Friday, April 27, 2012

Israel and the Future of the West

by Daniel Greenfield

Israel’s Jewish population is approaching six million. If current birth rates hold steady that significant milestone will be reached in time for next year’s Independence Day. If there is to be one.

In the sixty-four years that the revived country has existed, there has been a dramatic population shift. Western and Eastern Europe and Russia, where the majority of Western Jews once lived, now hold a fraction of the Jewish population. The Muslim world, former location of the majority of Eastern Jews, is barely worth mentioning.

Globally the Jewish population is divided between Israel and the United States. Israel is the home of the majority of the world’s Jews, but the combined Jewish Anglosphere is still larger, not so much because of the United Kingdom, but because of North America, which holds the largest number of Jews. In a development that would have been all but incomprehensible a century ago, the majority of Jews in the world speak English or Hebrew. Smaller numbers speak French and Spanish, but in a generation hardly any will speak Russian or Arabic.

The majority of Jews live in the American Hemisphere. If we subtract Israel, the Eastern Hemisphere would barely muster up ten percent of the Jewish population because its Jews have for the most part either moved to the Western Hemisphere or to Israel.

Israel is the last Jewish outpost in the Eastern Hemisphere. The last significant Jewish populations there are either in the far west, in the United Kingdom and France or legacy populations in Russia and the Ukraine. The latter have no future and the former are dwindling under pressure from the growing Muslim population in Europe.

Over the last century, Jews have been moving West, though not quickly enough to outpace the Nazis and the Communists. The migration has gathered up Middle East Jews and Eastern European Jews, leaving a handful scattered on the Western shores of Europe, while the majority have either rebuilt in Israel or moved on to America, Canada or Latin America.

Jews have often been referred to as the “canary in the coal mine” and accordingly Jewish migrations may foreshadow Christian migrations from the Eastern Hemisphere.

The Christian populations of the Middle East appear to be going the way of the Jewish population. In thrall to Muslim propaganda, the media blames Israel for the vanishing Christians of Bethlehem, but how does one explain a comprehensive regional Christian decline and exodus?

The fall of Egypt into the hands of the Brotherhood, Turkey into the hands of the AKP Islamists and the strong likelihood that the Brotherhood will take Syria and Hezbollah will take Lebanon, along with Muslim control over Gaza and the West Bank represent the end of the remaining centers of Christianity in the Middle East. It is not difficult to foresee a near future where Israel is the last remaining safe place in the region for Christians.

What is happening to Middle Eastern Christians is what has already happened to Middle Eastern Jews. Unlike the Jews, the Christians have no regional state of their own. The closest thing to it is Lebanon, which serves as an ugly example of what the binational Jewish-Muslim state that some called for and are still calling for would truly look like.

Had Christians turned Lebanon into a Christian Israel, then they would have been able to survive in the region. Middle Eastern Christians are on average better educated and more successful than the cult of a mass murderer that has colonized the region. A Christian Middle Eastern state would have stood head and shoulders above its Muslim neighbors, in every sense of the word. But instead coexistence was tried and it failed. Just as it is failing in Europe.

The migration of European Christians is happening at a slower rate, but it is happening as well. A Times poll found that 42 percent in the UK would like to leave. It is a safe assumption that the 42 percent does not come from the ranks of the bearded asylum seekers and the dole-hounds in the East End. The UK is seeing the largest emigration numbers in recent history, as many as three a minute leaving the country, the majority heading out to more distant corners of the Anglosphere.

Not all Europeans have the same linguistic support system of former colonies making emigration more difficult to contemplate. Emigration from the Netherlands has hit an all time high, headed to most of the same places, either outside the hemisphere or to distant Australia and New Zealand. The Portuguese are heading to Brazil, and the Spanish, Greeks and Italians are also hitting the exit doors. While the process doesn’t seem all that drastic now, it is the opening round of a migration that will drastically accelerate as the Muslim colonization of Europe, with its accompanying violence goes on.

European Christians are following the path of European Jews, just as Middle Eastern Christians are following the path of Middle Eastern Jews, seeking stability, safety and opportunity outside countries that are on the path to becoming unlivable. Most are not leaving because they are aware of the problem, but because they are aware of the consequences.

Israel is a non-Muslim country in a region where after centuries of conquests there aren’t supposed to be any non-Muslim countries. It is an indigenous minority trying to fly the flag in an Arabized region and it can only survive by succeeding at everything it does. It has managed to defy the odds. Like the Armenians, it has proven that it is possible for an indigenous minority to build a successful state out of a diaspora and defend it against Muslim aggression. Those ignorant of history might call it colonialism, but it actually represent indigenous peoples rolling back Muslim colonialism.

If worst comes to worst for Europe, perhaps one day Americans and Australians will resettle England and Scotland, the way that Jews resettled Israel. But the larger question may be who will resettle Australia and America? Retreating across the ocean to another continent is no real solution. Not in the age of the jet plane that can just as easily carry thousands of Muslim settlers, as be hijacked by its Muslim passengers and rammed into major landmarks and centers of government.

Israel may be civilization’s last stand. Even if it fails, it was a nobler effort than pretending that nothing was wrong while heading out the door to other continents where it would take longer for the Jihad to reach their grandchildren.

Daniel Greenfield


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

10 Reasons Arabs Should Celebrate Israel

by Michal Toiba

Dear Israel,

We, Muslims and Arabs of the world, would like to send you greetings and warm wishes on the occasion of your 64th Independence Day. Mazal tov. Along with other world leaders and countries who rightfully congratulate you on this special day, we too would like to finally take this opportunity to celebrate your accomplishments and highlight some of your contributions to the Arab and Muslim worlds:

1. Being at the forefront of efforts to stop Iran's drive for a nuclear weapon. We recognize the dangers a nuclear Iran would pose for the world and especially for the Middle East. We are also fearful of increasing Shiite influence in the region. We prefer not to speak out openly against Iran, so as not to lose face among fellow Muslims or confront the Iranians ourselves – so we thank you, Israel, for stepping up to do what we in the Sunni world secretly want but will not say publicly: "To cut off the head of the snake."

2. Releasing hundreds of Arab prisoners for just one Israeli. In contrast to the U.S., other Western nations, and even some countries in the Arab world who refuse to negotiate with terrorists, choosing instead to abandon their citizens, you, Israel, were willing to release so many of our people -- an astounding 1,027 Palestinian prisoners -- in return for one of your own: Gilad Schalit. In doing so, you showed us how a country that really cares about its citizens acts. One of our own, a Syrian citizen, noted this last year when he tweeted: "Israel exchanged 1000 Palestinian prisoners for 1 Israeli. I just envy their govt because it cares for its citizens. Their govt is prepared to pay the ultimate price for one citizen, while our govt kills us like we are animals and our Arab neighbors say that it's an internal matter."

3. Sending humanitarian aid, even to hostile countries. Israel, you were the first country to offer humanitarian assistance to Turkey after a large earthquake claimed the lives of more than 400 people there. Even though Turkey initially rejected the offer, you responded immediately when Turkey finally decided to accept. Over the years, your people have also offered or sent humanitarian aid to several other Arab or Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Indonesia and Iraq, and most recently, your foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, offered to send aid to war-torn Syria.

