But that, sadly, is exactly what occurred.

Whatever one may think of the Women of the Wall and their cause, there is no getting around the fact that they bear the lion's share of the blame for this sorry situation.

For all their talk of fairness and spirituality, the Women of the Wall have demonstrated an astonishing amount of unholy hypocrisy in how they seek to achieve their objectives.

Take, for example, the issue of adhering to the rule of law.

Over the years, as they lost battle after battle in the courts, the Women of the Wall felt little compunction about upholding the law. hey repeatedly defied police instructions, occasionally getting arrested in the process.

And yet now, after finally finding an agreeable judge last month who permitted them to don prayer shawls and phylacteries at the Wall, they solemnly speak of the need to uphold decisions made by the court. In other words, as long as the court agrees with them, they will be happy to respect its rulings.

Interestingly, these same would-be heroines of human rights have remained remarkably silent about the discrimination faced by all Jews men and women alike who ascend the Temple Mount.

Recently, I asked a long-time adviser to the group the following question: if the Women of the Wall truly believe in freedom of religious practice, why don't they also protest the restrictions imposed on Jews who wish to pray on the Temple Mount?

The answer I received was as revealing as it was shocking: they don't believe Jews should be allowed to pray on the Mount, she said.

Clearly, then, this is a group with an agenda, and not one that is overly concerned with pesky matters such as principle or intellectual consistency.

Sure, they believe in freedom of religion, but only when it suits their politically liberal worldview.

Indeed, a revealing glimpse behind the group's thinking was provided by one of its leaders, Anat Hoffman, in an appearance last month on the BBC. After the interviewer said to her, "I want to understand are you just trying to change the setup at the Western Wall or is your point a broader one about Judaism?" Hoffman did not hesitate to show her cards.

"I think when you change the holiest site of the Jewish people you are actually asking why not about a variety of other life choices dictated to Israelis by the Orthodox monopoly," she said.

"I am also questioning why are the Orthodox the only ones in charge of marriage and divorce in Israel?... Some of us wish to get buried not by Orthodox custom but by Reform, Conservative or secular custom," Hoffman added.

So even by their own admission, the Women of the Wall aren't really focused on the Wall their aim is to exploit this symbol and use it as a bridgehead in order to tear down Orthodoxy in the Jewish state.

Moreover, Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky recently proposed a compromise under which Israel would construct a separate section for so-called egalitarian prayer services in order to defuse the tensions. This would have given the Women of the Wall a place to congregate and pray without causing strife and confrontation.

But rather than embracing this and working to find a solution, the Women of the Wall instead came looking for a provocation. Clearly, their activity isn't about the saintly exercise of devotion. It is a cynical act of manipulation, one with strident political overtones that reek of impiety.

Unfortunately, the rabbis and religious Jews who sought to confront the Women of the Wall have unwittingly played right into their hands. Publicity is the oxygen that has kept the movement in the spotlight and enabled it to garner the attention it needs to keep going.

The Women of the Wall, after all, is a miniscule group numerically insignificant. But precisely because of their baiting, and the responses they elicited, they have received column inches far in excess of their membership rolls.

At this stage, decisive action is necessary to prevent further squabbles from breaking out.

In the wake of the court ruling, it behooves Israel's Religious Affairs Ministry to issue new regulations governing acceptable practice at the Western Wall in order to forestall future altercations.

Whatever loopholes exist in the current guidelines need to be addressed so that the traditional practice at the Wall is maintained and Jewish law is respected.

And then the Women of the Wall need to be given a clear choice regarding the Sharansky proposal: take it or leave it.

The clashes they have sparked at the Western Wall aren't good for Israel or Jewish unity. We cannot allow them to drag us into internecine conflict or senseless hatred.

Yes, the Western Wall belongs to the entire Jewish people. But those who exploit this holy site for their own ulterior motives must finally be exposed for what they are: anything but holy.

Michael Freund is the Founder and Chairman of Shavei Israel. He writes a syndicated column and feature stories for the Jerusalem Post, Israel's leading English-language daily, and he previously served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office under Benjamin Netanyahu. A native of New York, he holds an MBA in Finance from Columbia University and a BA from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. This article appeared in The Jewish Press.com and is archived at
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/fundamentally-freund/unholy-hypocrisy-at-the-western-wall/2013/05/14/

Tamerlan Tsarnaev is dead, Dzhokhar is wounded and imprisoned, Bostonians cheered like baseball fans... The bad guys are caught, but the mujahidin escaped in a cloud of anecdotal details, hapless or deliberate misconceptions, and a blackout on the ways and means of global jihad.

In that fateful week my choice of media was limited: CNN for heat of the action coverage, French TV for the local slant, print and online media for real information. As images of the finish line explosions revolved on a nickelodeon screen, "experts" speculated on the white/right wing likely suspects. Even after the telltale pressure cooker bombs were discovered, they were still explaining why a tea partying angry gun-lover would make a statement against Patriot's Day, gun control, and the government, precisely four days before the anniversary of McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing.

It was the middle of the night in the U.S. but Friday morning in France when news broke of the murder of the MIT policeman. I followed events as they unfolded: the shootout at Watertown, the dawning realization that the Tsarnaev brothers were making their last stand, the death of suspect N° 1 and the hunt for suspect N°2. As the day went on, members of the broadly extended Tsarnaev family emerged like sitcom characters, with their accents, gestures, family secrets, and European depth, facing silly reporters. "How do you feel What did you think. What would you say? Team pals, school buddies, sparring partners and next door neighbors expressed disbelief. These were regular guys, Americans like us. Terrorists? Religious fanatics? No way man, they were like I mean you know diversity.

Flattering civilian images of the killers filled the screen, punctuated by brief flashes of them standing heartless in the crowd just before they set off the bombs that killed three, maimed dozens, and injured hundreds. In one image you see an unsuspecting policeman walking right past them.

The first blast of confusion — the Timothy McVeigh hypothesis -- was followed by a twist: the human interest angle shifted from the bereaved and the mutilated victims to the perpetrators. Okay, they weren't NRA fanatics, but they could have been. Yes, these Tsarnaev brothers are Muslim but it has nothing to do with Islam. True, they set off bombs that blew off the legs of people watching the marathon, but they were sportsmen themselves. They might have gone on being regular guys if not for who knows? Yes, they came to the United States on the (essentially Muslim) refugee resettlement program but you shouldn't generalize.

The Boston Marathon bombing invites comparison with the killing spree of Mohamed Merah in Toulouse and Montauban last year. There, too, the perpetrator of choice was a right wing gun slinger dressed in black. Domestic intelligence services let Mohamed Merah out of their sights just when he returned from an extended visit to jihad tourist havens; the FBI and CIA looked the other way when Tamerlane Tsarnaev, already flagged by Russian secret services, spent six months in Dagestan and thereabouts. Investigators missed clues linking Merah to the assassination of a serviceman on March 11th, failed to link that attack to the shooting of three more servicemen on the 15th, and were still bungling when he went on to execute, Nazi style, a young father and three children at a Jewish day school on the 19th. Like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Mohamed Merah was under the influence of an older brother, Abdelkader, known to be a member of a Salafist group. Long before the Merah boys were "radicalized" their mother had nursed them on anti-Semitism.

Ecumenical services were held to honor Merah's Muslim, Catholic, and Jewish victims. Muslim leaders warned of imminent backlash, voices rose to explain that Merah had been "radicalized," his crimes had nothing to do with Islam. Friends, family, and neighbors swore he was just a small time banlieue delinquent, some claimed he'd been framed, Merah's lawyer copped a plea: the young man wanted to serve his country but the Army wouldn't take him. Tamerlan's friends in the 'hood and in the NY Times whined over his exclusion from the Golden Gloves championship just because he wasn't a US citizen.

What is this "radicalization" that has nothing to do with Islam? Tamerlan's aunt in Toronto said he started praying 5 times a day and what could be wrong with that, it's better than taking drugs. (Now he is a suspect in the slaughter of his "best friend" and two Jewish guys found with their throats slit nearly to decapitation, sprinkled with marijuana, on September 12, 2011, the day after Dzhokhar was sworn in as a US citizen.) While evidence of a tangled web of typical jihad connections is pouring into print and online media, the story fades from the screen with a sigh of relief: they don't belong to any organization. It's a street corner operation, not a multinational.

Mohamed Merah, in some quarters, is a hero; his exploit provoked a vertiginous spike in attacks against Jews in France. At the same time, public opinion has gone sour on Islam, jihad has become a household word, and anti-terrorist laws have been tightened so that aspiring warriors can be arrested before they go into action.

By treating Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a criminal instead of an enemy soldier the U.S. government not only gives him rights he does not deserve, it masks the connection between the Boston Marathon bombing and the global war waged against us. These slapdash operations are directed by clearly identifiable masterminds. Islam harbors genocidal intentions that can mature in a wide variety of individuals and circumstances. Killers like the Tsarnaev brothers swim at ease in the diversity pool, indistinguishable from Muslims who don't intend to take up arms, but persist in hiding the truth about the jihad imperative. Their condemnation of violence is misleading and misdirected. Instead of telling us that these atrocities have nothing to do with Islam, they have to confront its inherent genocidal impulses. If Islam cannot reject jihad, decent Muslims have to reject Islam or be rejected by nations that don't want to be soft targets anymore.

Nidra Poller is an American writer and translator who has lived in Paris since 1972. She has contributed to English-language publications such as The Wall Street Journal, National Review, FrontPage Magazine, and The New York Sun. Contact Nidra Poller at nidrapol@gmail.com

Friends,

We are now into the next phase of Obama's "Transformational Change." It's not pretty. We don't even have a good name for what is happening. Glenn Beck suggests, "Intim-O-gate" he uses the Obama "O" symbol. We have multiple scandals and cover-ups, all involving blatant Tyranny and shredding of the Constitution. See the link below.

Intim-O-Gate: Benghazi. Fundamental Transformation of the Mid East.

• · What's being covered up: Team Obama is helping to topple governments and running arms to benefit the Muslim Brotherhood, which now has a major presence at high levels in the Obama White House and the State Department. Team Obama ignores terrorist attacks. They originally blamed Benghazi on free speech, on an obscure video. They blamed Ft. Hood on workplace violence.

• · The Cost: Dead Americans, the Mideast in flames, radical Islam ascendant, persecution of Christians, and respect for America at new lows.

• · What's Next: A new world order and possibly a regional war? See the book Obama's America and the movie 2016 for details.

Intim-O-Gate: IRS. Harassment of political enemies and religious groups. The end of free political speech.

• · What's being covered up: Hugo Chavez Communist tactics. Team Obama used the IRS (and other means) to rig the last election. Chicago Thugs, with Alinsky sophistication.

• · The Cost: At least four More years of Obama. A failed Presidency continues.

• · What's Next: IRS targets Americans via ObamaCare. IRS over watch is written into the ObamaCare Bill.

Intim-O-Gate: Big Brother. Transforming the media.

• · What's being covered up: Communist Stasi and KGB tactics. The media and Congress being monitored by the Obama DOJ. Team Obama bugged the Congress Cloak room and Associated Press. We don't even know if this is legal or not.

• · The Cost: Loss of First Amendment Rights. Loss of the independence of Congress, Free Speech, the right to Assemble, and a Free Press.

• · What's Next: The loss of Privacy. A State of Fear. The loss of any accountability for the Obama Executive Branch. Prisons without walls.

Note: Few Americans realize how modern technology can be all-intrusive, well beyond the wildest dreams of Hitler's Gestapo. There is a link that one if my fans sent me of actual real time monitoring by group in Europe on my main webpage, www.johntrudel.com. Click on "the topic is real," just over the Privacy Wars section. This example is minor, compared to the power of the Federal Government. Novels such as my own and Black List and The Scarecrow are using this theme.

COMING SOON

Intim-O-Gate: ObamaCare

Intim-O-Gate: Gun Grab (Loss of 2nd Amendment rights and a national gun registry)

Intim-O-Gate: DHS (A National Police Force and National Identity cards)

Intim-O-Gate: EPA (Control of National Resources and Energy)

Intim-O-Gate: Federalized Education (The collective over the Family)
http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id =27149369&topic_id=24584158

One more thing

You are already a criminal if you are a typical American. Think I'm kidding? Check the link below. This is how the old Soviet Union worked. Everyone was a criminal. People enjoyed their freedom and jobs only at the pleasure of the state. They lived without hope, knowing the boot was on their throats.
https://www.rutherford.org/multimedia/on_target/on_target_pressure_points _overcriminalization_of_america/

ACTION

I think it is premature to be calling for Obama's impeachment. That would be political, and what is needed are facts. We need knowledge and proof of what has been going on.

The Obama Administration, through the Holder DOJ, has prosecuted more than twice the total number of whistleblowers PROSECUTED BY ALL THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS IN AMERICAN HISTORY COMBINED. There are something like 33 survivors of Benghazi and only three have talked so far!!! Small wonder. The penalty for being a convicted whistleblower is 20 years in Prison!!!

Congress must protect the whistleblowers and obtain testimony. Eric Holder is already in contempt of Congress for Fast and Furious, and he can be arrested. Benghazi needs a Select Committee with the power to subpoena, and www.specialoperationsspeaks.com is doing an excellent job pushing for this. Most likely the other issues, like IRS abuse and police state monitoring of Congress and the media will also need Select Committees.

This is America's last best hope of rolling Obama's totalitarian state back without violence. The typical progression of a socialist/communist takeover is this. First they nudge. Obama's Czar Cass Sunstein was a master of this. Then they shove. That's what is happening now with Intim-O-Gate. The next step is the end game, and that's to be avoided. After the "nudge" and the "shove," then they shoot you if you resist.

History shows that when freedom is lost it is almost impossible to get back. That's what our Revolutionary War was about. We prevailed against the odds. God Bless America, and good luck to us all.

John D. Trudel, is consultant emeritus, inventor, engineer, author, retired adjunct professor (U. of Oregon), and novelist. Contact him at mail@trudelgroup.com

Dr. Mordechai Kedar, the Director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), a research associate of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and a lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, is one of Israel's leading figures in understanding the Arab world. Dr. Kedar states, over and over, that knowledge and some chutzpah is needed to be able to spread the truth about the Moslem Middle East and Islam in general. He has them both.

This month was the second time I had the honor to work with Dr. Kedar while he was on a series of speaking engagements in UC Irvine, at T.E.A.M (Training and Education About the Middle East - www.sandiegoteam.org) in San Diego and in various synagogues and American Freedom Alliance on Los Angeles (http://www.americanfreedomalliance.org/).

Mordechai Kedar premiere appearance at UC Irvine, sponsored by The David Horowitz Freedom Center - http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/ and ECI- Ex-Muslims & Critics of Islam at UCI, lead by Kersa Shah Hosseini (May 8th 2013) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a3VU8RmPP8&list=PLoIHEzOnd0guU3f5aN_PboJMdAu-I7aQg&index=1

As a rule I do not usher speakers on their speaking tour. However, Dr. Kedar is an exception, a different kettle of fish. What he talks about should be the concern of every non-Moslem.

I see a great deal to worry about with the ascendance of Islam, worldwide. I f the Westerners want to keep their world, as they know it and intact, every non-Moslem as well as courageous Moslems must hear Dr. Kedar speaks. When one listens to him, one is more equipped with the knowledge and recognize the warning signs and then one can pass it on to as many others.

Friends, we are at war with Islam no matter how much the elite leadership try to obfuscate this reality.

Why what Dr. Kedar teaches and speaks about is so important?

Because when Europe, and now the USA, appease and go soft on Islam the Moslems see themselves winning.

Winning what?

The Moslems' goal to make the world a caliphate, a political unity of the entire community of Muslim faithful; turn our world into an Ummah, a Moslem world ruled by a single caliph governed according to constitutional and religious law, the Sharia.

The Moslems may be still far from their ultimate goal, but they are advancing, while the free world either remains apathetic or worse, assisting them to reach their goal. If one looks at Europe, one can already see how Islam is slowly shredding the European enlightened society to pieces, making Europe unrecognizable.

When opponent of Islam cannot be defeated, it is invincible, and that also relates to Israel, it will be granted to live in temporary peace with Islam, and that temporary peace can last for eternity.

But, as soon as an infidel state is weak, the Moslems raise their bar of attack, and not necessarily by conventional methods, to weaken this state further and finally take over that state. And that is what is taking place in Europe right now and the United States is just 15 years behind the very same phenomenon.

As for Israel, so long as the Jewish state is invincible she has a chance to last and endure. Therefore, Israel cannot sleep on guard. She must remain undefeatable and then she will live in a temporary peace with its Islamic neighboring foes forever.

One way to spread Islam's word is establishing an Islamic center on university campuses and taint the youths brain. Saudi Arabia and Qatar swim in oil money, which allows them to finance Islamic culture center on every campus in the USA and beyond. Money speaks loud, very loud. When a university is showered with millions of dollars, annually, these Islamic centers dictate the discourse on Islam on campus, which is based on many lies, deception and incitement.

