Gaza War 2014

March 29th, 2017 by Gail Winston | Archived in: Gaza War 2014


Gaza War Diary 1 Sun. Mar. 26, 2017 Day 1299 1 sent 4am

Dear Family & Friends,

First of all, Good Luck to all those attendees at the AIPAC Policy Conference, starting today in Washington, DC. Roughly 18,000 people are expected to attend the event, including 3,400 students.”

Second of all, Yasher Koach to all of us Jews who have assisted in any way to increase the Jewish population in Judea & Samaria, the Golan Heights & Jerusalem. See the just below. Do the 2 minute sign-up & download the population stats that show you the total population of Judea & Samaria as of Jan. 12, 2017 as well as the % of increase & the expected growth rate to come.

How could Israel possibly evacuate so many men, women & children? Any more give-aways of our Land, to which we as the indigenous people of this country have returned to our ancestral Land would be just plain stupid, ridiculous, wasteful, unkind, anti-Jewish, anti-religious, anti-G-d. I get the rest but, why anti-G-d? Because He created it & us & He brought us to our Land to take care of it. Wow, it’s 3am & what I wrote sounds strange but, I don’t take any of back.

All the very best, Gail/Geula/Savta/Savta Raba x 2/Mom See Manny’s brilliant articles in:

1A. AIPAC Policy Conference 2017: WATCH Live: AIPAC Kicks Off Annual Conference On Israel 1.Yesha growth: Judea & Samaria population growth kills two-state solution 2.President Trump saw the PA textbooks & gave Israel a green light By David Bedein 3.Islam, Not Christianity, is Saturating Europe by Giulio Meotti 4.The Oslo Disaster by Prof. Efraim Karsh 5. Return of the Russian Bear to the Middle East Dr. Shai Har-Zvi 6.New Permutations in the Mideast “Game of Camps” Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman 7.Perfect Storm: The Implications of Middle East Chaos by Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror 8.Hate crime through the Looking Glass by Melanie Phillips 9.Yael Lempert, a Obama holdover, is bearing the brunt of right-wing frustration 10.Trump’s policy on Judea & Samaria 11.US To Accept Amona Alternative In Return For Decreased Settlement Construction 12.As a Muslim, I am Shocked by Liberals & Leftists by Majid Rafizadeh

1A. AIPAC Policy Conference 2017: WATCH Live: Aipac Kicks Off Annual Conference On Israel By Michael Wilner 3/26/17

US Vice President Mike Pence & Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley to address 3-day conference.

WASHINGTON – The American Israel Public Affairs Committee opens its annual policy conference on Sunday hoping to take advantage of tempered political discourse around Israel, after enduring several years of turbulence over its positions on Iran & the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Washington’s largest Israel advocacy lobby seeks to reforge its wide base of bipartisan congressional support, somewhat damaged after taking on former US president Barack Obama over a nuclear deal signed by Tehran and world powers in 2015.

· AIPAC reiterates commitment to two-state solution following website changes

· AIPAC lauds Congress passage of Israel aid

That year’s conference laid bare the difficulties AIPAC faces in taking on a sitting president, with several Democratic leaders facing an unreceptive audience or simply failing to attend.
Last year also posed a challenge to the lobby as its audience was measured in the press by reactions to Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.
AIPAC officials now hope to leave those difficult years behind and prove once again that its event is a rare bipartisan gathering in the US capital, one such official told The Jerusalem Post this week.
The organization will push for legislation targeting Iran’s nonnuclear activities, such as its ballistic missile testing and arms transfer programs.

After facing scrutiny over its position on a two-state solution, the lobby is now preparing to highlight its support for such an outcome, the official added. “We will always talk about our achieving peace through negotiations between the parties, with the goal of a two-state solution,” said the AIPAC official, who anticipates “prominent” references to the two-state paradigm. The two-state solution has been, and continues to be, the goal that we aspire to, and that will be a message we’ll continue to send through the conference.” [Gail sez: WHY? 2 States won’t fit on top of Israel. Arab-Muslims don’t want it. They want it all-with no State of Israel or any Jews here at all.]
Whether the Trump administration will outright endorse a two-state solution remains an open question, but its immediate priority is clear: The rebooting of direct peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, geared toward a comprehensive peace agreement.
Lawmakers introduced legislation on Thursday targeting Iran’s non-nuclear activities timed with the conference– a bill that AIPAC assures will enjoy “significant bipartisan support.”
“We’ve always taken the position that, now that the deal has been made, we’re focusing on both rigorous enforcement of the deal and Iranian malign behavior,
” the official said. “Obviously actions of the Iranians reinforced our view this is a very important aspect of the JCPOA period.”
Iran has warned the US against passing any old, nuclear- related sanctions under a different name, claiming that such a tactic would violate the nuclear accord, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
AIPAC policy experts on Iran insist that this bill will explicitly target individuals and organizations aiding Tehran’s nonnuclear programs, although there may invariably be some overlap, given the suspected military nature of Iran’s historic nuclear work.
The lobby will also advocate Congress to maintain US security assistance and supplemental missile defense funding to Israel, guaranteed this coming year by a memorandum of understanding negotiated by the Obama administration and recognized by the Trump administration’s recent budget. AIPAC officials declined to say whether they plan on lobbying for increases to the set memorandum for the following fiscal year.
AIPAC will also spotlight the delegitimization of Israel in international fora.
“Our centerpiece there will be a Portman-Cardin bill that essentially prohibits American entities from engaging in boycotts of Israel,” the official added, referring to a bill introduced last year by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) that would amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 to prohibit boycotts or requests for boycotts imposed by international governmental organizations against Israel.
US Vice President Mike Pence and Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley will address the conference, which will be attended by bipartisan leaders of Congress, including Senate majority and minority leaders Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and Chuck Schumer (D-New York), as well as House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California).
Roughly 18,000 people are expected to attend the event, including 3,400 students.