4. Providing a safe haven for refugees. Israel has taken in thousands of Muslim refugees from Sudan, Eritrea, Ivory Coast, other African countries, and even some from Bosnia during the ethnic war there. While Egyptian security forces have beaten or killed African refugees seeking asylum, Israel has provided them with safety and even granted many of them citizenship.

5. Providing medical treatment to children – and families of terrorists. In addition to your extensive humanitarian work, when our children in the Palestinian Authority, Iraq, Jordan, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, and other Arab and Muslim countries needed advanced cardiac treatment, you, Israel, provided it, free of charge, thus saving hundreds of children's lives. Not only that, but just a few months ago your kindness reached new heights when you provided medical treatment in Tel Aviv for the wife of one of the most notorious Palestinian terrorists – Abu Daoud, the mastermind behind the massacre at the Munich Olympic games in 1972.

6. Arabs live longer in Israel. We have to admit, Israeli Arabs enjoy one of the highest life expectancies in the Middle East – they even live longer than Americans – and also reproduce more than Arabs in several of Israel's neighboring countries, including Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon.

7. Boosting trade and strengthening economies. Israel, your (official and unofficial) commercial trade relations with many Muslim and Arab countries, some of whom refuse to have diplomatic relations with you, have enabled them to increase their exports and have given them tariff-free access to U.S. markets. Just to give some examples, your Qualified Industrial Zones (QIZ) agreement with Egypt gave the country's textile industry a new lease on life and brought Egypt a staggering $1.3 billion in revenues in 2011. In Jordan, textile exports to the U.S. increased from $15 million in 1997 to $1 billion in 2004, and Jordanian officials estimate that more than 40,000 jobs were created thanks to QIZ factories. Your trade transactions with Indonesia – which does not formally recognize you – have seen millions of dollars enter the Southeast Asian country. An Israel-Indonesia Chamber of Commerce was even set up in Israel to promote and facilitate business ties between the two countries.

8. Water. The Middle East and North Africa region is the most water-scarce region in the world. In the face of this challenge, Israel has agreed to sell water to Jordan to help cover its shortage, and, with the construction of a new desalination plant in Ashdod, it hopes to be able to sell more water to its neighbors in 2013.

9. High-tech and medical equipment. Many Arab Gulf states, and Muslim states such as Malaysia and Indonesia, use your technology, especially for internal security purposes. Last year, a bank in Malaysia used an Israeli remote banking fraud solution that stopped 51 confirmed cases of fraud within the first month of its installation. Several Israeli firms also export medical supplies to Arab countries, among them Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states.

10. Agricultural know-how. As the old saying goes, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Israel, your agricultural companies have helped farmers across the Middle East and Africa lower their dependence on rain, increase their crop yield and improve nutrition. One of these companies, agricultural consultants AgroProject, has benefitted countries such as Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Afghanistan, the UAE, Tunisia and many others in the Middle East. AgroProject's co-director has said his staff often has to travel to our countries using foreign passports, which they say is unpleasant, but they have been willing to put this aside because "the people under the government officials appreciate our help so much. Improving their farming communities improves their lives directly. It’s about people helping people."


As you can see, Israel, you have had a positive impact on the Muslim and Arab worlds, even though we may not always recognize or admit this. So instead of blaming you for all the ills of the Middle East and repeatedly questioning your right to exist, today we'd like to give credit where credit is due. Here's to you Israel, on your 64th birthday.


The Arab and Muslim worlds

Michal Toiba is the Blogs and Opinion editor of Israel Hayom’s English edition.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Haaretz, NYTimes Play Telephone With IDF

by Jonathan S. Tobin

Reading the New York Times account of an interview with Benny Gantz, the chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Force, that was first published in Haaretz is like a children’s game of “telephone.” What Gantz actually said wasn’t reflected in the misleading headline of the Israeli newspaper. That headline, rather than the actual content of the piece, was repeated in the Times article, so what comes out in America’s so-called newspaper of record had more to do with the editorial agenda of the press than the reality of Israel’s security dilemma.

The Haaretz headline was an attention-grabber: “IDF Chief to Haaretz: I do not believe Iran will decide to develop nuclear weapons.” Yet nowhere in the piece was there a quote that matched this startling assertion that was repeated in the Times headline that read: “Israeli Army Chief Says He Believes Iran Won’t Build a Bomb.” What Gantz tells Haaretz is that while the Iranians are actively working on a nuclear program, they have yet to activate the final stage of the project that would convert the material to a nuclear bomb. This is no revelation, as not even the most alarmist account of Iran’s efforts has stated that this final stage has been reached. Nor did Gantz express a belief that Iran wouldn’t build a bomb. Rather, he said the Iranians would do it only if they felt themselves “invulnerable.” He said he thought the ayatollahs were “rational,” but added that a weapon in their hands would be “dangerous.”

So while the tone of Gantz’s interview was not as sharp as the statements made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the substance isn’t very different. Which makes the claims made by the Times and the misleading headline in Haaretz a transparent attempt to portray a stark division within the councils of Israel’s leaders where there may be none.

Here’s the text published by Haaretz:

Asked whether 2012 is also decisive for Iran, Gantz shies from the term. “Clearly, the more the Iranians progress the worse the situation is. This is a critical year, but not necessarily ‘go, no-go.’ The problem doesn’t necessarily stop on December 31, 2012. We’re in a period when something must happen: Either Iran takes its nuclear program to a civilian footing only or the world, perhaps we too, will have to do something. We’re closer to the end of the discussions than the middle.”

Iran, Gantz says, “is going step by step to the place where it will be able to decide whether to manufacture a nuclear bomb. It hasn’t yet decided whether to go the extra mile.”

As long as its facilities are not bomb-proof, “the program is too vulnerable, in Iran’s view. If the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants, he will advance it to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, but the decision must first be taken. It will happen if Khamenei judges that he is invulnerable to a response. I believe he would be making an enormous mistake, and I don’t think he will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people. But I agree that such a capability, in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who at particular moments could make different calculations, is dangerous.”

While Gantz expressed some hope that international sanctions might work to influence Iran’s decisions, he said nothing that could be construed as a belief that Iran’s goal wasn’t a nuclear weapon or that Israel could live with the Islamist regime possessing such a capability. Indeed, he made it very clear that it was his job to prepare a “credible” military threat to Iran the purpose of which would be to convince Tehran to back down.

All that can be said of this interview is that Gantz did not mention the Holocaust and that his tone was calm and professional with more attention to the technical business of his specific military responsibility than an emotional call to action. But why would we expect a military leader to sound like a politician even if the substance of his approach left little daylight between his position and that of his boss?

It is true that this sounded a lot different from Netanyahu’s interview on CNN, where he made it clear that international sanctions on Iran had better work quickly lest the Iranians use the time they are gaining from protracted negotiations to get closer to their nuclear goal. But nothing Gantz said contradicted Netanyahu’s assertion that an Iranian nuke was an existential threat to Israel that must be stopped.