Dr. Kedar and a team of university professors and lecturers in Israel decided that the time has come to counter the Islamic deception as disseminated by the Islamic centers on campuses. They are working to establish a Center for Middle East Studies and Research at Bar Ilan University, in Israel. The uniqueness of the center will be that it will not be funded by Moslem countries' money and thus remain true to the facts and information. More so, all the professors and lecturers will be speaking Arabic and/or all other languages spoken in the Middle East and thus will avoid the proverbial slogan that much of the facts vanish in translation. And that is what we have now; we know what the Moslems want us to know rather than the truth, the facts, the reality.

The center will also serve as an asset for Israel, seeking to have peace with its Moslem Arab neighboring states. Once the world will know that Israel has been living with since its inception, the support for her and the opposition to Islam will grow.

When the world will be more educated on the darkness of Islam it will better understand that pushing Israel to sign "peace" with its neighbors is a delusion. These countries cannot deliver peace because they have been at internal wars and at war with each other since the day Islam became a religion. One cannot deliver what one does not have, says Dr. Kedar, and with the Arab-Moslem states it is the desired peace they do not have and thus cannot deliver.

The Bar-Ilan Center for Middle East Studies and Research is already operating, unofficially. Receiving the needed funds will allow it to open its doors and become the only such center in the world that will shine the so much needed light of truth on Islam.

Note. This article is influenced by lectures by Dr. Kedar I have attended

Contact Nurit Greenger at nurit.nurit@gmail.com

It's not unusual for a historian to highlight a little-known incident or figure in history, but it's not often that the historian has the kind of connection that Scottsdale resident Steven Carol has with the late Portuguese diplomat Aristides de Sousa Mendes.

"My parents got out of France thanks to this little bit of paper," Carol says, referring to a visa issued by Sousa Mendes, who was the Portuguese consul general stationed in Bordeaux, France, when the Nazis invaded during World War II.

Because of that connection, Carol will speak after the 2 p.m. showing of "Disobedience: The Sousa Mendes Story" at Harkins Shea 14 Theatres on Sunday, May 19. (The movie is being shown through May 23.)

Carol didn't really know about Sousa Mendes' role in his parents' escape from Nazi-occupied France until his interest in Sousa Mendes was piqued by a May 4, 1986, article in the New York Times headlined: "Consul who aided Jews gains recognition."

As a historian, Carol told himself at the time, "I should know this guy," much like he knew about rescuers like Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg and German industrialist Oskar Schindler. And something about Sousa Mendes' story did sound familiar to him because his parents had been able to leave France in the period that Sousa Mendes issued the lifesaving visas that the newspaper article highlighted.

After his father died in 1976, Carol kept all of his papers. Subsequent to reading the article, he says, Carol found among his father's papers a French police identification document, about 3.5 feet long, with a Sousa Mendes visa attached.

Carol's parents lived in Paris when the Nazis invaded France. Like many others (2 million Parisians fled before the Nazis entered the city on June 14, 1940), they wanted to leave the city. aving heard about a diplomat in Bordeaux who was issuing visas, they "got out of the city with the assistance of a doctor who said my mother had a severe case of jaundice and needed the country air." Their visas, signed by Sousa Mendes, were issued June 5, Carol says.

"Because of my discovery, I made contact with the [Sousa Mendes] family," he says. That initial contact developed into a relationship with Sousa Mendes' survivors, who fought for 40 years to have the diplomat's position and honor restored and recognized by the Portuguese government.

Carol has wholeheartedly joined in the effort, and is now a board member of the Sousa Mendes Foundation, which seeks to restore Sousa Mendes' family estate as a museum and memorial and to perpetuate Sousa Mendes' legacy. Carol has delivered many presentations on Sousa Mendes and designed a U.S. postage stamp in his honor, elements of which were used by the Portuguese post office when it issued a Sousa Mendes memorial stamp. Carol coined the phrase, "His signature saved thousands," one of the elements used in the Portuguese stamp and in publicity materials for "Disobedience."

"I believe he's on a much higher moral plane than Wallenberg and Schindler," Carol says. What made Sousa Mendes different was that he saved the refugees in defiance of his orders, declaring, "I would rather stand with God against man than with man against God." In June 1940, thousands of refugees stood outside his consulate in Bordeaux seeking visas to escape the Nazis. The visas would provide passage out of France through Spain and to Lisbon, where visa holders could ship out of Europe to ports of safety. However, Portugal's fascist dictator Antonio de Oliveira Salazar issued "Circular 14," which directed Portuguese diplomats to deny safe haven to such refugees, including (as the Sousa Mendes Foundation website notes) "explicitly Jews, Russians, and stateless persons who could not freely return to their countries of origin."

Sousa Mendes defied that order, issuing 30,000 visas, including about 10,000 to Jews, in just a few days. The key to their safe passage was his signature. "In the movie, you see him [signing visas] again and again," running out of official paper and using any bit of paper to create the visas, says Carol, who vouches that the movie is historically accurate throughout.

Not many of those stray bits of paper that were actually visas survive, Carol says, and he makes a plea to any and all survivors and their descendants to determine what an odd-looking piece of paper actually says before disposing of it. The Sousa Mendes Foundation would like to recover and preserve as many of these visas a possible.

Sousa Mendes was stripped of his diplomatic post and license to practice law. Although a grateful Jewish community helped him and his family, Sousa Mendes' estate was sold to pay debts and he died in poverty in 1954. He has since been honored by Israel, the United States and Portugal.

Contact Dr. History at drhistory@

The Bible tells us a very interesting story that is very relevant to our times. We must remember that the Bible gives people advice on how to live based upon experience, and so is very useful even for atheists. Let us read the Bible, Samuel 2 12:7, translating into words that people understand today. This is in accordance with the principle that the Bible speaks in the language of people. Instead of a precise translation of the Hebrew text, we paraphrase it to give it more meaning.

At the time of King David, the ruler of ancient Israel, the Bible tells us about Nathan, a prophet of the Lord God, who told the King, "You are the man!" The prophet goes on to say, "Thus says the Lord God of Israel: I make you King on Israel and have saved you from your enemies. Why did you despise the word of the Lord to do evil to kill Uriah? Therefore you will suffer the consequences and the sword will never leave your home forever. You did this evil in secret, but I will punish you in public, in front of everyone." David said to Nathan, "I have sinned to the Lord!" Nathan replied that since David apologized, "God will forgive him and he will not die. However, he will suffer consequences."

Wow! What did the king do that was so utterly terrible? Let us go back and read. David met this beautiful woman and wanted to have her. He inquired, and it turned out her husband was one of David's top generals, Uriah. The country was fighting for its survival against powerful enemies. David, the commander-in-chief, wanted to fire this general, but did not know how. Instead, he gave an order to his generals in the next battle, they should let Uriah go in front, and the others should stand down. They obeyed the order, Uriah went ahead, while the others obeyed the order to stand down, with the result the enemy killed Uriah. David then married the dead general's wife.

At that time, there were many prophets. These were people similar to our news commentators. After this incident, most of the prophets defended the king, saying it was an unfortunate tragedy, which happens during wartime. Uriah's wife mourned his passing, and after the mourning David took her to his house and married her. However, one prophet, Nathan, denounced this evil.

Let us return to today's era. Our present commander-in-chief fired many of his top generals; men who have helped fight our enemies and help enhance our national security. The parallel to the story would be that Obama wanted is ambassador out of office, but did not know how to do it. He ordered in the next battle the relief should stand down, thereby insuring the ambassador would be killed.

This analogy is much too close for comfort. It implies that Obama deliberately wanted to kill his ambassador. We can imagine a prophet speaking directly to Obama saying that he is the man, and because of this evil dead, he will die and America will suffer defeats in war for a long time.

We need not to permit Obama to say he does not know anything. The Bible speaks about the idols that "have eyes but do not see ears but do not hear, nose but do not smell". Obama never saw anything bad, never heard of anything bad, never smelled the rotten corruption. We cannot accept this. In order to avoid divine wrath, we must insist that Obama knows everything, and is responsible for all the current troubles. Our responsibility as citizens and media people is to say to Obama, "You are the man! You knew all these things and are responsible for them".

Let us pray that we Americans can learn this important lesson, and accuse Obama of the crimes that he likely is guilty of. Let us pray that if we take this action, directly challenging Obama, we will be spared the wrath of God.

Contact Sanford Aranoff at aranoff@analysis-knowledge.com

For at least 32 years, Arabs in the Territories have been throwing stones and even big rocks at Jews. The Arabs attack somewhere almost daily. Arabs attack Jews on the road going north, between Hebron Gush Etzion Jerusalem, going south, towards, Beer Sheva, and even at the short distance between Kiryat Arba and Hebron. Arabs also attack Jewish civilians and security forces from the edge of the Arab part of Hebron near the Israeli zone. [When Israel built separate roads for the safety of Jews, that was called Apartheid. When Israel built a barrier to protect against terrorist attacks, a barrier that reduced them, Israel was denigrated.]

People have been killed by the rocks: Esther Ochana, in Hebron, in January 1983, Yehuda Shoham, in June, 2001. And the Palmers, September, 2011. Three year old Adelle Biton was wounded critically in a rock attack on her mother's car, this year, near Ariel in Samaria. Soon thereafter, Arabs continued to try to kill people in the same way, from the same place where Adelle was wounded.

During the 'first Intifada,' in the late 1980s, before buses had plastic windows, dozens of people were wounded when boulders hit glass windows on public transportation between Kiryat Arba and Jerusalem. In 2000, the stoning culminated in the shooting war of the 2nd Intifada. Absent strong counter-measures, the crime of stoning had grown.

Why are strong counter-measures absent? Hebron Jewish Community Spokesman David Wilder recalls a high ranking officer calming his troops by telling him these Arab attacks are "sufferable." The officer now denies having said that. With an attitude like that, Arabs feel no Israeli deterrent. The toll of dead and wounded shows that these attacks are not "sufferable.

In March, a few Jews threw rocks at Arabs. Mr. Wilder does not condone that. But he noticed that suddenly, rock-throwing became insufferable. Pres. Peres told reporters in Paris, "Attacking Arab citizens is a terrible thing, done by a handful of people but leaving a very large stain." Where has Pres. Peres been all this time, when Arabs stone Jews? He didn't talk about Israel's Arabs staining their reputation.

The government has security forces? It should use them. These forces should be ordered on all levels to end the security they give Arabs who stone Jews (David Wilder, Hebron Jewish Spokesman, 3/15/13).

Demonstrating selective morality, Peres indicates he has no conscience and no patriotism. This conclusion is consistent with his years of appeasement of the Arabs to the point of offering concessions that get Israelis killed and could get the country destroyed.

Note that while Peres facilitated hostile propaganda against Israel, the media rarely picks up news of Arab stoning attacks against Jews. Peres helps Europe gain an antisemitic view of Israel. Europe pretends that the problem is Israeli oppression of the "poor Palestinians." It ignores the real problem which is genocidal jihad.

Pres. Obama also ignores the real problem.

Peres and the Cabinet, which is called nationalistic but is not, have a double standard against Jews, same as Israel's avowed enemies.

If the government comprised Real Jewish nationalists, real patriots, people having decent ethics, it would repress Arab violence hard. Such a government would have the courage to do what Peres does not do — explain to Europeans just how vicious Arab jihadists are.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses are a regular feature on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don't look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.

Something big has shifted. The standing of the administration has changed.

As always it comes down to trust. Do you trust the president's answers when he's pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you trust the IRS and the Justice Department? You do not.

The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He's shocked, it's unacceptable, he'll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you.

But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department.

A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town.

The IRS scandal has two parts. The first is the obviously deliberate and targeted abuse, harassment and attempted suppression of conservative groups. The second is the auditing of the taxes of political activists.

In order to suppress conservative groups—at first those with words like "Tea Party" and "Patriot" in their names, then including those that opposed ObamaCare or advanced the Second Amendment—the IRS demanded donor rolls, membership lists, data on all contributions, names of volunteers, the contents of all speeches made by members, Facebook posts, minutes of all meetings, and copies of all materials handed out at gatherings. Among its questions: What are you thinking about? Did you ever think of running for office? Do you ever contact political figures? What are you reading? One group sent what it was reading: the U.S. Constitution.

The second part of the scandal is the auditing of political activists who have opposed the administration. The Journal's Kim Strassel reported an Idaho businessman named Frank VanderSloot, who'd donated more than a million dollars to groups supporting Mitt Romney. He found himself last June, for the first time in 30 years, the target of IRS auditors. His wife and his business were also soon audited. Hal Scherz, a Georgia physician, also came to the government's attention. He told ABC News: "It is odd that nothing changed on my tax return and I was never audited until I publicly criticized ObamaCare."

Franklin Graham, son of Billy, told Politico he believes his father was targeted. A conservative Catholic academic who has written for these pages faced questions about her meager freelance writing income. Many of these stories will come out, but not as many as there are. People are not only afraid of being audited, they're afraid of saying they were audited.

All of these IRS actions took place in the years leading up to the 2012 election. They constitute the use of governmental power to intrude on the privacy and shackle the political freedom of American citizens. The purpose, obviously, was to overwhelm and intimidate—to kill the opposition, question by question and audit by audit.

It is not even remotely possible that all this was an accident, a mistake. Again, only conservative groups were targeted, not liberal. It is not even remotely possible that only one IRS office was involved.

Lois Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS, was the person who finally acknowledged, under pressure of a looming investigative report, some of what the IRS was doing. She told reporters the actions were the work of "frontline people" in Cincinnati. But other offices were involved, including Washington. It is not even remotely possible the actions were the work of just a few agents. This was more systemic. It was an operation. The word was out: Get the Democratic Party's foes. It is not remotely possible nobody in the IRS knew what was going on until very recently. The Washington Post reported efforts to target the conservative groups reached the highest levels of the agency by May 2012—far earlier than the agency had acknowledged. Reuters reported high-level IRS officials, including its chief counsel, knew in August 2011 about the targeting.

The White House is reported to be shellshocked at public reaction to the scandal. But why? Were they so highhanded, so essentially ignorant, that they didn't understand what it would mean to the American people when their IRS the revenue-collecting arm of the U.S. government is revealed as a low, ugly and bullying tool of the reigning powers? If they didn't know how Americans would react to that, what did they know? I mean beyond Harvey Weinstein's cellphone number.

And why in the matters of the Associated Press and Benghazi too does no one in this administration ever take responsibility? Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't know what happened, exactly who did what. The president speaks in the passive voice. He attempts to act out indignation, but he always seems indignant at only one thing: that he's being questioned at all. That he has to address this. That fate put it on his plate.

We all have our biases. Mine is for a federal government that, for all the partisan shootouts on the streets of Washington, is allowed to go about its work. That it not be distracted by scandal, that political disagreement be, in the end, subsumed to the common good. It is a dangerous world: Calculating people wish to do us harm. In this world no draining, unproductive scandals should dominate the government's life. Independent counsels should not often come in and distract the U.S. government from its essential business.

But that bias does not fit these circumstances.

What happened at the IRS is the government's essential business. The IRS case deserves and calls out for an independent counsel, fully armed with all that position's powers. Only then will stables that badly need to be cleaned, be cleaned. Everyone involved in this abuse of power should pay a price, because if they don't, the politicization of the IRS will continue forever. If it is not stopped now, it will never stop. And if it isn't stopped, no one will ever respect or have even minimal faith in the revenue-gathering arm of the U.S. government again.

And it would be shameful and shallow for any Republican operative or operator to make this scandal into a commercial and turn it into a mere partisan arguing point and part of the game. It's not part of the game. This is not about the usual partisan slugfest. This is about the integrity of our system of government and our ability to trust, which is to say our ability to function.

Contact HaDaR Tezza at nutella59@UCLA.edu

Despite his anti-Semitic streak, Mel Gibson is a talented actor and director. I really would like to like the guy. Too bad he still sees Jews as the Devil's spawn.

One movie, in particular, was truly amazing:

"They may take our lives, but they may never take our freedom!"

Thus, allegedly, spoke William Wallace, aka Braveheart.

No doubt, Gibson's movie was hauntingly spectacular and led me to admire the Scots even more than I did already at least until recently.

Nevertheless, questions regarding the historicity of Gibson's account caused quite a commotion.

Ronald Hamowy of the Department of History at the University of Alberta summed it up this way in his June 28, 1995 comments:

"Frankly, this movie has about as much merit historically as one of the countless dubbed Italian films about Hercules battling the tyrants"

Regardless, William Wallace was a 13th century Scottish hero, and Gibson's passion for the freedom of this people and sympathy for their cause shined through.

It is thus with sadness that I heard recent news about the Church of Scotland's comments regarding the age-old plight and quest for freedom of an even more historically ancient and persecuted people, the Jews.

Both Jewish and non-Jewish historical records link Jews to the land of Israel for most of man's recorded history before most other peoples even made their historical debuts.

The famed Cyrus Cylinder (the Kurash Prism of Persia's Cyrus the Great), for example, is making the rounds in museums all over the world. Despite some debate, many scholars consider it as being one of the most important archaeological finds ever discovered. As of May 2013, it is on display in Washington's Sackler Gallery of the Smithsonian Institute and, among other things, gives an outsider's account of the return of the Jews, upon being freed by Cyrus from Babylonian captivity, to the very land which the Scots now say they have no special ties to.

Braveheart's descendants now claim such things as the Hebrew Bible (aka Old Testament) not specifically connecting the land of Israel to Jews at all (I guess the stories in it are about Chinese or Zimbabweans); the need for Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") to once again be forcibly made Judenrein to appease others' demands; and more.

Like other churches of its ilk, the Scots' missionary work in the Middle East probably has at least as much to do with this anti-Israel development as anything else.

To better appreciate the travesty, let's backtrack and return to the words of Gibson's Braveheart.We'll compare them to another quote, one courtesy of a much-respected, contemporary historian who recorded the words of a major leader of another oppressed people who were fighting over a thousand years before William Wallace took on England the conqueror of much of the known world. And, as the Scots, fighting for freedom and dignity, earlier gave Rome much trouble, so did the Jews.

Tacitus was one of the main Roman historians of the time. Before we consider Josephus's quote, let's see what Tacitus had to say about the first major revolt of the people (66-73 C.E.) whom the Church of Scotland now claims have no special ties to the land in Vol. II, Book V, The Works of Tacitus:

"Vespasian succeeded to the command. It inflamed his resentment that the Jews were the only nation that had not yet submitted. Titus was appointed by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea. He commanded three legions in Judaea itself. To these he added the twelfth from Syria and the third and twenty-second from Alexandria. Amongst his allies were a band of Arabs, formidable in themselves and harboring towards the Jews the bitter animosity usually subsisting between neighboring nations."

Please note the name of the country Rome was referring to here Judaea, as in Jew. Also note that Arabs were outsiders allying themselves with the Romans to get, like vultures, a piece of the kill.

Get the picture?

After the Judaean fortress of Masada fell in 73 C.E., when the Emperor Hadrian later decided to turn the Temple Mount into a pagan shrine, it was the grandchildren's turn to take on their mighty pagan conquerors. And, again, contemporary Roman historians, such as Dio Cassius, recorded the second major revolt (132-135 C.E.) as well.

Among other things, the entire Twenty-Second Roman Legion was wiped out before the leader of this second major quest for freedom by the Jews, Shimon Bar Kochba, fell at Betar. Detailed letters from him to his troops and minted coins with "for the freedom of Israel" etched on them have been discovered as were the famous Dead Sea Scrolls. One of the latter is the War Scroll which speaks of the conflict between "the Sons of Light vs. the Sons of Darkness," and so forth. All in the land where Scots now claim Jews have no special relationship to.

We are now ready for the Roman-sponsored historian, Josephus.

Josephus was a Jew who detested his fellow countrymen who took up arms against the Roman Empire. He saw them waging a war that could not be won, leading their nation to ruin. He chose to align himself with the future Emperor instead. The point is that he wrote what he wrote not out of admiration for the Jewish patriots and freedom fighters. Keep this in mind as we proceed...

The situation Josephus feared was the same as if Lithuania had taken on the Soviet Union in the latter's heyday of power and to a lesser degree (Great Britain had not yet become the imperial powerhouse that it would later on) what the Scots faced in their struggle with England in William Wallace's day in the 13th century C.E.

Yet, again, please note that it was Jews not Arabs, not "Palestinians" who waged repeated revolts in the land that the Church of Scotland now says is not theirs, and they kept the struggle going on for hundreds of years after Rome was gone.

Non-Jewish sources speak of an army of tens of thousands of Jews allying themselves with the Persians to fight the hated Byzantines on the eve of the Arabs' own imperial, caliphal conquest of the region in the 7th century C.E. And beforethe Roman era, Jews had been waging such fights for their freedom for millennia against other assorted enemies once again, also recorded by those enemies themselves.

Judaea Capta coins can be found in museums all over the world and were issued to commemorate Rome's victory. Judaea Capta not Palaestina Capta.

Near the Colosseum, the Arch of Titus stands tall in Rome to this very day as well. Among other things, it displays Romans carrying away the giant menorah and other spoils of the Temple of the Jews along with Judaean captives.

So, despite the Scottish Church's unfortunate claims, the historicity of the Jews' age-old struggle to remain free in their own land is beyond reasonable doubt and is highlighted by, among others, the Romans and their other enemies themselves.

"They may take our lives, but they may never take our freedom!" again, the alleged words of Braveheart. Now, let's compare Scotland's hero to his Jewish counterpart over a thousand years earlier.

Eleazar ben Yair was a leader of the last major band of Judaean warriors to hold out after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.

Josephus records, in Book VII, Wars Of The Jews, the following, heart-wrenching plea Ben Yair gave to his fighters and their families atop the fortress of Masada overlooking the Dead Sea just prior to the final Roman assault.

"Now as he (Eleazar) judged this to be the best thing they could do in their present circumstances, he gathered the most courageous and encouraged them by a speech: 'Since we, long ago resolved never to be servants to the Romans, nor to any other than G-d himself, the time is come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice. We were the very first that revolted from them, and we are the last that fight against them (see Tacitus' quote above); and I cannot but esteem it as a favour that G-d hath granted us that it is still in our power to die bravely, in a state of freedom.'"

Drawing lots, Masada's defenders committed mass suicide families and all rather than fall into Roman hands

While some scholars debate the details, practically everything else that has been excavated, discovered otherwise, and so forth testify to Josephus' trustworthiness so there is no reason to doubt him here. Complete with the huge Roman ramp recorded in Josephus, Masada overlooks the Dead Sea to this very day a must for visitors going to Israel. Contrast all of the above to Professor Hamowy's comments about the historical reliability of Gibson's Braveheart account mentioned at the beginning of this analysis.

Regardless of the news coming out of Scotland today, and despite periods of forced exile, there is no doubt that Jews have been linked to the land for most of recorded history. Indeed, their very name is linked to the land that at least some Scots and others say they have no special ties to a land which got its very name from the Jewish people.

Judah was one of Jacob's twelve sons, for whom the tribes were named. And, as we saw earlier in the writings of the Roman historians themselves, on Roman coins, and so forth, Judea (Iudaea, Judaea) was the Roman name for the land of the people of Judah. Some sixteen centuries earlier, upon his spiritual growth, Jacob had been renamed Israel.

There exist no greater ties anywhere between a land and a people than those which exist between Jews and the land of Israel. Even in forced exile, those ties were never forgotten.

What's next? A rewording of Matthew 2:1 to have Jesus's birth in Bethlehem of the 'West Bank' instead of Bethlehem of Judea? Over a thousand years earlier, the Jews' King David was born there too.

Shame on the Church of Scotland.

Gerald A. Honigman who is the author of this article, is an educator who has done extensive doctoral studies in Mid-East Affairs and has conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth. He gives lectures and participates in debates around the U.S. Read his new book at http://q4j-middle-east.com. This article appeared May 17, 2013 in Arutz Sheva and is archived at
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/13314#.Vko8ELyVsWM

GENEVA, May 13, 2013Iran will chair the United Nations' most important disarmament negotiating forum during the panel's May session, which opened today, sparking calls by an independent monitoring group for the U.S., the EU, and UN chief Ban Ki-moon to protest. Click here for UN website.

"This is like putting Jack the Ripper in charge of a women's shelter," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, the Geneva based non-governmental organization, which announced it will hold protest events outside the UN hall featuring Iranian dissidents.

"Iran is an international outlaw state that illegally supplies rockets to Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, aiding and abetting mass murder and terrorism. To make this rogue regime head of world arms control is simply an outrage. Abusers of international norms should not be the public face of the UN."

U.N. officials say Iran's post is merely the result of an automatic rotation.

But UN Watch rejected attempts to downplay what it described as "a fundamental conflict of interests" and "an act certain to be exploited by Iranian propaganda to legitimize the mullahs' cruel regime."

"UN Watch calls on U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, EU High Commissioner Catherine Ashton, and UN chief Ban Ki-moon to make clear that when the United Nations imposes four rounds of sanctions on Iran for illicit nuclear activities, condemns it for illegally arming the murderous Syrian regime, and denounces Tehran's massive abuse of human rights, this kind of appointment just defies common sense and harms the UN's credibility," said Neuer.

"Any member state that is the subject of UN Security Council sanctions for proliferation and found guilty of massive human rights violations should be ineligible to hold a leadership position in a UN body. The U.S. and Canada have asserted this principle in the past, and should do so again," said Neuer.

"We urge world leaders to declare that allowing Iran to chair a UN disarmament body is simply unacceptable, given the fundamentalist regime's illicit activities in precisely the opposite direction," said Neuer.

"The U.S., the EU, and other nations should call on Iran to pass the chair on to a credible country that will advance the disarmament agenda within the UN," said Neuer.

The Conference of Disarmament reports to the UN General Assembly and is billed by the UN as "the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community."

Iran will assume the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament on May 27 and hold it over four weeks, until June 23.

The conference chair helps organize the work of the conference and assists in setting the agenda.

The May 13 June 28 conference will be the 35th anniversary session since the conference was established in 1979 after a special U.N. General Assembly session.

The conference is made up of 65 countries who have been divided in recent years on key issues.

The conference and its predecessors have negotiated such major multilateral arms limitation and disarmament agreements as:

• Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

• Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

• Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction

• Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction

• Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

Contact AFSI at afsi@rcn.com

For a secure Israel to regain legitimacy, the idea of a Palestinian state must be discredited as a possible means of resolving conflict.

How is it that after all the wrenching concessions it has made, Israel is far more reviled today than during the rigid "rejectionism" of Yitzhak Shamir? I believe we have to talk to each other and to listen to each other. I think bilateral engagement is the only way. But confidence, trust, is not existing. Jibril Rajoub, Fatah Central Committee, at the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in Tel A viv, April 23.

We the Palestinians are the enemies of Israel. There is no going back to negotiations. Listen. We as yet don't have a nuke, but I swear that if we had a nuke, we'd have used it this very morning. — Jibril Rajoub, on the Lebanese-based TV station Al Mayadeen, April 30

I have been sitting in front of my computer screen with waves of despair and disbelief flowing over me, unable to write a sentence for hours.

As I meander through cyberspace, each proposal I encounter for resolving the Palestinian issue seems more detached from reality, more devoid of reason, more desperate, more delusional and more depressing than the one before.

Repeatedly disproven, never discarded

It would be one thing if these outlandish schemes were being promoted solely by Israel's external adversaries. But what I find bewildering and debilitating is that these demonstrably unworkable proposals are being energetically pursued and promoted by influential Israelis themselves.

Almost inconceivably, policy prescriptions that not many years ago would have been condemned as almost treasonous, are being enthusiastically embraced and ardently advanced by individuals and organizations, deep within the mainstream Israeli establishment. Time after time, we see one public figure after another succumb to the pernicious pressures of political correctness and endorse political paradigms they had previously denounced as too dangerous to be adopted.

Failure, no matter how dramatic, disastrous or devastating, seems to have little effect. Regardless of results, reality or reason, they cling stubbornly to evermore radical variants of the same concept of political appeasement and territorial abandonment, which although repeatedly disproven, is somehow never discredited, and certainly, never discarded.

When negotiated withdrawal failed to bring peace, unilateral withdrawal was adopted. When that failed to bring the desired results, unrequited unilateral withdrawal i.e. withdrawal for withdrawal's sake is now being touted as an objective in itself.

No matter how heinous.

It seems that no matter how heinous the deeds, or obnoxious the declarations, on the Palestinian side, this will never disqualify anyone to be welcomed as an honored interlocutor in the discourse on Israeli concessions.

The only criterion for invitation seems to be that there should be someone else who has perpetrated deeds more heinous, or made declarations more obnoxious.

Thus for example, less than a year ago, Jibril Rajoub, who also heads the Palestine Olympic Committee, commended the president of the International Olympic Committee, Jacques Rogge, for not permitting a minute of silence at the 2012 London Olympics to commemorate the murder of Israeli sportsmen at the 1972 Munich Games (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 25, 2012).

The fact that Rajoub declared that such commemoration of the cold-blooded killing of Jewish sportsmen, solely because they were Jewish, would be an act of "racism" apparently was not considered an impediment to including him in the high-profile program of the INSS to discuss "creative ideas" to deal with the Palestinian problem.

Barely a week later, the affable Rajoub gave full vent to his "creativity" on the recently established Al-Mayadeen TV channel, when he indicated that his preferred solution to the conflict would be the nuclear annihilation of the Jewish state. And just to eliminate any doubt that this might have been a slip of the tongue, two days later, Jibril posted the interview on his Facebook page indicating that he felt little regret at the judicial views he had articulated. Quite the opposite.

It seems that in his assessment, they might boost his popularity with the Palestinian public.

One cannot help wondering whether his INSS hosts felt a ting of sheepish embarrassment on learning of the public proclamation of the pungent predilections of the man to whom they had provided their prestigious podium. After all, it is virtually inconceivable that any "right-wing" Israeli, expressing views even remotely as acrimonious as those of Rajoub, would be invited to grace their conference.

Perhaps they would do well to heed Rajoub's recommendation that "we have to listen to each other."

So open-minded their brains fell out.?

But what has all this got to do with the title of this essay, "Deciphering delegitimization"? In a word, everything or almost everything.

Of course, in the prevailing politically correct perception, what has led to the accelerating deterioration of the country's international image which last week gathered reinforced momentum with the decision of the world-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking to boycott Nobel Peace laureate and Oslo-cum-New-Middle-East visionary, Shimon Peres is the alleged Israeli intransigence in denying Palestinians statehood.

In reality, quite the reverse is true. By desperately adhering to a paradigm that is inherently unworkable, the two-state advocates have not only made Israel appear insincere and conniving, but have sown the seeds for the very delegitimization the two state approach was supposed to obviate.

By endorsing a seemingly unending succession of concessions, by displaying seemingly unlimited tolerance for the unmasked malevolence and mendacity of the Palestinians, they have undermined, rather than underpinned, Israel's international credibility.

For it is difficult if not impossible for the average individual to grasp the seemingly unbounded benevolent lenience toward an openly obdurate adversary, if one believed that there was any validity or moral merit to one's own case.

Tenacious two-staters would do well to take to heart G.K. Chesterton acerbic counsel: "Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out."

Lessons of the Hawking-Peres fiasco

So what lessons can and must be learned from the perverse Hawking-Peres fiasco? It illustrates that continued pursuit of the two-state approach is either obsessive or obtuse. Neither precedent nor plausibility auger well for its prospects of success. As policy, it flies in the face of both empirical fact and political prudence.

Its advocates must be forced to confront the trenchant question: ow is it that after all the wrenching concessions Israel has made over the last two decades, it is far more reviled today than during the rigid "rejectionism" of Yitzhak Shamir? This is not a question that should be flippantly dismissed as irrelevant. For experience has shown that continual concessions have proved disastrously counterproductive, while escalating Palestinian intransigence has paid handsome dividends.

Worse, by embracing the two-state approach, Israel has, in effect, made a mockery of its own diplomatic endeavor. After all, how can one be expected to be taken seriously when what was once resolutely rejected as an unacceptable risk to national security is now being portrayed as the sine qua non for national survival?

An unassailable political algorithm

Clearly, within the context of conventional wisdom and the discourse it generates, the contention that Israel's acceptance of the legitimacy of Palestinian national claims has laid the foundations for the international assault on its own legitimacy seems, at best, counter-intuitive. However, the logic behind it is unassailable and the conclusion to be drawn from it inexorable: Once the legitimacy of a Palestinian state is conceded, the delegitimization of Israel is inevitable.

The chain of reasoning is clear and compelling almost algorithmic: • If the Palestinian narrative which portrays the Palestinians as an authentic national entity is acknowledged as legitimate, then all the aspirations, such as achieving Palestinian statehood, that arise from that narrative are legitimate. Accordingly, any policy that precludes the achievement of those aspirations will be perceived as illegitimate.

• So, if the legitimacy of a Palestinian state is accepted, then any measures incompatible with its viability are illegitimate. However in the absence of wildly optimistic, and hence irresponsibly unrealistic, "best-case" assumptions any policy that is designed to secure Israel's minimal security requirements, will preclude the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.

• Consequently, any endeavor to realistically provide Israel with minimal security will be perceived as illegitimate. Accordingly, by accepting the admissibility of a Palestinian state, one necessarily admits the inadmissibility of measures required to ensure Israeli security.

• Conversely, measures required to ensure Israeli security necessarily negate the viability of a Palestinian state.