There is no basis to claim, as the Times does, that Gantz’s interview meant he agreed with Netanyahu’s critics and others who take a more relaxed view of the Iranian threat. Nor does the paper point out that even former Mossad chief Meyer Dagan, who is among the most vocal of those disagreeing with Netanyahu, believes Iran must be stopped from gaining a nuclear weapon.

The effort to hype Gantz’s interview is part of a campaign on the part of Israel’s critics to portray Netanyahu as being “hysterical” — the term used by the Times — about Iran. But as Gantz said, Israelis “aren’t two oceans away from the problem — we live here with our civilians, our women and our children, so we interpret the extent of the urgency differently.”

Jonathan S. Tobin


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama the Tragedy

by William L. Gensert

A second term for Barack Obama will be a tragedy. His farcical first term barely hinted at the disaster awaiting America in Barack II. Hobbled by a staggering lack of judgment and competence, and his ever-present reticence to make decisions that might impede his re-election, his first despicable term was a joke, despite a dearth of mirth. If given four more years without worry of electoral reprisal, he will wreak havoc upon the nation in ways that Barack, back in Barack I, only dreamed of.

In 2008, Obama hoped the audacity of pretending to believe in America would propel him to the presidency, and he was right. If re-elected, Barack Obama will finally have the luxury of being himself, and that is something that should terrify every American.

To detect the direction of Obama's next term, one need only examine select decisions from his first. The deliberate demise of America's space program is one. Any future triumph for NASA, because of its well-documented previous success, would have never been credited to Barack's brilliance. And in America today, there is simply no room for any victory that does not belong solely to Barack Obama. It had to go. Sure, he routinely claims the success of others, but selling the space program as all-Barack would have been a stretch, even for the man who Michelle Obama has said "led us out of the darkness into the light."

Defense is another example of what an Obama second term will look like. After strangling bin Laden with his bare hands, and singlehandedly ending terror worldwide, and with the tide of war ebbing, he has come to the conclusion the nation doesn't need a defense. Besides, no matter how much he spends, or how powerful our armed forces remain or become, he will never get credit, because the heroes of America's military are the men and woman who volunteer to stand on that wall, ever-vigilant, so that demagogues like Barack Obama can be successful, while despising them and the sacrifice they make for their country.

The F-22 may be the most advanced fighter in the world, but how would Barack take credit for that? Better to cancel it and spend the money winning a future "built to last."

Our president wants total control over government, to exercise total control over all the little people. He knows what is best for them. No expense is too great for the nation to realize Barack Obama's dream of saving people from too much freedom. He'll spend any amount of money to remake the country in his own image, but he balks at spending money for the things government can actually do better, like space travel and defense.

Calling four more years of Barack Obama a tragedy for America, and perhaps the world, may very well be an understatement. Since his inauguration, every pronouncement, legislative action, executive order, or regulatory fiat has been a veritable disaster for the nation. He has been so successful at being unsuccessful that it borders on hilarity...or is that Hillary? Never mind...I digress.

He once said "they talk about me like a dog." With recent revelations, the nation should wonder what he meant...sorry, another digression.

His failures are legion, his miscues legendary. History will see his first term as a running gag, with no one laughing, plenty of people gagging, and everyone running for his life. The laugh is on us, because despite the unmitigated disaster of Obama's first term, there are still people who will vote for him.


An economy thrives in a low-cost energy environment. Expensive energy costs the nation jobs and prosperity. The "all of the above" energy policy of our president's execrable re-election campaign will become the "none of the above" policy of a second-term Obama. Electricity bills will triple as our president allows the EPA to totally ravage the coal industry. The goal is to eliminate those bituminous bits of black gold from electrical generation. Coal now provides 45% of America's electricity...coming soon, zero percent.

We can always replace coal with natural gas or nuclear power...but wait a minute. Barack will never allow nuclear power with its zero emissions and inexpensive energy. He can't abide that; the price of electricity must "necessarily skyrocket" for green to become the new black. Nuclear energy is out.

If re-elected, Obama will be faced with a choice to either allow fracking and further development of fossil fuels in America, and admit to the idiocy of flushing tens of billions of dollars down the green energy toilet, or ban it by regulatory fiat, raising energy prices to the point where green boondoggles can compete.

Obama will never admit that any decision he made was wrong. Look for him to take option 2. After all, if re-elected, he will have more "flexibility."

After the election, the EPA will, suddenly and shockingly, find that fracking endangers water supplies, or something or other, and impose regulations that will cause the natural gas industry to go in the same direction as coal.

The first step was taken Friday, April 13. It was a typical Friday Obama dump. When no one was looking, Obama issued an executive order establishing a task force, which is to ensure drilling techniques such as fracking are "safe and responsible." In other words, he put his best team on it. Americans should know where this is headed. Natural gas is out.

Under "Energy President" Obama, annual revenue to the U.S. Treasury from offshore oil lease sales has plummeted more than $9 billion since 2008, to less than $37 million in 2011. In government today, $37 million is a rounding error. This should tell the nation all it needs to know about Obama's future plans for oil in America. Oil is out.

The president does not want the nation to exploit its fossil fuel resources. Ten-dollar-a-gallon gasoline will not affect the lives of Barack and family. The person working two jobs to pay rent and put food on the table, however, will be devastated.

In the age of Barack II, no one will be driving -- gasoline will be beyond most citizens' budgets. No one will be reading or writing dissent by lamplight late at night -- electricity will be too expensive. We will be relegated to freezing in our homes, lights off, praying for 01/20/17 and an end to the "Obama-nation."

To sum up, in Barack II, he will cut out coal and oil, diminish natural gas, and forbid nuclear power. Electric bills will skyrocket, and the nation will face rolling blackouts. Gasoline will become even more unaffordable than it is already.

The double-whammy of high transportation and energy costs will tank the economy, and jobs will become even scarcer than they are already. In short, we will have been fundamentally transformed into a third-world country.

It's coming, but like everything for Barack, it's scheduled for...again...after the election. And all this, he will do by himself. Because when you are transformative, you don't have to abide by the Constitution, separation of powers, checks and balances, and judicial review. Executive fiat will be sufficient. All he needs is another term.

The president says we should vote for him, because only a few have prospered while many have struggled. He has a point. After all, the man has spent three and a half years doing everything in his power to make this a reality.

This article covers just a few topics. The president has equally disastrous plans for international affairs, race relations, government ubiquity, union primacy, guns, taxes, health care, and the judiciary. Every single aspect of American life will be affected in Barack II.

The theme of Obama's re-election campaign is "We can't wait." If Barack Obama is re-elected, Americans will soon long for the misery of "hope and change."

William L. Gensert


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Pro-Palestinian or Anti-Israel?

by Khaled Abu Toameh

It would also help immensely of these activists came to the West Bank and Gaza Strip to offer advice on, and help in building, proper government institutions, and in combating administrative and financial corruption. But as far as many of the pro-Palestinian activists in the West Bank and Gaze are concerned, the interests of the Palestinians are not as important as hating Israel.

Pro-Palestinian groups and individuals in the US and Europe are doing Palestinians injustice by devoting all their energies only against Israel.

There is a feeling in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that most of these groups and individuals are more interested in campaigning against Israel than helping the Palestinians.

Being pro-Palestinian does not necessarily mean that one also has to be anti-Israel.