• The inevitable conclusion must therefore be that for Israel to secure conditions that adequately address its minimal security requirements, the Palestinian narrative, and the aspirations that flow from it, must be delegitimized.

Delegitimizing defensible borders

I have little doubt that committed two-staters will dismiss this reasoned argument with haughty derision.

However, I would urge them to follow Jibril Rajoub's advice and to listen to what the Palestinians are saying. In particular, I would refer them to "The Myth of Defensible Borders" by Omar Dajani and Ezzedine Fishere, which appeared in the January 2011 edition of Foreign Affairs.

The authors an adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team and an adviser to the-then Egyptian foreign minister, respectively, write, not without significant justification: " policy of defensible borders wouldbperpetuate the current sources of Palestinian insecurity, further delegitimizing an agreement in the public's eyes. Israel would retain the discretion to impose arbitrary and crippling constraints on the movement of people and goods. For these reasons, Palestinians are likely to regard defensible borders as little more than occupation by another name."

See what I mean about "defensible borders delegitimizing an agreement" on a Palestinian state?

Moreover, recent post-Oslowian events in the Mideast a triumphant Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, an ever-ascendant Islamist influence in Jordan, and the specter of a jihadist Syria are hardly likely to reduce Israeli threat-perception. In turn, this is likely to increase the incompatibility between a viable Palestinian state and minimal requirements for a secure Israel, thus widening even more the perceived "legitimacy" gap.

Two states or two stages?

Future historians will surely be baffled as to why such a manifestly disastrous, disproven concept came to be embraced by so many prominent, allegedly well-informed pundits, politicians, and policy-makers.

They will be particularly perplexed as to why the two-state solution was so enthusiastically endorsed not only by those who had a vested interest in feigning support for it, but by those who had a vested interest in exposing it as the duplicitous subterfuge it is. They will be mystified as to why despite the fact that it proved devastating for both Arabs and Jews it became the hallmark of progressive enlightenment.

For by pursuing the "vision" (read "fantasy") of two states, allegedly pro-Israel twostaters will not only fail to reap the intended benefits this policy is purported to yield, but will precipitate outcomes highly deleterious to Israel indeed, the very outcomes the two-state policy was supposed to prevent.

One is left to wonder what more has to occur until realization dawns that the "two-state" notion is merely a facilitating link in the "two-stage" strategy.

Imperative for a political 'Iron-Dome'

For the notion of a secure Israel to regain legitimacy, the notion of a Palestinian state must be discredited and removed from the discourse as a possible means of resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict.

This, of course, is easier said than done.

Rolling back the decades of distortion, deception and delusion that have become entrenched in the collective international consciousness will be a Herculean task. But the immensity of the task cannot diminish the imperative of its implementation.

It will require the effort both intellectual and financial at least comparable to that invested in the " threat of international delegitimization of Israel is a far greater strategic menace than primitive projectiles that carry barely 20 kg. of explosives.

One can only hope that the nation will produce leaders equal to the task with the necessary political will, intellectual depth and ideological commitment, hitherto undisplayed by recent incumbents, both past and present.

This article was written by Martin H. Shulman who is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. It appeared May 16, 2013 in the Jerusalem Post and is archived at
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Into-the-Fray-Deciphering-delegitimization-313419Contact Martin Sherman at ms6747@gmail.com

If you haven't tuned President Empty Chair out completely, you may recall him making some absurdly tough noises about cleaning house at the IRS and firing some top officials. It has now been confirmed by multiple sources, including ABC News, that one of those officials Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller was due to leave in June anyway. He's not being "fired" at all; he's leaving on schedule.

But Obama looked America right in the eye and lied through his teeth about demanding Miller's resignation. That's almost a scandal unto itself, isn't it? Shouldn't reporters be swarming Obama and demanding to know why he made such misleading statements about sacking the IRS commissioner? Or will the excuse be that Obama was once again clueless about what was going on at the IRS, and only discovered Miller was due to leave anyway when he read the newspapers last night? Would even the true Obama dead-enders be stupid enough to believe that about an IRS official whose appointment is directly controlled by the President?

Miller's replacement as Acting IRS Commissioner is Danny Werfel, formerly of the White House Office of Management and Budget where he was in charge of sequester planning. Leaving that aside, and meaning no personal insult to Mr. Werfel, but I really don't think anyone connected with the White House in any way should be in charge of the IRS right now.

The one and only person thus far who really is losing his job is the commissioner in charge of the tax-exempt division, where loyal apparatchiks systematically discriminated against Barack Obama's political enemies. His name is Joseph Grant, and he's giving his job up voluntarily, without a hint of punishment or discipline. The IRS statement clearly describes his departure as a planned retirement, not a resignation, and it lists his credentials in the manner of a respectful salute to an honored colleague, not a man resigning in disgrace:

I see media headlines all over the place describing Grant as the second person to "lose his job" or "resign" over the IRS scandal. That is not true. No one has lost his job over this scandal yet. The Acting Commissioner was due to leave anyway, unless President Obama actively re-appointed him for another term. The commissioner of the tax-exempt organizations department is retiring gracefully.

Furthermore, Grant only became the commissioner of his department last week. He was the Deputy Commissioner before that, so he has strong links to the scandal, but he wasn't the top executive when the outrage occurred. That would be one Sara Hall Ingram. And she didn't get fired or disciplined.

She got promoted. She is now the director of the IRS' Affordable Care Office. In other words, the person in charge during the worst abuse-of-power scandal in modern history is now the chief enforcer for ObamaCare.

Ingram was also richly rewarded for her loyal service to the regime. According to the Washington Examiner, she got a $7000 bonus in 2009, $34,440 in 2010, $35,400 in 2011, and $26,550 in 2012. That makes $103,390 in bonuses for the official who was either coordinating this outrageous abuse, or was blissfully unaware of massive illegal behavior in her department.

The President is supposed to personally approve the payment of bonuses over $25,000, according to federal civil service guidelines. The IRS paid over $92 million in bonuses over the last four years. Remember that the next time Democrats start whining about the horrors of austerity, and sobbing that the first dollar of "spending cuts" means they'll have to furlough air-traffic controllers and first responders.

The Examiner duly notes that Ingram also got a big bonus during the Bush Administration, when she was cited for distinguished service as an IRS lawyer, at a time when the IRS was being criticized for generally sub-par performance. So we're supposed to believe this Distinguished Service Award-Winning IRS official, lavished with huge bonuses year after year, was completely unaware of what her subordinates were doing, over the course of several years?

And now she's a good choice to serve as conductor for the ObamaCare train wreck? Where she'll have access to what the Wall Street Journal describes as "the largest personal information database the government has ever attempted?"

Known as the Federal Data Services Hub, the project is taking the IRS's own records (for income and employment status) and centralizing them with information from Social Security (identity), Homeland Security (citizenship), Justice (criminal history), HHS (enrollment in entitlement programs and certain medical claims data) and state governments (residency).

The data hub will be used as the verification system for ObamaCare's complex subsidy formula. All insurers, self-insured businesses and government health programs must submit reports to the IRS about the individuals they cover, which the IRS will cross-check against tax returns.

Good luck in advance to anyone who gets caught in this system's gears, assuming it even works. Centralizing so much personal information in one place is another invitation for the IRS wigglers in some regional office or maybe higher up to make political decisions about enforcement.

Contact Daily Events at HumanEventsDaily@email.humanevents.com

Israel's readiness to deal with a chemical weapons attack is hampered by the fact that more than one-third of the population does not have gas masks.

Israel is inadequately prepared for a possible chemical weapon attack, according to the Homefront Defense Ministry's recently released annual report.

"As of 2012, the readiness level of government office and state authorities for an unconventional weapon attack stands at low-medium, the report said. It said Israel faces a high risk of a terrorist chemical attack and a medium risk of a radiological attack."

On May 27, the Homefront Defense Ministry, Israel Defense Forces Homefront Command and local authorities are scheduled to carry out a drill on dealing with a chemical attack. The exercise will include two sirens being sounded throughout the country, one around noon and the other in the evening. It had been scheduled to take place in the beginning of the month, but due to tensions on the Syrian border, a result of what foreign reports have said were two Israeli airstrikes in Syria, the exercise was delayed.

The international community and Israel in particular have been increasingly worried about Syrian chemical weapon usage, as the civil war continues to rage across the country and the regime loses control of even more weapon systems. According to foreign reports, chemical weapons have being used in the fighting. The real fear is that terrorist groups such as Hezbollah or other jihadist groups would get their hands on Syria's large chemical weapon stockpiles.

The Homefront Defense Ministry report reflects the current fears, saying that there are numerous indicators of terrorist organizations trying to get their hands on nonconventional weapons.

The report reflected another common perception, that Israel's readiness to deal with a chemical weapon attack is not high. One of the central issues is that only 60 percent of Israeli citizens have nonconventional warfare protection kits, which include age-appropriate gas masks, and that due to budget shortfalls there are not enough kits in storage. There is also a shortage of gas masks adjusted for bearded men.

In 2012, Israel Hayom reported that the Homefront Defense Ministry had run out of funds to manufacture more kits, requiring an 80 million shekel ($22 million) transfer to keep production going.

Homefront Defense Minister Gilad Erdan told Army Radio Thursday that the Syrian government would not risk using chemical weapons on Israel.

"Syria would not dare turn its chemical weapons on Israel," Erdan said. "The Syrian regime and other groups in the area understand all too well the difference between using conventional weapons against Israel and using chemical weapons. The IDF's power to retaliate is immense, and if we are talking about the possibility of such weapons being used against Israel, well, then the chances are not high."

Contact Unity Coalition for Israel at voices@unitycoalitionforisrael.org

In this Thursday, Sept. 27, 2012 photo, two young fighters read out Quranic verses for a journalist, at the request of their Islamist commanders, in Douentza, Mali. Across northern Mali, Islamists have plucked and paid for as many as 1,000 children from rural towns and villages devastated by poverty and hunger, The Associated Press has found. Interviews conducted by the AP provide evidence that a new generation in what was long a moderate and stable Muslim nation is becoming radicalized, as the Islamists gather forces to fight a potential military intervention backed by the United Nations. Credit: AP

The lost history of Christians forced to convert to Islam—or die—is reemerging, figuratively and literally. According to the BBC: "Pope Francis has proclaimed the first saints of his pontificate in a ceremony [last Sunday] at the Vatican a list which includes 800 victims of an atrocity carried out by Ottoman soldiers in 1480. They were beheaded in the southern Italian town of Otranto after refusing to convert to Islam."

The BBC adds in a sidebar: "The 'Martyrs of Otranto' were 813 Italians beheaded for defying demands by Turkish invaders to renounce Christianity. The Turks had been sent by Mohammed II, who had already captured the 'second Rome' of Constantinople."

Historical texts throughout the centuries are filled with similar anecdotes, including the "60 Martyrs of Gaza," Christian soldiers who were executed for refusing Islam during the 7th century Islamic invasion of Jerusalem. Seven centuries later, during the Islamic invasion of Georgia, Christians refusing to convert were forced into their church and set on fire. Witnesses for Christ lists 200 anecdotes of Christians killed—including some burned at the stake, thrown on iron spikes, dismembered, stoned, stabbed, shot at, drowned, pummeled to death, impaled and crucified—for refusing to embrace Islam.

If history is shocking, the fact is, today, Christians men, women, and children are still being forced to convert to Islam. Pope Francis alluded to their sufferings during the same ceremony: "As we venerate the martyrs of Otranto, let us ask God to sustain those many Christians who, in these times and in many parts of the world, right now, still suffer violence, and give them the courage and fidelity to respond to evil with good."

Consider some recent anecdotes:

In Pakistan, a "devoted Christian" was butchered by Muslim men "with multiple axe blows [24 per autopsy] for refusing to convert to Islam." Another two Christian men returning from church were accosted by six Muslims who tried to force them to convert to Islam, but "the two refused to renounce Christianity." Accordingly, the Muslims severely beat them, yelling they must either convert "or be prepared to die the two Christians fell unconscious, and the young Muslim men left assuming they had killed them."

In Bangladesh some 300 Christian children were abducted in 2012 and sold to Islamic schools, where "imams force them to abjure Christianity." The children are then instructed in Islam and beaten. After full indoctrination they are asked if they are "ready to give their lives for Islam," presumably by becoming jihadi suicide-bombers. (Even here the historic patterns are undeniable: for centuries, Christian children were forcibly taken, converted to and indoctrinated in Islam, trained to be jihadis extraordinaire, and then unleashed on their former Christian families. Such were the Janissaries and Mamelukes.)

In Palestine in 2012, Christians in Gaza protested over the "kidnappings and forced conversions of some former believers to Islam." The ever-dwindling Christian community banged on a church bell while chanting, "With our spirit, with our blood we will sacrifice ourselves for you, Jesus."

Just as happened throughout history, Muslims today regularly "invite" Christians to Islam, often presenting it as the only cure to their sufferings sufferings caused by Muslims in the first place.

In Pakistan, a Christian couple was arrested on a false charge and severely beaten by police. The pregnant wife was "punched, kicked and beat" as her interrogators threatened to kill her unborn baby. A policeman offered to drop the theft charge if the husband would only "renounce Christianity and convert to Islam," but the man refused.

In Uzbekistan, a 26-year-old Christian woman, partially paralyzed from youth, and her elderly mother were violently attacked by invaders who ransacked their home, confiscating "icons, Bibles, religious calendars, and prayer books." At the police department, the paralyzed woman was "offered to convert to Islam." She refused, and the judge "decided that the women had resisted police and had stored the banned religious literature at home and conducted missionary activities. He fined them 20 minimum monthly wages each."

In Sudan, Muslims kidnapped a 15-year-old Christian girl; they raped, beat and ordered her to convert to Islam. When her mother went to police to open a case, the Muslim officer of the so-called "Family and Child Protection Unit," told her: "You must convert to Islam if you want your daughter back."

Indeed, because Christian females are the most vulnerable segments of Islamic societies, they are especially targeted for forced conversions. In 2012, U.S. Congress heard testimony about the "escalating abduction, coerced conversion and forced marriage of Coptic Christian women and girls [550 cases in the last five years alone]. Those women are being terrorized and, consequently, marginalized, in the formation of the new Egypt."

As my new book Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians documents, wherever there are large numbers of Muslims — whether in the Arab World, Africa, Asia, or even in the West — Christians are being persecuted. Forced conversions are the tip of the iceberg, and certainly not anomalies of history.

Contact Sanne DeWitt at skdewitt@comcast.net

The foreign policy of President Barak Obama regarding Syria is in question. Russia and Iran back President Bashar al Assad. Turkey and the US call for his voluntary resignation. Secretary of State John Kerry stated a goal of decisions by mutual consent between the Assad Regime and rebel groups. This seems like Humpty Dumpty putting all of the pieces back together again.

Syria is an Arab country bordered by Israel, the Mediterranean, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon. It is in the cradle of civilization. Damascus is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. Scholars believe that writing was invented in Syria around 2,000 BC. The Hebrew Bible refers to 17,000 tablets; the source of the Semitic language and later the basis for the Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic languages.

Alexander the Great ended centuries of battles. Pompey and the Romans followed, Christianity spread. Islamic fighters arrived in 632 AD. Christians and Islamics co-existed for centuries. When Caliphs began to destroy churches, Crusaders arrived. Saladin fought Richard the Lionheart who recaptured Jerusalem in 1187. Mongols, then Egyptians, then Ottomans conquered Greater Syria which is now Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, parts of Turkey, and Iraq.

Lawrence of Arabia arrived in Damascus with Emir Feisal in 1918. Feisal was King of Syria. The San Remo Agreement ended that, and Syria was divided between Britain and France. Lebanon went to the French and what are now Israel and Jordon to the British.

Syria declared independence in 1946. Instability followed, until 1970 when Hafiz al Assad seized power. In the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Syria lost the Golan Heights to Israel. Following Hafiz death, his son Bashar al Assad was approved as President in 2000, and 2007. USA sanctions against Syria are due to its support of terrorists groups; providing Lebanon with weapons of mass destruction and Scud missiles in violation of UN Resolutions.

In 2011 protests spread to every city in Syria. Clashes intensified into civil war, which is responsible for the death of over 80,000 Syrians. Over 2,500,000 Syrian refugees desperately need humanitarian aid.

Videotapes of rebels practicing cannibalism, barbequing heads and eating hearts of victims are on the web. Photographs and video of victims foaming at the mouth, eyes rolling; from what appears to be Sarin Gas are on the web. President Obama has called use of chemical weapons a red line. Some believe that Obama was bluffing; Iran watches.

Islamist rebels from many parts of the world fight in this civil war including Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkistan, several North African and other Middle Eastern countries, and even European Countries such as Norway. There are Islamic Shia and Sunni extremists with strong links to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Al Qaeda. Their goal is to oust Assad and to create an Islamic State in Syria. Turf wars between rebel groups would follow.

Iran and Russia defend Assad. Assad forces include Lebanese Hezbollah, Russians, and Iranians. Russia has moved warships off the coast of Syria, and has the largest buildup of naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean since the cold war. Iraq allows Iran to use its air space to deliver weapons and fighters to Syria. Turkey has fortified its border with anti missile defense.

Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) introduced the Syria Stabilization Act of 2013. It calls for sanctions against the Assad Regime, aid for refugees, and arming the rebel forces with $250 million a year in weapons. Menendez hopes that Islamic terrorist rebels will support the USA. Senator Menendez wants to find rebels that can be properly vetted who have common values with the United States. He might have a better chance of finding the Tooth Fairy.

Secretary Kerry and his Russian Counterpart Sergey Lavrov announced a new diplomatic effort last week. One of the rebel groups welcomed their efforts. Secretary General of the United , Ban Ki Moon welcomed their statement. The Assad Regime has rejected all initiatives presented. This seems like a Neville Chamberlain moment; Benjamin Netanyahu plays Winston Churchill.

Frank Spano wrote in the Investigative Project on Terrorism "Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is still the enemy."

Darlene Casella was an English teacher, a stockbroker, and president/owner of a small corporation. She lives with her husband in la Quinta, California and can be reached at darlenecasella@msn.com

Turkish law firm Elmadag files a complaint to the ICC on behalf of the Comoros Islands regarding the 2010 IDF raid, saying the Gaza-bound flotilla flew the Comoros flag, incident occurred on Comoros's territory.

International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda announced on Tuesday that she was opening a preliminary examination based on the Comoros Islands' complaint against Israel regarding the 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla incident.

Who? That's right not the Palestinians and not Turkey, but the Comoros Islands. Or at least the Turkish law firm Elmadag (it's unclear whether it is acting independently, or secretly in conjunction with the Turkish government), filing "on behalf" of Comoros (also unclear how much of the impetus for the filing came from Comoros and how much from the law firm.)

For those who have not memorized all of the world's smaller countries, the Comoros Islands are off the southeastern coast of Africa, near Madagascar. They, or Elmadag, have catapulted from obscurity onto the big-time stage of the Israeli-Palestinian- Turkish conflict, because technically they say that since the Marmara registered and flew the flag of Comoros about two weeks before the incident, the incident actually occurred on Comoros's "territory."

So four years after starting a still-unsuccessful campaign to bring Israel before the ICC including achieving statehood recognition from the UN General Assembly the Palestinians and their supporters may have found an unlikely end-run to give Israel legal headaches.

How worried should Israel be? Well, Comoros's filing gets past the statehood threshold problem that has been holding up the Palestinians so far; no one says Comoros is not a state.

But the statehood issue is only one of several jurisdictional threshold questions that can stop a case from going from a preliminary examination to a full investigation, an on to an indictment.

So there are many preliminary legal issues that could stop this train before it leaves the station, such as whether registering and placing a flag on a ship from Turkey some two weeks before an incident can really make the ship Comoros's "territory."

Another major difficulty is Comoros's claim that Israel has failed to investigate itself.

The ICC does not intervene where a country impartially and promptly investigates allegations of crimes in its territory (even if the investigation does not result in convictions).

Comoros cites the vital nature of the IDF to Israel as evidence that Israel cannot investigate itself. It also cites the allegations of possible war crimes from the UN Human Rights Council Report on the flotilla, arguing that these are allegations the ICC must investigate.

The problem is that the UN Palmer Report, sponsored by the Secretary-General's Office, came to very different conclusions than the UN Human Rights Council Report did such as declaring Israel's blockade of Gaza legal.

The Palmer Report does say that Israel used excessive force, but it also recognizes that IDF soldiers were under attack, making war crimes arguments difficult.

Besides the Palmer Report, the Turkel Commission Reports I and II investigated the flotilla in detail, including calling the prime minister, defense minister, IDF chief of staff and others to testify. Along with independent observers, it found that the mistakes Israel may have made were not criminal. The second part of the report, while recommending 19 changes to the country's system of self-investigations, overall pronounced Israel able to investigate itself objectively.

Comoros ignores these documents, which could undermine its credibility with the ICC prosecutor.

There is also a "gravity" requirement, meaning the ICC only investigates the most serious war crimes, such as murder on a massive scale, usually arising out of extended and widespread hostilities.

Comoros tries to enlarge the volume of the alleged crimes by focusing not only on the small number of dead activists, nine, but also on the 600 activists it says were otherwise victimized.

It cites recent ICC cases saying that the gravity requirement is subjective, not objective, and that drafters of the Rome Statute which governs the ICC specifically left out the number of dead victims required to open a case.

But reference to the cases the ICC has taken show that there are no similar cases with as few as nine dead in one situation, and the allegations regarding the 600 passengers appear to mix and match alleged crimes that might be ICC-worthy, with allegations that sound closer to inconvenience than to a reason for a war crimes trial.

With all of these question marks, Israel probably does not have much to worry about, and the bigger question is why Comoros- Elmadag has chosen this moment to essentially re-file old claims that were filed in 2010 and went nowhere.

How Bensouda handles the case may reveal more, but with the wind blowing against the sails of Comoros's legal attack, the most likely motive for the move is a desperate attempt to undermine the Turkey-Israel deal that is on the verge of putting the entire incident in the past.

Contact Ted Belman at tedbel12israpundit.net

Major police operation to uncover illegal weapons in northern Israel.

Police have uncovered more than 2,000 weapons that were held illegally in northern Israel as part of an operation to reduce illegal weapons ownership.

Police in all northern districts took part in the operation, which saw officers working together with detectives, Border Police, canine units and the Yassam special forces.

Many of the illegally owned weapons were found after simply checking on the fate of weapons that were once legally owned. Officers found many owners who kept their weapons despite letting their registration expire, and children of legal weapons owners who kept a deceased parent's firearm.

Some of the weapons had been kept for sentimental reasons, among them firearms dating back to the 1940s.

Northern District Police Commander Major-General Roni Atia said, "We will continue to invest our time and resources in locating and collecting weapons that are being held illegally, and whoever is caught with illegal weapons will be brought to justice."

A new nationwide initiative aimed at gathering illegal weapons began this week. The initiative began with a grace period during which anyone who is in possession of an unauthorized weapon may turn in their weapon to police without facing charges, on the condition that the weapon was never used to commit a crime.

Contact Israel_politics2@yahoogroups.com

^{To Go To Top}

The University of Sheffield recently decided not to renew its waste collection contract with Veolia following a student boycott campaign. The campaign, launched by the Palestine Society, and supported by the student union, called on the educational institution to sever its ties with the multinational corporation over the latter's providing of services to Israeli cities in Judea and Samaria, lands liberated after the 1967 Six Day War. Last October, the student union voted to endorse the BDS movement. "It is enormously gratifying that university management appears to have been responsive to the concerns both of ourselves and of the wider student body," pro-Palestinian activists wrote. In its action, the British university decided to award the contract to one of Veolia's competitors. Veolia is a French company with activities in water management, waste management, and energy and transport services. The company has a major operation in Israel.

Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to make an official visit to China in early May 2013. This would be the first visit by an Israeli prime minister to China in over six years, and given the rarity of the meetings between the two heads of state and China's increased influence internationally, the trip is important. Furthermore, this past March, China completed a change of government, and new people are now holding top leadership positions. This will be an opportunity for Israel to meet China's new leaders, some of whom are expected to remain in their positions for the next ten years.

No less important, China has been rethinking its Middle Eastern policy since the start of the Arab Spring. Since China opened up to the world in the late 1970s, its approach to the Middle East has been characterized by a lack of significant involvement in political and diplomatic processes in the region, exclusive focus on promoting its economic interests, and maintenance of a balanced policy toward states and other actors in the region. The Arab Spring, which damaged China's economic interests in the region, coupled with Beijing‚s declared intention in recent years to acquire a significant status in world politics, led China to presume that its existing policy toward the Middle East has exhausted itself.

Instead, it must deepen its ties in the region in order to establish a firm, long term foothold while exploiting the fact that the regional array of forces is undergoing significant change. The highly influential October 2012 article by Wang Jisi, China's leading Chinese scholar of international relations, created a stir by asserting that China needs to adopt a new strategy, strengthening its influence and position in Central Asia and the Middle East.

This trend entails a significant challenge for Israel. If China assumes that Israel's close relations with the United States will prevent Israel from strengthening its relationship with China, and at the same time, Beijing assesses that its dependence on Arab (and Iranian) oil will grow, the process of its increasing involvement in the Middle East is liable to bypass Israel.

In the meantime, as is demonstrated by China's invitation to Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, at the same time Netanyahu will be visiting there (albeit for a slightly shorter visit), China is adhering to its balanced approach to Israel and the Palestinians and is linking bilateral relations with Israel to its regional policy. Clearly, the Sino-Israeli bilateral relationship still does not stand fully on its own.

Finding common interests with China is of great importance for Israel, and a meeting between the heads of state at this time can promote this. In spite of China's traditional support for the Arab line and its energy ties with the Muslim states, it credits Israel with several important assets. One is that Israel holds one of the main keys to stability in the region, an issue in which China has much interest; another is that the events of the Arab Spring have demonstrated that Israel is an island of stability in the heart of a volatile region.

In addition, Israel is an important source of knowledge about events in a region in which China often feels at a loss. Israel is also seen in China as a source of advanced technologies, and China has an interest in promoting its science and technology ties with Israel and perhaps even energy ties as Israel's natural gas industry develops.

Finally, while China no longer believes, as it once did, that Israel has unlimited influence in Washington, it does feel that strengthening its relationship with Jerusalem would be a sign that it gradually is coming to possess a foothold in the region, while somewhat offsetting, and perhaps even undermining, American political influence there.

Under these circumstances, Netanyahu's visit to China provides a significant opportunity that should not be missed. One way, in fact, to miss the opportunity would be to place too much emphasis on the Iranian issue. The importance of the Iranian threat is clear and certainly Israel must do everything it can to thwart it, including raising the issue with China's new top leaders.

However, the issue has been discussed in recent years at every significant meeting between the states, and more than once it has taken up the lion's share of the agenda while pushing aside topics that from China's point of view are no less important. Consequently, if Israel makes Iran the main focus of discussion, China will take this to mean that strengthening bilateral ties is not of primary importance to Israel; rather, from Israel's perspective, China's importance is limited to promoting Israel's security interests.

Specific issues that can be raised in this context are promoting Chinese investments in Israel (an interest of both countries) and establishing formal and semi-formal high level dialogues between the two states. As for the China-Israel-United States triangle, Israel can make it clear to China that while its technological ties will remain subject to the framework of understandings between Jerusalem and Washington, it is working to promote its activities with China in a wide variety of non-sensitive areas. Finally, in light of China's desire to play a more visible role in Middle Eastern politics, Israel can suggest that China participate in various international frameworks connected to the Middle East and discuss with it burning regional developments, such as Syria.

Mahmoud Abbas' visit to Beijing at the same time as Netanyahu also invites a discussion of China's possible contribution to progress on the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Placing these issues on the table would convey Israel's recognition of China's rising status and its increasing importance in the region, and would make it possible to express Israel's concerns and expectations to China in a more balanced manner.

Finally, more than any other Israeli politician, Benjamin Netanyahu is identified with the close US-Israel relationship. This likely leads China to assume that he would refrain from taking significant steps to promote relations with China so as not to arouse the displeasure of the United States, which, since its decisive action against Sino-Israeli security relations, has been perceived as an impediment to their further development.

In spite of his limited role in the development of relations, his balance sheet is positive. This has been especially noticeable in recent years given his moves to promote economic and diplomatic ties between the two countries. His intentions to include Chinese companies in large infrastructure projects in Israel, for example, are known, as is his instruction to ministers in his government during a time of budget cuts to reduce official trips to every country except China.

Therefore, despite his commitment to ties with the United States, Netanyahu's contribution to relations with China is largely positive, and the planned visit can help bolster this dynamic.

Contact Israel Commentary at israelcommentary@comcast.net

From the official PA daily:

"Jesus the virtuous patriotic Palestinian forefather brought forth his New Testament and spread it among mankind which led the Jews to persecute him until they caught him, crucified him, and murdered him"

"The Zionist movement wanted to falsify historical facts, to exile and crucify the Palestinian Arab nation and then murder it"

Having no ancient Palestinian history, the Palestinian Authority has tried for many years to convince its people that they have a history going back many thousands of years, that there was an ancient Palestinian nation, and that one of the great figures of history, Jesus, was their "forefather" and they are "Jesus' descendants."

The fact that in Christian tradition Jesus is a Jew from the nation of Judea and that the historical record has no record of a Palestinian Arab people, is not taught by the PA. he PA also ignores the fact that Rome only changed the name of Judea to "Palestine" after the Judean Bar Kochba Rebellion in the year 136, long after the death of Jesus. Furthermore, according to Christian tradition, Jesus did not marry, had no children, and therefore Palestinians could not be "Jesus' descendants."

The following is another presentation of Jesus as a Palestinian. According to this op-ed in the official PA daily, Jesus the Palestinian was oppressed and persecuted by the Jews, similar to today's Palestinians, who are likewise oppressed and persecuted by the Jews. Nonetheless, just as Jesus was resurrected, so too "the Palestinians, Jesus' descendants, rose from the ashes," the op-ed states.

Palestinian Media Watch has documented the PA's presentation of Jesus as a Palestinian and as an Islamic Martyr (Shahid).

The following is a longer excerpt from the op-ed in the official PA daily:

Headline: "The resurrection of Jesus, the resurrection of the state"

Op-ed by PA daily regular columnist Adel Abd Al-Rahman

"Easter is not a holiday for Christian Palestinians only but a holiday for Palestinian nationalism, because Jesus, may he rest in peace, is a Canaanite Palestinian. His resurrection, three days after being crucified and killed by the Jews as reported in the New Testament reflects the Palestinian narrative, which struggles against the descendants of modern Zionist Judaism, in its new colonialist form, that conspires with the Western capitalists who claim to belong to Christianity.

Jesus, may he rest in peace, the virtuous patriotic Palestinian forefather, who renewed the Old Testament, split away from its followers, brought forth his New Testament and spread it among mankind which led the Jews to persecute him until they caught him, crucified him and murdered him. Afterwards, he rose from the dead like the phoenix and set out to spread his teachings that still exist and will exist as long as mankind exists.

Jesus' story is his [Palestinian] people's story; the Zionist movement tool of the capitalist West wanted to falsify historical facts, to exile and crucify the Palestinian Arab nation and then murder it by means of ethnic cleansing. But the Palestinians, Jesus' descendants, rose from the ashes, like the phoenix, from the ruins of the Nakba (i.e., "the catastrophe," the Palestinian term for the establishment of the State of Israel) and the Naksa (i.e., "the setback," Palestinian term for Israel's victory in the Six Day War.) They dressed their wounds and raised the flag of nationality again by founding parties and factions.

Easter is a distinct [Palestinian] national holiday which doesn't concern only Christians but rather all Palestinians believing in the different religions Islam, Christianity and Judaism."--Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 6, 2013

Palestinian Media Watch is an Israel-based nongovernmental organization and media watchdog group. Founded in 1996 by Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch documents cases of incitement in Palestinian media. Contact PMW at pmw@palwatch.org

George Orwell, in "1984", described the "Two Minute Hate". It has come to pass against Jews.

"The Jewish religion is under attack in Europe", declared the Conference of European Rabbis president Pinchas Goldschmidt. Many polls (such as the study on behalf of the German Social Democratic Friedrich Ebert Foundation) bring an iconic number measuring the disaster: 150,000,000 Europeans have a delegitimizing and demonizing view of the State of Israel and its citizens.

For a large sector of Europe, the cities, skyscrapers, hospitals, cinemas, and schools on that tiny sliver of land named "Israel" are merely real estate that will be restored to Islam once this malefic Jewish form is swept away.

This is a popular mobilization against Israel in the "Raus mit Uns" spirit. 150,000,000 Western citizens believe that Zionism is a misconceived project to be brought to an end as soon as possible. It is the consequence of the Palestinian-Islamic psychological war (note: the European Union has just contributed 20 million euros to the payment of salaries and pensions for April of nearly 76,000 Palestinian Arabs).

See what happened to Europe's Jews in little more than a week.

In Hungary, where Adolf Eichmann obsessively hunted down all the Jews, a wave of fascist Judeophobia is poisoning the social cohesion and the head of the Raoul Wallenberg Association was injured in anti-Semitic attack.

A Labour party member in the UK, Nazir Ahmed, resigned after anti-Jewish remarks made on television.

A scientific genius, Stephen Hawking, embraced the racist boycott of the State of Israel.

The BBC planned a "cumentary" claiming that the Jewish exodus from Jerusalem was a myth.

Dozens of French mayors rallied for the liberation of the Palestinian terrorists.

A Scottish Christian document erased the Jewish links with to the holy land.

In the French town of Villeurbanne, a rabbi and his son were stabbed.