The pro-Palestinian camp in the West should raise its voice against violations of human rights and media freedoms under the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

In the past few weeks, six Palestinian journalists, bloggers and cartoonists were arrested by security forces belonging to the Palestinian government in the West Bank.

The pro-Palestinian activists around the world chose to turn a blind eye to the ongoing crackdown on freedom of expression in the West Bank.

They also failed --- even refused -- to condemn the Palestinian Authority government's decision to block web sites that are critical of Palestinian leaders in the West Bank.

The pro-Palestinian activists in the West also refuse to examine what is happening under Hamas in the Gaza Strip. They apparently do not care, or do not want to see, that there are executions, arbitrary arrests, and assaults against women and torture in Hamas prisons.

The pro-Palestinian activists and organizations also do not seem to care if the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are brainwashing Palestinian children and filling their minds and hearts with hatred.

Those who care about the Palestinians should come to the Gaza Strip and work toward promoting human rights under Hamas -- of children, women, and journalists.

It would help immensely if hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists came to the West Bank and Gaza Strip to teach Palestinian children English and expose them to the benefits of democracy and Western values, such as equal justice under law, free speech and a free press, and financial transparency and accountability

It would also help immensely if these activists came to the West Bank and Gaza Strip to offer advice on, and help in building, proper government institutions, and in combating administrative and financial corruption.

But as far as many of the pro-Palestinian activists in the West are concerned, the interests of the Palestinians are not as important as hating Israel.

Anti-Israel messages and campaigns serve only the radicals in this region who do not want either peace or coexistence.

The time has come for the emergence of a genuine pro-Palestinian camp in the West that would focus less on Israel and more on helping the Palestinians.

Khaled Abu Toameh


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

"Salubrius" Publishes an Advertisement in the Harvard Crimson Newspaper

by Wallace Edward Brand

In honor of Israel's 64th birthday I purchased a quarter page ad in the Harvard Crimson, the paper of the free and open marketplace of ideas. But not free for "One Lawful Jewish State West of the Jordan River as a Solution to the Arab --
Israeli Conflict.

It will be published on Friday, the last day before the "reading period". That is the time when classes cease and the students study for final exams. [The ad follows:]

One Lawful State West of The Jordan River as a Solution to the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Students at Harvard should know that there are actually three solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict. First there is a "one [Arab majority] state" solution, in which the Jewish Israelis would become unwelcome guests in their own National Home, and the Jews in the Diaspora, such as in Toulouse, lose the only place on earth they could go to and not be in a minority. The second is a "two state [temporary] solution" in which the interim solution would result in the loss of much Jewish and Christian heritage and in the long run would end up as the one [Arab majority] state solution. The third is one lawful Jewish state based on the San Remo Agreement of 1920 that established the British Mandate for Palestine. It granted the Jews exclusive collective political rights to Palestine, in trust, to vest when the Jews had attained a population majority.

These three solutions are outlined at:

The details of the San Remo agreement are also on line in a two part op-ed that can be seen at:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Debunking the Palestine Lie"

It is likely that HLS Professor Alan Dershowitz will sponsor a conference at Harvard on a two state temporary solution. Will he permit discussion of the third option at his conference? The three solutions are like the three legs of a stool. With only the first two, it will appear that you will get strong arguments in favor of both, but not much balance. Here is a critical review of the two state temporary solution: Also, it would be helpful to look at what Dr. Daniel Pipes has uncovered about Yassir Arafat and the treaty of Hudibyah, a two-tribe solution that went sour. and

If Harvard is a free and open marketplace of ideas, demand a conference where all three solutions are discussed by genuine proponents and opponents.

Wallace Edward Brand, HLS '57

My best regards and Happy Birthday,

Wallace Brand

Source: Original MAterial

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Sudanese Writer Al-Hajj Warraq Warns Egypt About Danger of Rise of Islamists



Al-Hajj Warraq: "It is very important for [people in] Egypt to understand that democracy is about more than just the ballot box. Democracy is a culture engraved upon the cerebral box before it is the ballot box. One cannot talk about freedom in the absence of free minds. The tragedy of the Arab Spring is that when the tyrannical regimes fell, the fruits were reaped by movements that preach closed-mindedness, rather than free thinking. The outcome will be regimes that are worse than those that were toppled. The so-called Arab Spring countries are heading towards a harsh winter."



To read the full report, visit



Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Egypt Considering Laws to Legalizlize Child Marriage and Sex with Corpses

by Robert Spencer

Here is yet more delightful evidence that Sharia is benign and completely compatible with U.S. Constitutional values, as we are constantly told. "Egypt’s women urge MPs not to pass early marriage, sex-after-death laws: report," by Abeer Tayel for Al Arabiya, April 25 (thanks to Stephen):

Egypt’s National Council for Women (NCW) has appealed to the Islamist-dominated parliament not to approve two controversial laws on the minimum age of marriage and allowing a husband to have sex with his dead wife within six hours of her death according to a report in an Egyptian newspaper.

The appeal came in a message sent by Dr. Mervat al-Talawi, head of the NCW, to the Egyptian People’s Assembly Speaker, Dr. Saad al-Katatni, addressing the woes of Egyptian women, especially after the popular uprising that toppled president Hosni Mubarak in February 2011.

She was referring to two laws: one that would legalize the marriage of girls starting from the age of 14 and the other that permits a husband to have sex with his dead wife within the six hours following her death.

According to Egyptian columnist Amro Abdul Samea in al-Ahram, Talawi’s message included an appeal to parliament to avoid the controversial legislations that rid women of their rights of getting education and employment, under alleged religious interpretations....

The controversy about a husband having sex with his dead wife came about after a Moroccan cleric spoke about the issue in May 2011.

Zamzami Abdul Bari said that marriage remains valid even after death adding that a woman also too had the same right to engage in sex with her dead husband.

Two years ago, Zamzami incited further controversy in Morocco when he said it was permissible for pregnant women to drink alcohol.

But it seems his view on partners having sex with their deceased partners has found its way to Egypt one year on.

Egyptian prominent journalist and TV anchor Jaber al-Qarmouty on Tuesday referred to Abdul Samea’s article in his daily show on Egyptian ON TV and criticized the whole notion of “permitting a husband to have sex with his wife after her death under a so-called ‘Farewell Intercourse’ draft law.”

“This is very serious. Could the panel that will draft the Egyptian constitution possibly discuss such issues? Did Abdul Samea see by his own eyes the text of the message sent by Talawi to Katatni? This is unbelievable. It is a catastrophe to give the husband such a right! Has the Islamic trend reached that far? Is there really a draft law in this regard? Are there people thinking in this manner?”

Many members of the newly-elected, and majority Islamist parliament, have been accused of launching attacks against women’s rights in the country.

They wish to cancel many, if not most, of the laws that promote women’s rights, most notably a law that allows a wife to obtain a divorce without obstructions from her partner. The implementation of the Islamic right to divorce law, also known as the Khula, ended years of hardship and legal battles women would have to endure when trying to obtain a divorce.

Egyptian law grants men the right to terminate a marriage, but grants women the opportunity to end an unhappy or abusive marriages without the obstruction of their partner. Prior to the implementation of the Khula over a decade ago, it could take 10 to 15 years for a woman to be granted a divorce by the courts.