It was an ordinary week of anti-Semitism in Europe.

The threat against Israel's existence has become strategic in Rome, Berlin, London, Paris, Budapest, Amsterdam and Stockholm. Indiscriminate hatred against the Jews pervades European parliaments as much as in the Muslim madrasses. The call for Israel's destruction echoes through Europe's schools and mosques, textbooks and newspapers, TV series and pseudo "documentaries".

It is today's greatest manipulation of opinion, of the kind immortalized by George Orwell in 1984 as a "Two Minute Hate": Europe's publicists, civil servants and educators incite violence directly when they describe Jews as "bloodsuckers", "colonialists", and many similar epithets. One step at a time, Europe is subverting the legitimacy of the Jewish people once again.

I have always felt an affinity with European intellectuals. But, it is with pain and surprise that I witness, one lifetime after Hitler's Holocaust, the willingness of all too many to collaborate in the monstrification of the Jews. This is how Europe built an anti-Semitic public opinion of 150,000,000. This is how Israel has become an expendable myth among the European educated classes.

"Peace" can come only with the recognition in the Middle East of Israel as a national state of the Jewish people; the addition of the State of Israel to all the maps used in schools in the Islamic world; the elimination of the extensive anti-Israeli propaganda campaigns in the Muslim media and schools; the promotion of interactions among scientists, scholars, artists, and athletes; the abandoning of the delegitimization of Israel at the United Nations; the outlawing of terrorist groups devoted to the killing of Israelis and the destruction of Israel; the end of the economic boycott against Israel; the institution of full diplomatic relations with Jerusalem as Israel's indivisible capital; and last but not least, the proclamation of theological fatwas prohibiting the murder of "infidels".

Europe is working hard to prevent all these necessary steps.

Because according to Europe's mainstream, "peace" will prevail when Israel is dismantled, just like tranquility will prevail in the "Holy Land" when Zionism has been eliminated.

Europe is witnessing the creation of a majority according to which Israel is a superpower with extraordinary military power and wealth and os a committed and merciless enemy of humanity.

Europe's public opinion has been persuaded to believe that Israel is a state that ought to be dismantled forthwith. Europe's population count today is 730,000, 000 citizens. What would happen if the anti-Semitic worm infected the mind of all of them?

Can Israel really remain immune from that eruption of psychotic anti-Jewish illness?

Contact Udi Schayat at udischayat@yahoo.com

Israel, having attained its 65th anniversary, resists easy definition. Sixty-five years ago, on May 14, 1948, David Ben Gurion, its first prime minister, declared independence, to which American and Soviet recognition was forthcoming the next day, following the expiration of British rule.

Any reckoning on Israel, its successes and failures, is also inescapably interwoven with the verdict one gives on the animating philosophy of the state, Zionism, which itself will celebrate later this year its 116th anniversary.

Zionism foresaw a collectivity of Jewish labor redeeming a patrimony lost in antiquity. It envisioned a national solution to that age-old disease, anti-Semitism, conscious of the fact that time was running out for Jews in Europe. Theodor Herzl, political Zionism's founder, even thought it might prove the antidote to anti-Semitism, though he doubted the possibility of reviving ancient Hebrew as a spoken language. He once asked rhetorically, "Who amongst us knows enough to purchase a railway ticket in that language?"

Herzl was wrong on both counts. The national language was revived, a feat that still eludes other peoples seeking to emulate Israel's success, but anti-Semitism, far from having been extinguished, is very much alive. Even when put to bed, it is a light sleeper.

The widespread revilement of the Jews in pre-state times was replicated when the U.N. General Assembly resolved in November 1975 that Zionism, uniquely among national movements around the globe, was a form of racism. So Israel became the focus of renewed anti-Semitism in the form of anti-Zionism, a distinction without a difference insofar as the target remains Jews, with discrimination now applied to sovereign identity rather than individual rights.

Israel solved anti-Semitism in the sense that it permitted Jews to cease being timorous petitioners to foreign governments and permitted those in need or desire of joining the national enterprise to do so. In fact, nothing better evokes today, if only fleetingly, the lost pioneering ethos of Israel than latter-day efforts to rescue Jews in distress. This is but a continuation of the process that began in Europe in the nineteenth century and embraced the Arab Middle East in the 1940s and 1950s, when Arab nationalism and Muslim supremacism combined to depopulate virtually each and every established Jewish community in Arab lands. Unlike their European counterparts in the 1930s, however, these Jews did have somewhere to go. In the span of Jewish history since the destruction of the Second Jewish Commonwealth nearly two millennia ago, that is likely to remain Israel's biggest achievement and calling-card.

Jewish labor and nation-building have had a much more checkered history. The utopian idealism of the kibbutzim is a thing of the past, although the kibbutz is still the only voluntary socialist system to have been devised and implemented. The incorporation in 1967 of the West Bank and Gaza into Israeli control during the Arab-inspired Six-Day War saw the emergence of cheap "Arab labor" which would have been deplored by Israel's founding fathers, although the ongoing hostilities into this century have somewhat reversed that trend.

The Oslo peace process, conceived as a project of political normalization, long ago foundered in bloodshed. That failure was inherent in Israel's attempt to produce a neighboring Palestinian state with Yasser Arafat and his successors, who remain dedicated to a supplanting Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority (PA) that emerged from Oslo remains a moral and political Enron. Palestinian society is radicalized and morally defunct, split between the Hamas fiefdom of Gaza and Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah redoubt in the West Bank.

Israel has provided Jews a home and turned that home into a innovative powerhouse, but it has a more modest record of success in the millenarian vision of an "in-gathering of the exiles." The in-gathering was always going to be a combination of voluntary and involuntary immigration, but it is only the heroic age of Zionism that can boast a solid core of idealists. In each succeeding epoch, the persecuted, the endangered, and the expelled have predominated. Few nations are primarily composed of people (or descendants of people) who either involuntarily left their native homes or who would have gone elsewhere given the chance. Yet there is no mystery about this. It is a special breed of person who deliberately courts danger, disease, climatic extremes, economic uncertainty, material scarcity, and neighboring hostility in preference to a settled life in a relatively tranquil society. Zionism has been only a peripheral magnet for free and enfranchised Western Jews in countries like the United States, Britain, France, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, or Australia who, if they move at all, are as likely to move between each other as to Israel.

One remarkable success, however, is the realization of an early Zionist idea: to produce a new, sovereign Jew at home in his own country. Diaspora Jews often notice that Israelis do not in the main share what Jean-Paul Sartre would have called the "over-determined" character of the Jews, a result of centuries of Jewish dependence on Gentile goodwill. The Israeli is refreshingly free of untoward concern for the opinion of others or the belief that in whatever he may do, he is somehow representative of all Jews and is being judged accordingly. He has been normalized to the extent that he feels he belongs somewhere without qualification and that in this way he is like most other members of the human family. If he meets someone who dislikes him, it is not his problem, as it still remains for even the freest and most established Western Jew. He needs no communal security apparatus, anti-defamation league, hate monitors, or communal advocates. He has all of these in the forms of the Israel Defense Forces, the Mossad, and an elected, sovereign government. He can leave the job, if not always confidently, to the professionals.

For all this, Jewish sovereignty has not come cheaply; the loss of 23,085 soldiers about the equivalent to America losing 900,000 servicemen was commemorated at this year's Remembrance Day in Israel. The Arab-Israeli conflict has subjected generations of Israelis to years of military service and reserve duty, and the civilian front has often been far from tranquil. Indeed, with the advent of Oslo, Palestinian terrorists made killing and maiming ordinary Jewish civilians in the largest possible numbers a special priority. For most of the Muslim world, a theological calamity occurred with Jewish statehood. Muslim supremacists work overtime to ensure that the Jew, largely a figure of contemptuous docility in Arab collective memory, can be again relegated to Islamic subject status on "liberated" Islamic land.

Perhaps, with so much conflict, internal and external, Israel's great achievement is the resilience of its democratic life. By temperament, Israelis are the most democratic of peoples. They have a low threshold of tolerance for any pretense of social superiority. Informality is the norm. Some people think this goes a little far. As any visitor knows, graceful manners are in short supply. The army is the most respected national institution for obvious reasons, yet it has almost no chivalric tradition. There is an economy of military and civilian honors, which makes military ceremony on national occasions all the more haunting for its accessibility and austerity.

Vigorous debate and parliamentary procedures are alive and well, but proportional representation in the Knesset has balkanized politics, sometimes defying the requirements of stability and holding majorities hostage to capricious minorities. As a result, Knesset members hold office courtesy of party lists, not electors' votes, and are beholden to party whips, not to constituencies. This has engendered at once careerism, lack of accountability, and public cynicism. Worsening matters is Israeli bureaucracy, which, in its untroubled inefficiency, is typically Mediterranean. Press freedom somewhat mitigates the picture, since Israeli journalists are not inclined to self-censorship. Foreign correspondents congregate in the country, free to report without fear or favor, and often show little but disfavor. Corruption scandals are far from rare, though the country's president, Shimon Peres, once offered a consoling thought: "Better a democracy with scandals than an authoritarian system without scandals."

The Israeli Arabs today a minority of approximately 24% spent Israel's first years under military rule before participating normally in Israel life. Trade union membership followed in 1960. Political representation has always been a feature of Israeli Arab life, with Arab judges presiding over courts and Arab Knesset members sitting in governing coalitions; one, Raleb Majadele, was recently a minister in the government of Ehud Olmert (though he refuses to sing the national anthem, Hatikvah). Arabs represent Israel abroad in the diplomatic service; the staunchly loyal Druze population has enjoyed a harmonious relationship to the state, its youth even serving in elite units of the armed forces. Knowing the limits of the human condition, Israel has not imposed army service on its Arabs (though volunteers are taken), just as the U.S. did not deploy Japanese-Americans in the Pacific theater of operations during the Second World War. One result of this, however, has been that, in a country in which national service is often a prerequisite for good employment and economic opportunities, Arabs have lagged behind.

The Israeli Arab impetus for integration, such as it was, has eroded dangerously in recent years, perhaps the worst long-term consequence of the Oslo process. One need only consult the position papers of various Arab advocacy groups to see in print rejection of the Jewish character and symbols of the country and demands for binationalism. Israeli Arab Knesset members have visited neighboring states still at war with Israel, praised terror groups murdering their fellow citizens, and even advised Arab belligerents on ways to further harm Israel in both war and peacetime. How Israel deals with these ongoing dangers remains to be seen. Oslo advocates used to speak of decommissioning the conflict and thereby easing its attendant home front tensions. In reality, the opposite has occurred.

It is in these circumstances that Israel enters its sixty-sixth year. Its oldest citizens are the last alive who can maturely recall the pre-state days, the early privations, the flush of vision and pre-sovereign innocence. With their passing, the last link to Israel's youth will be lost forever. Shimon Peres, Israel's president, the democratic world's oldest serving head of state, who was once Ben Gurion's private secretary and has been present at virtually all crucial moments in the country's history, will turn ninety later this year.

Revisiting the national record has been constant with Israeli historians, boasting for over two decades now a discrete group of revisionists keen to debunk alleged nationalist orthodoxies. As often happens in historical writing, those keen to dislodge old orthodoxies end up creating new ones. It is not uncommon today to see or hear of Israeli academics lambasting their country's defense and rationalizing Arab aggression. Some of the revisionists are also at the forefront of a campaign to efface national particularity a phenomenon termed "post-Zionism," a peculiarly heedless conception that confuses political normalization with regional assimilation. Others have lent themselves to the campaign of delegitimization known as Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS).

But post-Zionism, so popular abroad, is in retreat at home. Twelve years since Arafat's walk-out with a counter-peace offer from Camp David and the unleashing of the so-called second intifada, a disillusion reinforced by Mahmoud Abbas's non-response to Ehud Olmert's 2008 offer of Palestinian statehood, Israelis are largely recovered from the shock of terror and scorching hostility to which they awoke in 2000. Polls consistently show Israelis to be wary of Palestinian intentions and skeptical of diplomatic designs, whether drawn up at home, in Washington, or elsewhere. The fusillade of rockets from Gaza permits few beyond the far left to pretend that the Gaza withdrawal was successful or that further negotiated retreats would prove more so.

But then, winning the war for Israel's acceptance, like nation-building itself, is not the work of a couple of generations. I very much like an anecdote about the veteran leader of Zionism, Chaim Weizmann. In giving testimony to the Peel Royal Commission in 1937, convened to seek a solution to the conflict in the land then under British tutelage, Weizmann was asked by one of the commissioners, Sir Horace Rumbold, if he could ever envisage a fully formed Jewish state. He replied, "Never." Astonished, Rumbold queried why Weizmann could not foresee the completion of Zionism's work. Weizmann replied that, just as Britain had been evolved over centuries so that it was impossible to determine when it had been fully formed, so too, it would be impossible to know when the Jewish state was built up and the task at an end.

Dr. Daniel Mandel is a fellow in history at Melbourne University, director of the Zionist Organization of America's Center for Middle East Policy, and author of H.V. Evatt & the Creation of Israel (London: Routledge,2004). This article appeared May 19, 2013 in the American Thinker and is archived at
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/05/israel_ triumph_of_resilience.html

Klein: "I will never attend another Dustin Hoffman film"

ZOA (Zionist Organization of America) Criticizes Dustin Hoffman For Being Special Guest At Radical, Anti-Israel Muslim Public Affairs Council Gala.

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has criticized actor Dustin Hoffman for agreeing to be a special guest of the radical, anti-Israel Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). Hoffman will be presenting a media award for an anti-Israel film at MPAC's 22nd Annual Media Awards on April 27 in Los Angeles.

The ZOA has also pointed out that Mr. Hoffman in July 2010 backed out of attending the annual Jerusalem Film Festival. Now Hoffman has given unwarranted legitimacy to radical, anti-Israel MPAC.

MPAC is headed by Salam al-Marayati, who has called for Israel's destruction, and has said that Israel may be responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Even left-wing Los Angeles rabbis have ceased to speak to him. The following is a small sampling of his record of Islamist extremism:

* Calls for Israel's destruction: "the establishment by force, violence and terrorism of a Jewish state in Palestine in 1948" was "unjust" and "a crime" and vowed to "work to overturn the injustice" (MPAC co-signed public statement, September 17, 1993).

* Condemns pre-9/11 American military strikes upon Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Sudan: Said these strikes, following the al-Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were "illegal, immoral and illogical" (MPAC press release, August 24, 1998).

* Asserts Israel might be perpetrator of 9/11: "If we're going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kind of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list, because I think this [the 9/11 attacks] diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies" (David Firestone, '_A NATION CHALLENGED: RELIGION; For Some Jewish Leaders, Partnership With Muslims Is a Casualty of Sept. 11 Attacks_
(http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/22/us/nation-challenged-
religion-for-some-jewish-leaders-partnership-with-muslims.html?scp=1&sq=marayati%20" we%20should%20put%20the%20state%20of%20Israel%20on%20the
%20suspect%20list"%20&st=cse),' New York Times, October 22, 2001).

* Calls Israel's supporters Nazis: comparing Israel's supporters to Hitler: MPAC displayed a campus exhibit stating that "Zionism is Nazism" (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June 1994; Los Angeles Jewish Journal, November 2, 2001).

* Defends French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy: Described France's fining of Garaudy for Holocaust denial as "persecution of his right to express an opinion" (The Minaret, Vol. 20, No.3, 1998).

* Gives anticipatory justification of Islamist terrorist assaults on America: "Where Israel goes, our government follows. What is important is whether the American people are aware of and ready for the consequences" (MPAC article, 'What Do We Expect?,' April 5, 1997).

* Blames Palestinian terrorism on Israel: Jews murdered by Palestinians are "the expected bitter result of [Israel's] reckless policy" (Jewish Exponent [Philadelphia], October 18, 2001).

* Calls for extradition of Israelis who killed a rampaging Muslim terrorist in Jerusalem: When in February 1996 a Palestinian, Muhammad Hamida shouted the war cry, 'Allahu Akbar' (Allah is Great), drove his car intentionally into a crowded bus stop in Jerusalem, killing one Israeli and injuring 23 others and was shot dead, Marayati said not a word about Hamida's murderous attack while calling his killing "a provocative act," and demanded the extradition of his executors to America "to be tried in a U.S. court on terrorism charges."

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "We strongly criticize Mr. Hoffman's shocking and terrible decision to give aid, comfort and legitimacy to this group of Muslim haters of Israel and Jews by accepting an invitation to appear as a special guest at an MPAC function. We are also appalled that he withdrew from appearing at the Jerusalem Film Festival, something which emboldens extreme Boycott, Sanctions, Divestment (BDS) activists who seek to delegitimize Israel as a first step towards ultimately eliminating Israel.

"Muslim extremist organizations that endanger America become much harder to combat if celebrities legitimize them. Dustin Hoffman should admit he has made a mistake and withdraw from this event."

"Those who care about decency, human rights, truth, justice and Israel should consider never seeing another Dustin Hoffman film."

Contact GWY123 at GWY123@aol.com

• The visit to Israel in April 2013 by Azeri Foreign Minister Elmar Mamadyarov intensified growing Iranian concerns over the tightening ties between Jerusalem and Baku, both of which view Iran as a threat. Iran's progress in its nuclear program and the failure of the nuclear talks with the West have raised Tehran's threshold of sensitivity about a military attack on its nuclear facilities, and it increasingly fears that Azerbaijan is turning into a base for such a strike.

• In recent months, Iran has stepped up its critical public tone toward Baku's "incautious" policy. Iran continues its covert subversive activity in Azerbaijan including through Lebanese Hizbullah, which is providing assistance to local terrorist and espionage cells. Iran's aim is to build an infrastructure for retaliation there in case it is attacked, and also to try and influence Azerbaijan's domestic political arena. Azerbaijan has exposed and arrested a number of Iranians, Hizbullah operatives, and local activists on suspicion of involvement in terror and subversion.

• Some 25 million Azeris live in northwestern Iran, forming the country's largest minority. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is of Azeri extraction. Both Iran and Azerbaijan are Shiite, and both have territorial claims that sometimes rise to the surface. Some in Iran refuse to accept the loss of the province of northern Azerbaijan, which was conquered by the Russian Empire at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The humiliating agreements which the Persian Qajar dynasty was forced to sign are part of a legacy that the Islamic regime seeks to replace with an ethos of resistance to foreign forces at any price.

• Today, Iranian-Azeri relations are being influenced more and more by the geostrategic environment, leading Tehran to a more menacing stance toward what it sees as the threat posed by Israel via Azerbaijan. This could include renewed attempts to strike Israeli and Western targets in Azerbaijan.

• In 2008, 2011, and 2012, Iranian terrorist cells were uncovered there that planned to hit Jewish, Israeli, and American targets, including assassinating the Israeli ambassador to Baku and attacking Chabad's Ohr Avner Jewish school in Baku.

  Contact Center for Public Affairs at briefmail@list-jcpa.org

  
  ^{To Go To Top}

For the past few months I have been involved in a conversation with members of Im Tirtzu about what it means to be an Israeli. The group, which describes itself on its website as "an extra-parliamentary movement that works to strengthen and advance the values of Zionism in Israel," has interpreted their mission as one of becoming the "watchdog" of Zionist values.

The battle lines are clearly drawn between Im Tirtzu which objects to the notion of a university as a town square that allows for the expression of all ideas, particularly those they with which they disagree and those of us who believe that this is the very duty of a university. The organization derides "exposing" students to speakers and opinions that some might consider anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli and claims that by inviting such speakers, we are validating their opinions.

Although this discussion began a few years ago when the group decided to appoint itself as "monitor" of Israeli universities, the current iteration over the last few weeks has focused on the BGU lecture series, "Who is an Israeli," organized by members of the Israel Studies track and particularly, the decision to invite MK Haneen Zoabi to speak in March. No matter that she was just one of the dozens of speakers that have been invited over the past few years or that organizers made it clear that her views are hers alone, Im Tirtzu objected to her very presence as if as if ignoring her views would actually make them disappear.

Given Im Tirtzu's self-appointed role, I cannot help but ask: who has given them the mandate to decide who is an Israeli?

Ultimately, we are a nation of over 8 million citizens who hold at least 10 million different opinions. I would maintain that if there is one trait that does define us as Israelis, it is our outspokenness; our determination to express our many different opinions. It is the agreement not to agree but at the same time the tolerance to hear each other out and respect other viewpoints. I believe that the heart of the Israeli experience is the hutzpa to have an opinion that differs from your neighbors. It is the irritation caused by hearing something that is foreign to your ideals, beliefs and feelings, yet to understand that it is legitimate for others to voice it. This is the basis of our democracy and the secret to Israel's success.

The international bestseller Start-Up Nation points to these kinds of characteristics as the keys to Israel's entrepreneurial spirit. The classic opinionated Israeli has become the force behind the country's "creative energy." It is this individualistic nature that has honed our national ability to improvise and invent, particularly in life-threatening situations. If we lose the willingness to argue, debate and disagree — with one another and with ourselves we risk closing ourselves off from the world and from one another.

A strong Israel is one where everyone's opinion can be heard without fear, if only to help us learn to articulate why we don't agree. This is what it means to be Israeli. This is also the role of a university to help students learn to think critically about science and about life. This is how societies grow strong from within.

Then again, you might want to disagree.

Contact IAM e-mail at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com

Here is a review of, and a commentary on, the Australian speaking tour by Dutch legislator Geert Wilders.

Mr. Wilders warned Australians about Islam, which is transforming Europe in negative ways. Whereas the Islamists claim that Islam is the solution to human problems, Mr. Wilders claims that Islam is the problem. He also says "we should not be afraid to say so." To get to listen to that, Australians had to endure lengthy security inspection. [Muslims threaten him with death merely for stating the record.]

First, Sam Solomon, a Christian who had been a Muslim jurist, explained that the Koran establishes a theological basis for Muslims to support discrimination against non-Muslims and against Muslim women. Then Mr. Wilders declared that Islam causes the poverty, abuse of women, religious persecution, inequality, injustice, societal failure, inferior education and health, despotism, violence, economic backwardness, and failed societies in Muslim countries. Religious liberty in a non-Muslim society having a significant Islamic presence is precarious. In addition, the British Secret Service estimated that, mostly in Muslim countries, 200 million Christians were persecuted in 2007.

Bernard Lewis' What Went Wrong noted that, not counting oil, the Arab world exports less than does Finland. Contrast Egypt, whose living standards keep declining, with South Korea, which keeps prospering. In European countries, Muslims usually are the poorest. [In the U.S., they prosper.] Mr. Wilders finds that almost all "honor killings" in Europe are by Muslims. I think that a more valid comparison is that 77% of residents of Dutch women's shelters originate in Turkey, Morocco, and Iraq.

Islam mandates some of the discriminatory practices. Thus women's testimony is given half the weight of men's, males have guardianship of women, women's mobility is restricted, girls' child marriage is allowed, wife-beating is considered a husband's right, and women have inferior rights in marriage, divorce, and inheritance.

Although the Muslim Brotherhood and the Organization of Islamic States see Islam as elevating, Mr. Wilder';s predicted that the Brotherhood ascendancy in Egypt will increase violence, persecution, and dysfunction. So far, his prediction is being vindicated even as he is vilified in Europe for predicting it.

In 2000, Pres. Mubarak gave women the right to divorce husbands without having to prove fault, a way out of abusive marriages. In 2008, he gave divorced women greater custody rights over their children. Egypt's Islamist legislature is reversing those reforms.

Failing to recognize that Islam endangers the people of the Mideast, the U.S. facilitated the rise of radical Islam in Libya and Egypt, if not also in Syria.

Then there was the Iranian adoption of Radical Islam. Do Iranians find Islam the solution? An Australian Anglican bishop reports that he is confirming Christians all over Tehran, despite the danger. Iranians outside the country are deserting Islam. Iranians have seen what Islam does to them and how much it lies to them (Mark Durie, 3/14/13,
http://www.meforum.org/3473/australia-geert-wilders).

Yes, most Iranians want freedom.

Female circumcision is cited, because Muslim scholars endorse it, but some non-Muslim societies do, too.

Turkey recently went Islamic, but it is taking time to impose Islamic law upon the country. Meanwhile, Turkey is prospering. I think that Mr. Wilder's case is stronger about injustice than about economics.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses are a regular feature on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor the granting or withholding of "cross-border authority." This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.

Once the alarm is sent in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can't do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.

That is the clear "red line" in this type of a crisis situation. No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation's border without that nation's permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.

On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the President of the United States "(POTUS)" has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks. Ships can loiter on station, but airplanes fall out of the sky, so they must be redirected to an air base (Sigonella, in Sicily) to await the POTUS decision on granting CBA. If the decision to grant CBA never comes, the besieged diplomatic outpost in Benghazi can rely only on assets already "in country" in Libya such as the Tripoli quick reaction force and the Predator drones. These assets can be put into action on the independent authority of the acting ambassador or CIA station chief in Tripoli. They are already "in country," so CBA rules do not apply to them.

How might this process have played out in the White House? If, at the 5:00 p.m. Oval Office meeting with Defense Secretary Panetta and Vice President Biden, President Obama said about Benghazi: "I think we should not go the military action route," meaning that no CBA will be granted, then that is it. Case closed.

Another possibility is that the president might have said: "We should do what we can to help them. but no military intervention from outside of Libya." Those words then constitute "standing orders" all the way down the chain of command, via Panetta and General Dempsey to General Ham and the subordinate commanders who are already gearing up to rescue the besieged outpost. When that meeting took place, it may have seemed as if the consulate attack was over, so President Obama might have thought the situation would stabilize on its own from that point forward. If he then goes upstairs to the family quarters, or otherwise makes himself "unavailable," then his last standing orders will continue to stand until he changes them, even if he goes to sleep until the morning of September 12.

Nobody in the chain of command below President Obama can countermand his "standing orders" not to send outside military forces into Libyan air space. Nobody. Not Leon Panetta, not Hillary Clinton, not General Dempsey, and not General Ham in Stuttgart, Germany, who is in charge of the forces staging in Sigonella.

Perhaps the president left "no outside military intervention, no cross-border authority" standing orders, and then made himself scarce to those below him seeking further guidance, clarification, or modified orders. Or perhaps he was in the Situation Room watching the Predator videos in live time for all seven hours. We don't yet know where the president was hour by hour.

But this is 100 percent sure: Panetta and Dempsey would have executed a rescue mission order if the president had given those orders. And like the former SEALs in Benghazi, General Ham and all of the troops under him would have been straining forward in their harnesses, ready to go into battle to save American lives.

The execute orders would be given verbally to General Ham at AFRICOM in Stuttgart, but they would immediately be backed up in official message traffic for the official record. That is why cross-border authority is the King Arthur's Sword for understanding Benghazi. The POTUS and only the POTUS can pull out that sword.

We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. How do I know this? Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more. No general or admiral will risk being hung out to dry for undertaking a mission-gone-wrong that the POTUS later disavows ordering, and instead blames on "loose cannons" or "rogue officers" exceeding their authority. No general or admiral will order U.S. armed forces to cross an international border on a hostile mission unless and until he is certain that the National Command Authority, in the person of the POTUS and his chain of command, has clearly and explicitly given that order: verbally at the outset, but thereafter in written orders and official messages. If they exist, they could be produced today.

When it comes to granting cross-border authority, there are no presidential mumblings or musings to paraphrase or decipher. If you hear confusion over parsed statements given as an excuse for Benghazi, then you are hearing lies. I am sure that hundreds of active-duty military officers know all about the Benghazi execute orders (or the lack thereof), and I am impatiently waiting for one of them to come forward to risk his career and pension as a whistleblower

Leon Panetta is falling on his sword for President Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, "the U.S. military doesn't do risky things"-defense of his shameful no-rescue policy. Panetta is utterly destroying his reputation.

General Dempsey joins Panetta on the same sword with his tacit agreement by silence. But why? How far does loyalty extend when it comes to covering up gross dereliction of duty by the president?

General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably "used" in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else. Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey.

We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to President Obama. More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella, just two hours away for the launch order that never came.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

Some Canadian supporters of the movement to boycott Israel targeted Soda Stream. Soda Stream sells packets for turning water into soda. Bringing the soda to the water is sounder environmentally than shipping in bottles full of water. The company encourages recycling of the packets.

Why pick on Soda Stream? The company has a factory in Jericho, P.A.. Boycott the company sufficiently, and the P.A. Arabs who work in it would lose their jobs.

Other Arabs sell Ahava products, also made by an Israeli company in Judea-Samaria. So, P.A. Arabs make and sell Israeli products, but Canadians should boycott those companies? Boycotters harm the very Palestinian Arabs they claim to champion.

A further mark against the purported ethical principles of the boycott movement is that many of its supporters pretend their opposition is just to the Israeli presence in Judea-Samaria. Really they oppose the existence of the Jewish state. [Antisemitism hardly is an ethical principle.]

The reporter plans to buy Soda Stream at the Bay [or Costco], fill the provided bottles with the carbonization, and add flavor such as freshly squeezed citrus juice (Winnipeg Jewish Review, 3/14/13).

Another amusing self-contradiction in the boycott movement is its inclusion of Israeli universities, dominated by pro-boycott anti-Zionist leftists.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses are a regular feature on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

Algeria is competing to be the next Arab nation to witness a popular revolt. That is assuming soccer is a barometer of rising discontent in a region experiencing a wave of mass protests that have already toppled the leaders of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen and sparked civil war in Syria.

In fact, there is increasingly little doubt that soccer, a historic nucleus of protest in Algeria, is signaling that popular discontent could again spill into the streets of Algiers and other major cities. Two years ago, protesters inspired by events in Egypt and Tunisia ultimately pulled back from the brink despite the toppling of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia's Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

Now, in circumstances similar to Saudi Arabia, protests are mounting amid uncertainty about the future as Algeria's aging leadership struggles with a series of natural deaths and the effects of health problems among its remaining key members.

Soccer fans earlier this month demonstrated their disdain for the fate of 76-year old President Abdelaziz Bouteflika who is recovering from a stroke in a Paris hospital by cheering their team for days in the streets of Algiers in advance of an upcoming championship. Similarly, fans interrupted a moment of silence in a stadium to commemorate the death of a former leader by chanting "Bouteflika is next."

Mr. Bouteflika's illness follows the death in the past year of two former presidents, Ahmed Ben Bella and Chadli Benjedid, and Ali Kafi, who served as a transition leader in the early 1990s while the military fought Islamist forces who had won elections in a brutal war that left some 100,000 people dead.

The memory of that war and the military-dominated regime's liberal social spending temporarily took the wind out of the demonstrators' sails and persuaded them in 2011 to shy away from staging a full-fledged revolt.

Mr. Bouteflika's stroke threatens to change that.

"If there is not real democratic transition, there will be an uprising we will return to the violence of the 1990s," warned Chafiq Mesbah, a former member of Algeria's intelligence service and now a political analyst, earlier this month in an interview with The Associated Press.

The most recent protests are part of an upsurge in soccer-related violence in Algeria, an indicator that increased wages and government social spending is failing to compensate for frustration with the failure of the country's gerontocracy in control since independence to share power with a younger generation, create jobs and address housing problems.

Dozens of people, including a player, were injured six months ago when supporters of Jeunesse Sportive de la Saoura (JSS) stormed the pitch during a premier league match in their home stadium in Meridja in the eastern province of Bechar against Algiers-based Union Sportive de la Médina d'El Harrach (USM). The incident followed a massive brawl between players and between fans after a Libya-Algeria Africa Cup of Nations qualifier.

Relations between the two countries have been strained since Algeria refused to support the NATO-backed popular revolt that overthrew Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi. Algeria granted until recently refuge to Colonel Qaddafi's wife Safiya and his daughter Aisha. One of his sons, Hannibal, was also believed to be in Algeria before leaving with the other family members for Oman. Libya apologized in November after hundreds of Libyan fans surrounded the Algerian embassy in Tripoli, ripped the Algerian emblem from the building and burnt an Algerian flag.

The protesters' retreat into the stadiums amounted to a tacit understanding between Algerian soccer fans and security forces that football supporters could express their grievances as long as they did so within the confines of the stadiums. "Bouteflika is in love with his throne, he wants another term," is a popular anti-government chant in stadiums.

Stadiums have long been an incubator of protest in soccer-crazy Algeria. A 2007 diplomatic cable sent by the US embassy in Algiers and disclosed by Wikileaks linked a soccer protest in the desert city of Boussaada to demonstrations in the western port city of Oran sparked by the publication of a highly contentious list of government housing recipients. The cable warned that "this kind of disturbance has become commonplace, and appears likely to remain so unless the government offers diversions other than soccer and improves the quality of life of its citizens.

Seven fans were killed in the last five years in soccer-related violence and more than 2,700 wounded, according to Algerian statistics.

Algeria's domestic fragility is highlighted by almost daily smaller protests in towns across the country sparked by discontent over lack of water, housing, electricity, jobs and salaries. Protests have led to suspension of soccer matches. Soccer was also suspended during last year's legislative elections.

A sense that the government may revert to strong arm tactics rather than reform if protests swell was reinforced when General Bachir Tartag was recalled from retirement in 2012 to head the Directorate for Internal Security (DSI). Gen. Tartag, who is believed to be in his sixties, made a name for himself during the civil war against the Islamists as one of Algeria's most notorious hardliners and a brutal military commander.