Islamist members of Egyptian parliament, however, accuse these laws of “aiming to destroy families” and have said it was passed to please the former first lady of the fallen regime, Suzanne Mubarak, who devoted much of her attention to the issues of granting the women all her rights....

Robert Spencer


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Radical Anti-Israel Advocate Appointed to Genocide Prevention Board

by Arnold Ahlert

Last August, president Obama created an Atrocities Prevention Board. “Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of America,” stated a presidential directive. He appointed Samantha Power, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights, as chair. Ms. Power won a Pulitzer Prize for her book, “A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.” That’s the good news. The bad news? Ms. Power is a leftist dedicated to moral equivalence with respect to the Middle East peace process: in 2002, she called for U.S. invasion of Israel and an American-imposed two state solution to the ongoing impasse between Israel and the Palestinians.

Harry Kreisler, director of the Institute for International Studies at the University of California, Berkeley asked Ms. Power to respond to a “thought experiment” about what she would do with respect to the Palestine-Israel problem, if one party appeared to be moving “toward genocide.” Power’s answer was extremely troubling:

What we need is an actual willingness to put something on the line in service of helping the situation. And putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import. It may more crucially mean sacrificing, or investing I think, more than sacrificing, literally billions of dollars not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine. In investing billions of dollars, it would probably take also to support what I think will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Sebrenica kind or Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence, because it seems to me…you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line and, unfortunately imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful, I mean it’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But…it’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to people who are fundamentally, politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people.

Ms. Power has subsequently denied she has any animus for Israel, claiming she had “erred significantly in offering hypothetical comments that did not reflect how she felt.” She further claimed that opponents of the president had taken her comments out of context in order to promote her as anti-Israel. Yet she avoids the most damnable aspect of the above quote, which is the pernicious notion that both Arabs and Jews are “fundamentally destined” to be self-destructive to the point of national suicide.

In other words, aggression and self-defense become interchangeable terms. Those who strap on explosive vests and detonate them among innocent civilians are the same as those who are trying to stop such slaughter. Those who destroy missile launchers aimed at civilian centers are no better than those who launch the missiles themselves. Those who would willingly annihilate the Jewish State are no different than those who would prevent it from happening.

In fairness, if such reasoning were an isolated case, one might be tempted to buy into Ms. Power’s assertion the above interview does not reflect her true sentiments. But it is not. In a 2004 review of a book by radical leftist Noam Chomsky, Power put Israel in the same category as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Russia, and Uzbekistan when she referred to the “sins of our allies in the war on terror.” A book published in 2003, “Ethnic Violence and Justice,” contains a quote by Power directed at New York Times reporter David Rohde, who covered the second intifada. “I have a question for David about working for the New York Times,” said Power. “I was struck by a headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe: ‘Human Rights Report Finds Massacre Did Not Occur in Jenin.’ The second paragraph said, ‘Oh, but lots of war crimes did.’ Why wouldn’t they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph?”

The so-called Jenin massacre, quickly revealed to be nothing more than a Palestinian propaganda hoax, was an abject lesson regarding the reflexive anti-Semitism practiced by the “blame Israel first” crowd, including substantial numbers of mainstream journalists. Ms. Power’s framing of the question is curious. Her concern with “war crimes” seems to indicate an assumption that even though Israel was innocent of massacre, it was Israel, not the Palestinians who were guilty of war crimes. It is difficult to imagine another scenario in which the order of the headlines would be so important to her.

In 2007, Ms. Power, who was Professor of Practice of Global Leadership and Public Policy at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, gave an interview concerning the Iraq War during which she criticized Israel yet again, claiming America’s relationship with the Jewish State “has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics[.]” If that sounds familiar, it’s because it echoes the popular anti-Semitic notion that the U.S. is utterly beholden to Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

The appointment of Ms. Power to the Atrocities Prevention Board represents another big step in the political comeback of the woman who was forced to resign from Mr. Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign when she referred to Hillary Clinton as a “monster” capable of “stooping to anything” in an interview with the Scottsman. In 2009, she was appointed to her current director position, and her influence apparently grew when she became the president’s chief advisor with respect to Libya.

One can argue about the pros and cons regarding regime change in Libya, but the initial rationale behind it was exactly the kind of “humanitarian intervention” embraced by Ms. Power. Unfortunately, like much of this administration’s foreign policy, naivete became a viable substitute for reality. We did not so much “prevent genocide,” as precipitate the very same kind of regime change that has enabled the rise of Islamist hard-liners throughout the region, none of which accrues to the national security interests of the United States.

Furthermore, the rationale near and dear to Ms. Power’s heart, aka “responsibility to protect,” given teeth by United Nations Resolution 1973, passed on March 17, 2011, grants the international community the responsibility to “help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.” In an essay supporting the creation of the Atrocities Prevention Board, Ms. power notes that Mr. Obama was the “first president to establish a position at the White House responsible for policy on war crimes and mass atrocity.” The administration would like Americans to believe that yet another czar — one whose understanding of “genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity” may be colored by the kind of moral equivalence Ms. Power has expressed — is a good thing.

“Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism,” Power concluded in 2002. “But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are just becoming ever more pronounced.”

Lesser evils? As defined by whom? It behooves Americans in general, and Jewish Americans in particular, to find out — before the 2012 election.

Arnold Ahlert


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Our Naked Emperor

by David Meir-Levi

When the vain and delusional emperor walked naked through the streets of his capital to show off his new clothes, so light and so finely woven that they could not be seen or felt, it was only an innocent little child, ingénue, who told the world that the emperor was naked. The rest went along with the charade, and collaborated with the emperor and his dishonest clothiers in order to avoid imperial ire.

Recent events and disclosures at the highest levels of our government demonstrate that our own rulers, like the naked emperor, have through folly and dishonesty exposed themselves as “useful idiots” or worse, liars and functionaries whose loyalties may well be to other than the United States.

On April 10, Johnnie Carson, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, stated that “religion is not driving extremist violence” in Nigeria. This pronouncement was made one day after Boko Haram, the uber-violent Muslim jihadist Nigerian terrorists, bombed a church killing 39 Christians.

Carson told us an unconscionable and transparent lie. In addition to stating an obvious falsehood, given the Boko Haram’s overt and unabashed self-definition as a brutally violent Muslim terrorist organization which condemns all things non-Muslim as “Haram” (prohibited), Carson also contradicted earlier State Department assessments, [i] all of which argue that Nigeria’s Islamic religious terrorist violence was so much a concern that the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommended back in 2002 that Nigeria be placed on the United States watch list.

What impelled Mr. Carson to lie such that anyone anywhere who does not live under a rock can see that he is lying? Joel Mowbray’s Dangerous Diplomacy provides a clue. Mowbray documents how the Saudi royal family has over the past decades insinuated itself into our State Department by promising State Department officials serving in the Arab world generous sinecures when they have retired from their official duties, as long as they represent Saudi interests to the US government while serving in the State Department. These Saudi long-range bribes render our officials servants of the Saudi government, representing Saudi interests to our government instead of the other way around.[ii]

But the problem runs deeper than one State Department functionary whose integrity may have been compromised by Muslim forces that want him to lie on behalf of Islamic jihadist terrorists. His boss is Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State. She has been silent regarding his transparent lie. Is Saudi penetration so deep that even the Secretary of State cannot publicly correct the errors of a State Department employee; and is it only the Saudis?