The appointment positions him as a potential successor to aging Algerian spy chief Gen. Mohamed 'Tewfik' Mediene, widely viewed as the number two within the Algerian regime should he eventually take over from Mr. Bouteflika.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is Founder and CEO of the New York-based American Center for Democracy and the Economic Warfare Institute. Dr. Ehrenfeld is an authority on economic warfare, including Weapons of Mass Effect (WME), lawfare, terror financing, disinformation, jihadist movements and corruption. She is the author of hundreds of articles, White Papers, chapters of topic expert and academic publications and several books.

Oh, yeah....Maxine got this right!!! The word "incompetent" comes to mind.

Fred was born in Germany, and grew up during the Hitler period. In the 40's he moved to NY. He is a veteran of the Korean War. Currently he lives in Israel. He enjoys harmonizing with nature, and photographing nature in its many wonderful forms. He also create a variety of abstracts, combining photography and graphics.

Backed by Hezbollah, Syrian forces hammer rebel stronghold

Syrian forces loyal to the Bashar al-Assad regime launched a sweeping operation yesterday in the strategically critical city of Qusayr, killing scores of opposition forces. Qusayr, near Syria's border with Lebanon, had served as a conduit for weapons and supplies shipments smuggled from Lebanon to opposition fighters. Two dozen Hezbollah fighters battling on behalf of the regime were also reportedly killed. The reports come in the aftermath of news that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei instructed Hezbollah head Hassan Nasrallah to block supply routes to the largely Sunni opposition forces. The Syrian army recently launched a counteroffensive that has seen the regime roll back rebel gains made over the last few months. Hezbollah's role in the counteroffensive sits uneasily alongside some foreign policy analysis to the effect that the group had become a Lebanese organization pursuing Lebanese interests.

As Egypt prepares to respond to kidnapping, calls for action against Hamas

The Egyptian army has deployed military and armored vehicles to the Sinai Peninsula in response to the kidnapping of seven Egyptian soldiers. The captives were shown in a video released earlier this week begging Morsi to save them. The incident has deepened tensions between Egyptian security forces and Hamas. Egyptian officials blame the Iran-backed terror group for maintaining smuggling tunnels used by jihadis crossing between the Gaza Strip, which the Palestinian faction controls, and the Egyptian-controlled Sinai. The result has been a media-driven cold war between Hamas and the Egyptian army, with the Egyptian army linking Hamas to violence in Egypt stretching back to the 2011 Arab Spring revolution. Egyptian commentators are calling on Cairo to "close all the tunnels once and for all" in response to the most recent kidnapping.

NYT: Israeli investigation "casts new doubts" on iconic anti-Israel media images

The New York Times reports on a new Israeli government investigation that the paper says "casts new doubts" on iconic media images, filmed in September 2000, that have been used by activists, diplomats, journalists, and terrorists to justify attacks against Israelis and Jews. The images come from a France 2 broadcast filmed by a Gaza correspondent and narrated by the station's Jerusalem bureau chief Charles Enderlin, in which 12-year-old Palestinian Muhammad al-Dura was described as being targeted and killed by Israeli soldiers. Evidence from unbroadcast raw footage, which seems to show the boy raising his arms after his death, was among the many anomalies cited by the Israeli report. The New York Times links to a comprehensive site compiled by critics citing this and dozens of other inconsistencies. The al-Dura film is identified by those critics as being central to a "lethal narrative" used to incite violence against Jews and the Jewish state. It was linked to the October 2000 lynching of two Israelis traveling through the Palestinian town of Ramallah, and was playing in the background of the Al Qaeda video in which Daniel Pearl was beheaded. The juxtaposition between the certainty of the original inflammatory France 2 broadcast and the skepticism generated afterward has heightened perceptions of anti-Israel media bias.

South Korea deploys Israeli weapons in response to rising tensions

South Korea has reportedly deployed Israeli weaponry to several geostrategically critical islands. The news was published via South Korean outlets during a three-day period in which North Korea launched half a dozen missiles off of its east coast. A South Korean military official said Sunday that Seoul has recently deployed "dozens of Spike missiles" on Baengnyeong and Yeonpyeong islands in the Yellow Sea. Israeli defense technology has been deployed by more than a dozen countries including Germany, India, and Singapore and Israeli defense transfers to U.S. allies have been cited by U.S. officials as a key benefit of narrower U.S.-Israeli defense cooperation.

Contact The Israel Project at press@theisraelproject.org

The Main Findings of This Study

1. This study examines the concept of the Palestinian "popular resistance" (al-muqawama al-sha'abiya) as it was formulated during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then adopted by the sixth Fatah conference in August 2009, and has since been implemented in Judea and Samaria by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Fatah. Thus the concept of "popular resistance" has become a main component of PA policy, utilized to promote PA interests when interacting with Israel and in both the international and internal Palestinian arenas.

2. The main findings:

1) The "popular resistance" is a prominent strategy implemented on the ground and integrated into the political, economic, propaganda and judicial campaigns currently waged by the PA against Israel. As far as the PA and Fatah are concerned, the "popular resistance" creates constant, controlled tension in the Palestinian relations with Israel. The "popular resistance" can be used to exert pressure on Israel to the extent and degree suitable to political developments, and is regarded as legitimate by the international community. Internally, the PA and Fatah have presented the Palestinian public with the "popular resistance" as an acceptable alternative to Hamas' "armed resistance" which PA and Fatah feel is not, at the present time, useful in the Palestinian campaign against Israel.

2) The "popular resistance" is not the placid, non-violent protest the PA pretends it is. It makes massive use of violence, employing cold weapons. Usually but not always it involves the frequent use of Molotov cocktails and stones. In addition, there are sporadic attacks involving knives and hit and run attacks on Israelis. In recent years, the use of cold weapons against Israeli security forces and Israeli civilians has increased considerably and become the main component of anti-Israeli violence in Judea and Samaria, as opposed to a significant decrease in the use of arms (guns and explosives). The use of cold weapons has risen even more sharply since the end of Operation Pillar of Defense, although the "popular resistance" has not yet turned into a mass uprising (in most instances "popular resistance" events attract between dozens and hundreds of participants). Occasionally the "popular resistance" claims casualties (killed and wounded) among Israeli civilians and soldiers, as well as Palestinians.

3) The PA publicly supports the systematic violence used in "popular resistance" attacks and both directly and indirectly, providing financial and logistic support. The PA's security forces do not take the same effective steps to prevent the use of cold weapons as they do to prevent the use of arms, although they make an effort to contain and control violent incidents of friction. In the international arena the PA fully legitimizes the "popular resistance," despite its aggressive violence and despite the resulting casualties (an Israeli civilian was recently stabbed to death), the PA represents the "popular resistance" as "peaceful resistance." The PA and Fatah call the violent events "peaceful resistance" or "unarmed resistance" and as such successfully market it to the international community.

4) On the other hand, the PA does object to the use of arms (guns and explosives), which might turn the "popular resistance" into an armed military campaign against Israel. The PA and its security forces use preventive measures to enforce this position on Hamas and the other terrorist organizations. They also continue security coordination with Israel despite Hamas' harsh criticism. However, ideologically at least, the PA and Fatah have not ruled out the option of an armed campaign: according to the Fatah political platform of August 2009, an armed campaign remains a future option, dependent on the political and social conditions of the conflict with Israel. In addition, even during the "popular resistance," the PA and Fatah preserve the legacy and symbols of the armed campaign against Israel, manifested, for example, in commemorating the "shaheeds" (of all the terrorist organizations) killed while carrying out terrorist attacks.

5) While the "popular resistance" is generally not directed by the Palestinian terrorist organizations, it is not necessarily "popular" or spontaneous, as represented by the PA and its participants. The original protests were in fact popular, local, spontaneous and authentic, but became institutionalized (especially since the sixth Fatah conference) and have turned into an important PA-Fatah political tool. Approximately 30 "popular committees" (a term taken from the first intifada) have been established to protest the security fence and the Israeli settlements, as well as a supreme coordinating committee that sits in Ramallah. The PA also institutionalized and organized mechanisms to motivate popular protests around the Palestinian terrorist prisoners, which gained momentum during the past year. Various other elements have been integrated into the "popular resistance:" University and college students in Judea and Samaria, Palestinian terrorist operatives (especially from Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine), left-affiliated Palestinian NGO activists (especially from Mustafa Barghouti's National Initiative), pro-Palestinian activists from abroad (especially from Western countries) organized to arrive in Judea and Samaria for pre-determined periods of time, and far leftist Israeli activists.

6) In 2012 the number of "popular resistance" attacks rose in comparison to 2011 and their numbers reached several hundred every month. The numbers have continued to rise throughout the first half of 2013, to today's high level of violence in Judea and Samaria. Two issues which inflamed events and increased their severity were Operation Pillar of Defense and the Palestinian terrorist operative prisoners in Israeli jails (especially after the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange deal, which received much publicity). Stabbings also increased, from four in 2011 to 11 in 2012. This past year cold weapons were used to kill two Israeli civilians in Judea and Samaria: one was stabbed to death and the other was the victim of a hit and run attack. In 2012, 35 Israelis were wounded, more than half of them by stones and Molotov cocktails. However, terrorist attacks involving the use of arms remained relatively few, despite attempts by Hamas and the other terrorist organizations to encourage them (only 6.4% of the overall number of violent attacks).

7) Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and other terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip still consider an armed military campaign as their chosen method to achieve their overall strategic goal, that is, the destruction of the State of Israel. Hamas, however, does not reject the "popular resistance," but regards it as only complementing the main military-terrorist effort. Thus Hamas and the other terrorist organizations do their utmost to establish an armed terrorist infrastructure in Judea and Samaria (so far without notable success). In our assessment, their failure to successfully export terrorism from the Gaza Strip to Judea and Samaria is primarily the result of the Israeli security forces' effective counterterrorism activities. To them can be added the preventive activities of the Palestinian security forces and the Palestinian public's unwillingness, at least at this point in time, to pay the high price of a new intifada. Hamas and other terrorist organization operatives participate in "popular resistance" events in Judea and Samaria, but they do not play a major role, and so far have been careful not to present too much of a challenge to the Palestinian security forces. The Hamas and PIJ media give extensive coverage to the "popular resistance," praise it and encourage its continuation, while making explicit appeals for a third intifada.

8) The PA allows and on occasion even encourages the participation in the "popular resistance" of anti-Israeli organizations from around the world (primarily from Western countries), some of them playing an important role in the campaign to delegitimize Israel. Most of the foreigners operating in Judea and Samaria belong to NGOs, most of which areaffiliated with the far left in Europe, the United States and Israel (particularly prominent is the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), anchored in the American radical left, and very active in Judea and Samaria). Of the Palestinian terrorist organizations involved in the "popular resistance" and maintaining ongoing contact with far leftist organizations in Europe (especially France and Italy), the most prominent is the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). For the PA and those motivating the "popular resistance," the participation of foreigners increases its strength and its media presence, and helps them demonize Israel in the international arena (branding Israel as an "apartheid state"). However, during the past year, the PA has made a point of the Palestinian role in popular events resistance and the PA heads publicly stated they would prefer to see Palestinians dominate the protests and demonstrations. In addition, Hamas has also made extensive use of far left and extreme Islamic international organizations and activists to promote projects supporting Hamas in the Gaza Strip, as well as campaigns to send boats and convoys to the Gaza Strip to break the "siege" (a campaign which, in light of a series of failures, has weakened since the Mavi Marmara).

3. In our assessment, from the PA's perspective, the interim balance of implementing the "popular resistance" is extremely positive. For the past several years "popular resistance" events have kept the Israeli security forces in Judea and Samaria busy all the time and helped keep the Palestinian issue in the world media and on the international political agenda. Despite the massive amount of violence involved in the "popular resistance" and despite the casualties among Israeli civilians and soldiers, the Palestinians have managed to foster the false impression that they are waging a peaceful, unarmed resistance campaign against Israel, which is represented as an oppressive occupying power. On the other hand, the "popular resistance" has not spun out of the PA's control, it continues at the traditional, fixed friction points and its extent remains limited (although with the potential to deteriorate). In the internal Palestinian arena the "popular resistance" has improved the status of the PA and Fatah vis-à-vis Hamas and at the same time it has not harmed the PA's efforts to restore public order in Judea and Samaria and reduce anarchy on the ground.

4. Thus senior PA and Fatah figures have repeatedly stated their intentions to extend the "popular resistance" in 2013 and improve its tactics (for example by blocking roads and erecting "outposts"). In our assessment, the PA assumes it will continue to derive great political benefit from the "popular resistance" and at the same time be able to control it and prevent it from being exploited by Hamas and the other terrorist organizations. It seems unlikely that American President Obama's visit to Israel and the PA, and the expectation for a renewal of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations will lead to a decrease in the extent or intensity of the "popular resistance" and its built-in violence. Rather, the "popular resistance" and its attendant violence will probably increase in the coming year, whether as a way of inciting the peace process or whether as a result of the Palestinians' frustration at not achieving what they expected would be the outcome of the renewal of the peace process.

5. The government of Israel, in its reservations regarding the Road Map, said at the time that the Palestinians had to dismantle the PA's security organizations and reform the structures, cease violence and incitement, and educate for peace (Website of the Israeli Knesset Library, government of the State of Israel decision of May 25, 2003). An analysis of the "popular resistance" indicates that the condition was not fully met. While the PA has invested effort in preventing terrorism resulting from armed military-terrorist activity, and has separated itself from Hamas on that particular issue, the cold weapon violence built into the "popular resistance" is not being prevented. On the contrary, both the PA and Fatah, in word and in deed, encourage it, nurture its continuation and accompany the "popular resistance" with ongoing anti-Israeli propaganda and incitement. As a result, the extreme terrorism prevalent during the era of Yasser Arafat (especially the second intifada) significantly decreased in recent years, and following that, so did the number of Israeli casualties in Judea and Samaria. On the other hand, however, anti-Israeli Palestinian violence did not disappear, it merely changed form, became more sophisticated, more controlled, the Palestinians feel it is more acceptable and more easily digested by the United States (also as a scenario of the peace process), the international community and even Israel.

The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) opened in 2002. It is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center (IICC), a national site dedicated to the memory of fallen of the Israeli intelligence community. The ITIC is located near Gelilot, north of Tel Aviv, and is directed by (Col. Ret.) Dr. Reuven Erlich. The objective of the ITIC is to collect, study and disseminate information about terrorism. This article appeared May 20, 2013 in The Meir Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center and is archived at Contact Terrorism Information Center at newsleter@terrorism-info.org.il
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/article/20515

Deborah (Dvora) is the only woman judge mentioned in the Bible. She embodies the fighting women of the ancient world, warrior women who became victorious despite great odds and the initial reluctance of their men to go into battle. Deborah delivered the ancient Israelites from the oppression of the Canaanites. She aroused the Israelites from their long suffering and mobilized them by the thousands. But not all! The Song of Deborah rebukes three tribes who stood by while Deborah's forces went into battle against a fearsome and mechanized army.

The glory of ridding the land of the oppressor belonged, however, to two women. Deborah mobilized her people to overcome their fear, but it was Jael, who ultimately fulfilled Deborah's own prophecy of ridding the land of the dreaded Assyrian general Sisera, who led the Canaanites, by killing him.

From time immemorial, Israel has been saved by the valor of her women. So too, now, two women have bravely stepped into this tradition, filling a void created by the reluctance, inaction, and cowardice of others.

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin and Leila Beckwith, two University of California faculty members, have bravely stood up against campus anti-Semitism, a hatred whose virulence and prominence is attested to by numerous campus incidents and the convoluted and manufactured official denials of university administrators, who have ironically given new meaning to the idea that nothing is to be believed until it is officially denied.

Leftist faculty and campus administrators have given a wink, a nod, and an expansive tolerance to campus anti-Semitism in a way that no other vile form of bigotry would be tolerated. The double standard of the University of California administration's response to attacks on protected classes in contrast to its responses to anti-Semitism has been well documented, but one set of incidents provides an indelible example because it took place at the same school and within close proximity.

In February 2010, a student at the University of California, San Diego, left a noose dangling from a bookcase in the school library. Although the noose was directed at no individual student, the racial overtones of this symbol of the Southern lynch mob provoked predictable outrage.

In protest, students occupied the chancellor's office. A campus teach-in on tolerance was held. African American students were encouraged to express their indignation, pain, and fear to a sympathetic campus administration. The chancellor issued an uncompromising statement condemning the incident and pledged to eliminate hatred on campus.

Once the racial cauldron bubbled over, a coed came forward and took responsibility for the incident. She wrote a letter of apology to the school newspaper and said that she never intended to make a racist statement. She had no idea of the historic implications of the noose. She herself was a member of a minority group.

The administration suspended her. Although by all accounts she was guiltier of abject ignorance than a hate crime, the campus administration asked the city and county attorneys as well as the FBI to file hate crime charges.

In May of the same year, David Horowitz spoke on the same campus. During the question and answer period, Jumanah Imad Albahri, a member of the Muslim Student Association, unflinchingly announced her support for killing Jews.