Very distressingly, it may be more than the State Department alone that is in question here. President Obama and the State Department have been unwilling to rule out aid to Hamas despite the fact that that very same State Department has classified Hamas as a terrorist organization, and American law prohibits US financial aid to terrorist organizations. As Trudy Rubin observed last year in a Washington Post article:

“The most ominous interpretation of the mush coming from the State Department (regarding aid to Hamas) is that the administration is so rudderless, unprincipled and desperate to avoid a clear defeat in its efforts to foist a “peace agreement” on the parties that it would go so far as to continue to do business with the PA, despite (the PA’s) taking on a partner that has killed Americans, seeks Israel’s destruction and, from behind the skirts of women and the cribs of children, has conducted a missile bombardment of Israel.”

The State Department’s rudderless, unprincipled pronouncements contradict its own policy denying aid to any terrorist organization.

And in case one might think that Hamas’ terrorist history is a function only of its violent and psychotic leaders, while the downtrodden rank-and-file of Gazan Arabs are just tagging along for the charitable gifts they receive from Hamas leadership, one need only note the recent Commentary Magazine article on the Palestinian Shikaki organization’s poll of Gazan and West Bank Arabs. This poll shows that Hamas has lost considerable support of its followers in the Gaza Strip due in part to its not being aggressive enough in its terrorism against Israel.

The poll’s findings indicate a significant decline in the popularity of Hamas in the Gaza Strip and a decrease in its constituency’s positive evaluation of its government compared to previous polls. Shikaki suggests that this may be due to Hamas’ behavior, standing on the sideline, during Gaza’s rocket war with Israel (while other Gazan terror groups carried out numerous rocket attacks). Ironically, several Hamas leaders, especially Isma’il Haniyeh, enjoy in the West Bank a popularity that rivals President Abbas. Apparently it is not just the Gazan Arabs who want to see Jews murdered.

Significant percentages of Gazan Arabs, not the leaders, nor even the leaders’ acolytes, just the plain old day-to-day Arabs on the street, really want Hamas and other terror groups to just keep on bombing Israel, just keep on killing Jews. Yet the State Department and our President are unclear as to whether or not it is a good idea for the USA to continue to provide Hamas with hundreds of millions of tax-payer dollars, many of which will be rerouted to support Hamas’ terrorist efforts.

Then there is Madame Secretary’s comments on TV to a young and activist Tunisian audience on April 17. When asked why American Presidential candidates on both sides support Israel and Zionism, she said:

“Well, first, let me say you will learn as your democracy develops that a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention. There are comments made that certainly don’t reflect the United States, don’t reflect our foreign policy, don’t reflect who we are as a people.”

Our Secretary of State told her Tunisian audience, in front of international TV, that our Presidential candidates lie to get votes, and they are lying about their support for Israel. Then she went on to say:

“…watch what President Obama says and does. He’s our President. He represents all of the United States, and he will be reelected President, so I think that that will be a very clear signal to the entire world as to what our values are and what our President believes”

In other words, the President is really on your side, Tunisian youth, and Obama’s pro-Israel statements in the previous campaign and during his current tenure are lies, as is the pro-Israel rhetoric of the Republican candidates.

Secretary Clinton subordinated U.S. interests to partisan considerations and told her Muslim audience what she figured they wanted to hear, namely that the USA does not really support Israel, that’s just mendacious campaign rhetoric. In addition to calling her own President and most Republican candidates liars, she also unabashedly contradicted 65 years of the Israel-USA relationship.

What pressure, what compulsion, what intractable limitation on her public presentations could have prevented her from simply stating the accepted U.S. diplomatic language? Something like: “We favor a two-state solution. We believe that Israel has a right to exist. We believe that everyone would benefit by a negotiated, just, and lasting peace. We think that your true enemies are poverty and dictatorship.”

By not saying something akin to this, she misrepresented 65 years of American diplomacy, defamed her own boss and other Republican candidates, and pandered to the interests of her Muslim audience — just as Moray’s analysis describes.

And Obama himself, Mr. “knife in Israel’s back,” has pandered to the Persians, curtseyed to the Caliph (king Abdullah of Saudi Arabia), flip-flopped in representing himself on the Arab-Israel issue, and tried his best during the three years of his presidency, to make a shambles of the traditional US-Israel relationship.

Like the fairy tale emperor, our leaders at the highest levels have exposed themselves. They have revealed to us their naked dishonesty. They are not honest stewards of American society, nor honest brokers in the Israel-Arab conflict, nor even stalwart defenders of our own country, their own country, in Western Civilization’s defensive war against Islamofascist, triumphalist, totalitarian, terrorist jihad. They have been compromised by forces at least one of which is Saudi oil money.

What will it take before we can end the lies, stop the posturing, and call the complicity of our President and his Department of State with Muslim jihadist terrorism what it really is?


David Meir-Levi


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Bishops Call for 'Aggressive Attack' on Obama policies

by Martin Gould
Bishops call for 'aggressive attack' on Obama policies

President Obama speaks during a White House ceremony on Tuesday, April 24. The same day, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops announced two weeks of public protests against Obama's policies. Photo Credit:AP/Charles Dharapak

Roman Catholic leaders are calling for two weeks of public protests against President Barack Obama's policies as they intensify their argument that the administration is engaged in a war on religion. Two weeks of protests, from July 21 to July 4 have been called by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops which has sought to end the administrations's contraception mandate, among other policies. The two weeks of planned protests against the Obama administration’s policies could be “the game-changer” in the presidential election, a leading lay churchman said. ... The protests, dubbed “A Fortnight for Freedom” will be an “unprecedented, aggressive attack” against policies that church leaders see as an assault on religious freedom, said Catholic Advocate chairman Deal Hudson.

Martin Gould Source:  

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Death to Those Who Sell Homes to Jews

by Arnold Ahlert

Muhammad Abu Shahala is a former Palestinian intelligence officer who, after reportedly being tortured, admitted committing a capital offense. As a result he has been sentenced to death. His “crime”? He sold his home in Hebron on the West Bank to Jews. Under Palestinian law, all that awaits Shahala’s rendezvous with destiny is the approval of the sentence by Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas. Who is trying to save him? Jewish officials, who are attempting to get the international community involved.

An open letter authored by David Wilder and Noam Arnon of the Jewish Community of Hebron addressed to U.N Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and other officials notes that “Mr. Muhammad Abu Shahala, a former intelligence agent for the Palestinian Authority, has been sentenced to death, following a hurried trial. His crime: selling property to Jews in Hebron.” The letter continues:
Mr. Abu Shahala reportedly confessed following torture sessions at the hands of his captors. The death sentence can be executed only following concurrence by Mahmoud Abbas, aka Abu Mazen, president of the PA. After he signs the death warrant, Abu Shahala may be killed.
It is appalling to think that property sales should be defined as a “capital crime” punishable by death. The very fact that such a “law” exists within the framework of the PA legal system points to a barbaric and perverse type of justice, reminiscent of practices implemented during the dark ages.
The letter then poses a pertinent question. “Is the Palestinian Authority a reincarnation of the Third Reich?” it asks.

Noted columnist Caroline Glick provides an answer to that question. “The PA (Palestinian Authority) was established in May 1994,” Glick writes. “The first law it adopted defined selling land to Jews as a capital offense. Shortly thereafter scores of Arab land sellers began turning up dead in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria in both judicial and extrajudicial killings.”

A report by the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) contends that, before the creation of the PA, the decree had been in effect since before the creation of Israel in 1948. If CBN is correct, it reveals an inconvenient truth: the kind of irrational hatred that would make selling one’s home to a Jew an offense punishable by death pre-dated the creation of the Jewish State. Such a reality blasts a giant hole in the seemingly intractable belief among Western leaders that all of the region’s ongoing animosity is the result of Israel’s policies toward Palestinians — or that such animosity can be quelled by any “peace process.”

The dispute at hand goes back to 2007, when 20 Jewish families moved into the Hebron house claiming they had “bought it from its Palestinian owner.” At that time, the Palestinian owner, who remained unnamed in several stories about the dispute, claimed the house had been illegally seized. In a hearing in October of 2008, the settlers presented the court with an audio tape on which the owner admits he had sold the house to a realtor. The High Court of Justice was unmoved and order the eviction to proceed.

The ongoing dispute continued to fester until April 2, 2012, when the settlers were ordered to leave the house by the Israeli Civil Administration. Officials contended that the sale violated public order in what has been declared a restricted military zone, tellingYnet News that the eviction order was issued “due to security concerns” and that such a sale “poses a threat to the stability of the area.” They further contended that even if the house had been purchased legally, the contract still requires the authorization of the defense minister. On April 3, Prime Minister Netanyahu delayed the court-ordered eviction in order to give settlers time to prove their ownership. At that time it was first reported that the unidentified Palestinian seller was “a former PA security officer who lives in the Gaza Strip,” who had “been detained by the PA for months now, while the affair is being sorted out.” The article further noted that as a result of selling the house, “[H]e is expected to serve a prolonged prison sentence.”
On April 6th, the Jewish settlers were finally evicted, and the three-story building has been sealed until an Israeli court can establish the legal owner. The settlers have remained camped in tents near the house since their expulsion.

None of this apparently matters to PA authorities. Abu Shahala remains on death row for the “crime” of selling real estate to Jews, even as the sale itself remains in dispute in an Israeli court. It remains to been seen if PA president Mahmoud Abbas will sign his death warrant, or whether any international pressure will be brought to bear in the case. The above letter was published ten days ago, suggesting international inertia at best–or calculated indifference at worst.

Yet it is telling that Mr. Shahla’s most ardent defenders are Jews, including, as Arutz Sheva reported on April 15th, “several Israeli Knesset Members and leaders in Judea and Samaria,” while those who would kill him are his fellow Palestinians. In 1957, former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said, “Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”
That day has yet to arrive.

Arnold Ahlert


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

America’s Slowing Economy

by Peter Wehner

Yesterday, the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced that seasonally-adjusted annual rate of sales fell 7.1 percent from February. The March figures for home sales were the lowest in four months. Today, we learned that new orders for manufactured durable goods in March decreased $8.8 billion — or 4.2 percent — to $202.6 billion. And this comes after a jobs report that showed in March we produced only 120,000 new jobs, as more and more people continued to drop out of the labor force.

As this McClatchy Newspaper story puts it:
Rather than a breakout surge in economic growth, mainstream forecasters say, Americans should expect the U.S. economy to slog forward for another couple of years.
The economy grew at a subpar annual rate of 1.7 percent last year, down from 3 percent the year before. The consensus forecast for this year now is for growth of 2 to 2.5 percent.
The U.S. economy is expected to slow later this year… A spate of recent indicators punctuated fears that the economy is stalling. March delivered only 120,000 new jobs, and the latest manufacturing and real estate data softened.
We’re already experiencing the weakest economic recovery since after World War II — and the latest data points to a further slowdown.

No wonder the president’s campaign would rather talk about contraception, Warren Buffett’s secretary, and the Irish setter Mitt Romney owned 30 years ago.

Peter Wehner


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Wash. Post, NY Times Flog Israeli Settlements, Facts Notwithstanding

by Leo Rennert

Earlier this week, the Israeli government formally legalized three small Jewish communities in the West Bank -- Rehalim, Bruchin and Sansana.  They had been authorized and approved by prior governments in the 1980s and 1990s.  Rehalim received official  authorized settlement status on May 19, 1983, Bruchin on Nov. 27, 1991, and Sansana on June 28, 1998.

What had been lacking was additional paperwork to formalize their legal status -- essentially an oversight that now has been corrected.

But since the Washington Post and the New York Times are predisposed to see evil in anything pertaining to Jewish settlements, it comes as no surprise that they jumped on this thin bureaucratic reed to flog Jewish presence in the Jews' biblical homeland.
Ignoring facts and history, the Post carries a three-column article by Jerusalem correspondent Karin Brulliard in its April 25 edition, headlined "Israel legalizes 3 West Bank outposts -- Palestinian activists decry move as step toward new settlements."
In the lead paragraph, Brulliard writes that Israel "legalized three unauthorized Jewish outposts in the West Bank" -- a move decried by Palestinians and anti-settlement groups as a "step toward creating the first new settlements in more than a decade."

The office of Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately pointed to the errors in such coverage, with spokesman Mark Regev declaring that "one can be critical of the Israeli settlement policy, that's everybody's right, but you can't tell me that the Israeli government has built new settlements, and you can't tell me that this is legalizing unauthorized outposts.  These (new) decisions are procedural or technical.  They don't change anything whatever on the ground."  In other words, the Post is dead wrong.
The Post, however, completely ignored Regev's statement.  Brulliard instead gives full coverage to critics and opponents of settlements.  To say that hers is a one-sided story doesn't do justice to the Post's biased coverage.

Unlike the Post, the New York Times features a more nuanced article by correspondent Jodi Rudoren that includes Regev's explanation, but still blows the issue of the three long-established settlements out of  all proportion.  In a provocative, finger-in-Israel's eye six-column report that, with an accompanying five-column photo of a settlement, takes up a full half page, the Times headlines Rudoren's piece:  "Israel Retroactively Legalizes 3 West Bank Settlements, Citing Technical Issues" (April 25, page A8)
Rudoren's lead flatly accuses Israel of a "provocative move" that, according to critics, "marked the first establishment of new settlements in two decades."

Having ginned up and tilted the coverage against Israel at the top, then and only then does Rudoren quote Regev in rebuttal.

The Post's piece is an all-out fabrication -- the three small settlements were NOT "unauthorized Jewish outposts" before this week.   The Times' piece crosses the line by casting this week's action as constituting creation of "new settlements."

Under Netanyahu and his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, Israel has adhered to a policy of not creating new settlement and not expanding the outer limits of existing settlements.  The only thing authorized under this policy is construction within existing settlements.
This week's action in no way or shape alters this policy, the Washington Post and the New York Times to the contrary notwithstanding.

Leo Rennert is a former White House correspondent and Washington bureau chief of McClatchy Newspapers 


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

How To Avoid Another Defeat in Iran

by Kenneth R. Timmerman

We should, for example, provide money for a strike fund; provide secure communications equipment and training on how to use it, and airlift WIMAX wifi transmitters that can provide internet service to all regions currently under a regime-ordered communications-blackout. Why? Because it is in our national security interest to do so.
Thirty-two years ago this week, on April 24, eight U.S. servicemen died in the southeastern desert of Iran when their mission to rescue 52 Americans held captive by the revolutionary regime in Tehran was aborted by President Jimmy Carter.
Operation Eagle Claw was one of the first missions conducted by the recently-formed Delta Force. Depending on whose account you read, it was either an unlucky masterpiece of complex planning or a desperate attempt to save a doomed presidency that never should have been given the green light in the first place.

The mission's failure convinced U.S. military leaders to rethink how they would conduct special operations in the future: formulating plans that were simpler, carrying them out under unified command, and managing the risk.

While our military has learned the lessons of the failed hostage rescue mission, however, our political leaders have not.

When the first reports came in of the deadly aircraft collision during a sandstorm in the Iranian desert, Jimmy Carter lost his nerve. Rather than follow the advice of his military advisors and continue the mission with a smaller force, he pulled the plug and exposed it to the world. His fear of defeat trumped his will to win. The result? Our enemies smelled weakness and sought to deepen our humiliation by parading about the sand-clotted bodies of our dead servicemen like trophies in a Roman Triumph.

Jimmy Carter's multiple failures in Iran have given us thirty-two years of state-sponsored terrorism in the Middle East. By allowing the forces of chaos and extremism to unseat the Shah of Iran, a staunch U.S. ally, Carter not only destroyed the future for two generations of Iranians; he ushered in an era where a sovereign government operating under the guise of terrorist proxies was allowed to murder, maim, and bomb with impunity.

The victims of Iran's terrorist rampage included people such as Robert Ames, the CIA Near East chief of operations, who was killed when Iranian-backed terrorists blew up our embassy in Beirut on April 17, 1983.

As one of the first journalists on the scene after the bomb ripped off the front of our seaside embassy, I will never forget a dust-and-debris-covered press officer named Ryan Crocker emerging from the rubble to tell us that he had seen the U.S. ambassador, saved by the weight of his office desk, climbing down a broken fire escape at the rear of the embassy.

The victims also included people such as Donald G. Havlish, Jr., an insurance executive from Yardley, Pennsylvania who missed taking his daughter to her first day of preschool on the morning of September 11, 2001 so he could attend a business meeting in New York. He worked on the 101st floor of the South Tower of the World Trade Center, and was killed by the al Qaeda terrorists who crashed a hijacked airplane into his building that morning.

Although I did not know him, I came to know his widow, Fiona, and helped her and other families of 9/11 victims trace the origins of the 9/11 plot back to Iran. These brave families won a measure of justice in a federal court on December 15, 2011, when District court judge George B. Daniels, after hearing our testimony, determined that the Islamic Republic of Iran shared "material responsibility" for the 9/11 attacks with the al Qaeda terrorists.

Mihaela, their daughter, who had turned 13 by then, and she impressed me to tears as she stood near me in the cold winter winds where once the South Tower had stood. With TV cameras trained on her, she made a brushing of her father's name in the commemorative marble plaques around the foundation. "I am Mihaela Havlish, the daughter of Donald G. Havlish, Jr, who died on September 11, 2001," she said. Simple, clear, brave.

We have an opportunity today to ensure that Robert Ames, Donald Havlish and so many others -– including hundreds of our servicemen in Iraq -- will be the last American victims the evil regime in Iran can claim. We have the opportunity today to craft effective policies that will end the rein of terror in Iran.

And yet, President Obama has embarked on a different course – a course that I believe will lead directly to a major war with Iran that we do not need and that we can actually prevent.

His course is called appeasement. It begins with the notion that you can rationally discuss matters of import – such as nuclear weapons development and terrorism -- with a regime that seeks just one thing: to negotiate the size of your coffin.

The Islamic Republic leaders have shown repeatedly that their only goal in these negotiations is to buy time to complete their nuclear weapons development. During their latest round of talks with the Obama administration on April 14, they succeeded yet again.

If you read the opening of this Bloomberg News wire story; you'll see what I mean:
"The first international talks with Iran on its nuclear program in 15 months produced a promise to reconvene in May amid calls for urgent diplomacy to avert military strikes."
See anything there about getting the Islamic Republic to stop uranium enrichment? Neither do I. Forget about any calls on the regime to lift its stranglehold on the Iranian people.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama, backed by top Congressional Democrats such as Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, were calling for "negotiations without preconditions" with the Iranian regime.

To their mind, it was U.S. "intransigence" that was causing the bad behavior of the Iranian regime. If only we would relent, they would behave.

Almost immediately after taking office, Obama sent emmissaries to open a chanel to Teheran. Six months later, the Iranian regime got its first payback: When three million Iranians took to the streets after a fraudulent presidential election and publicly begged for U.S. help (with signs in English for the benefit of international TV cameras), President Obama remained silent.

When he finally spoke, it was to declare haughtily that the United States had a bad history of intervening in Iran's domestic affairs, and so we would abstain from playing any active role in aiding the Iranian people in their quest for freedom.

This, too, was appeasement.

Remember what Winston Churchill said after Neville Chamberlain returned from negotiating with Adolf Hitler in Munich, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war."

And that is precisely where we are headed now because of the appeasement policies of Obama, J Street, and the Obama Democrats.

I believe we have a real alternative, but one that has never been tried before: we must urgently launch a massive program to help the pro-freedom movement in Iran.

We need a comprehensive strategy that uses all the tools of power diplomacy to help them achieve their freedom frm tyrrany. Why? Because it is in our national security interest to do so.

We should, for example, provide money for a strike fund to support the families of Iranian workers who leave their jobs to protest the regime.

We should provide secure communications equipment and training on how to use it.
My own favorite is to airlift in WIMAX point of site Internet wifi transmitters at a cost of $500,000 each, a relatively small investment in terms of defense, that can provide free, secure Internet service to all regions of Iran that are currently under a regime-ordered communications black-out.

We should provide the pro-freedom movement with the best political consultants money can buy, who know how to wage high visibility grass roots campaigns. During the Cold War, such operations were carried out covertly by the CIA. These days, ironically, they mostly are done by George Soros and the Democrat party.

We owe it to our men and women in uniform to try this approach before they get called on once again to pick up the pieces from the mistakes of our politicians.
When the war from the dishonorable decisions hits, who can predict the ultimate consequences in terms of regional stability, oil prices, and, worse, the number of Americans who will lose their lives?

Kenneth R. Timmerman is the author of Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran (Crown Forum 2005), and was nominated jointly with Amb. John Bolton for the Nobel Peace prize in 2006 for his work on Iran. He is the president of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, and is the Republican nominee for Congress in Maryland's 8th District.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Share It