AIPAC Policy Conference 2017

1.Yesha growth: Judea & Samaria population growth kills two-state solution “The facts on the ground in this region are irreversible & render the concept of a 2-state solution obsolete.” By Arutz Sheva Staff, 27/03/17

Judea and Samaria – Flash 90

The complete Judea & Samaria (West Bank) Jewish Population Stats report was released on Sunday with data updated to Jan. 1, 2017. The report is available to the public in English via the mailing list at the website. The Associated Press picked up the newly-released report as well.

The West Bank Jewish Population Stats report is compiled each year by former Member of Knesset Yaakov “Ketzaleh” Katz based on precise data from the population registry in Israel’s Ministry of the Interior. As of January 1, 2017, according to the report, 420,899 Jews live in West Bank towns, not including some 300,000 Jewish residents of the eastern neighborhoods of Jerusalem, which are technically part of the West Bank as well.

With the report’s release, Former Knesset Member Katz said, “The number of Jews living today in Judea and Samaria speaks volumes. The facts on the ground in this region are irreversible and render the concept of a two-state solution obsolete.”
Any person with a sound mind who faces the reality of the numbers in this report will conclude: the two-state solution is dead.
Such was the case with renowned Israeli author A. B. Yehoshua who led the struggle for a two-state solution for decades. In a December 2016 meeting, President of the State of Israel Ruby Rivlin presented the 2016 West Bank Jewish Population Stats Report, compiled by Former Knesset Member Yaakov “Ketzaleh” Katz, to Mr. Yehoshua. After studying the report, A. B. Yehoshua told Kol Yisrael radio on Dec. 7th, 2016 [ ]:

“This solution [two-state] is no longer possible. I believed in this solution for 50 years, I fought for it, and was an activist for it. When I, as an intellectual, must face reality and not delude myself, I must ask if this solution is truly possible… After we internalize that it is impossible to deport 450,000 settlers from Area C, it won’t happen [under any circumstances]. Can we divide Jerusalem? …It’s time to start thinking of alternative solutions.”

The report tracks the Jewish population growth over the last year and over the last 5 years and includes a future projection based on the current growth rates.

Baruch Gordon, a researcher on the report and founder of, said on Sunday: “For years, policy makers both in Israel & the West had no clue to the size of the West Bank Jewish population. The numbers were suppressed; the media silent. This report introduced real figures into the discourse. Its impact cannot be overestimated.”

Judea & Samaria population growth kills two-state solution

March 26, 2017

2.President Trump saw the PA textbooks & gave Israel a green light By David Bedein, Behind The News In Israel

Informed observers of US Middle East policy often discuss developments between Israel & the US – limiting themselves to the difficulties of the 8 Obama years, forgetting the differences between the Israeli & American governments over polices towards the PLO with 5 successive presidents.

However, having run a news agency in the heart of Jerusalem for the past 30 years, my perspective on US –Israel policy differences goes back 28 years, not 8 years.

The critical moment of crisis of confidence became pronounced when President Ronald Reagan recognized the PLO in December, 1988, ignoring US policy guidelines which tied US recognition of the PLO to a demand that the PLO must first accept UN resolution 242, denounce violence & recognize Israel.
The new Reagan policy towards the PLO stood in sharp contrast to repeated declarations of Reagan’s Secretary of State George Schultz who passionately denounced the PLO as an unrelenting terrorist organization, which could never be trusted to make peace.

With my own eyes, I watched Schultz lead AIPAC participants at the AIPAC conference in May 1987. in a chant, “Hell No, PLO”

Yet the Reagan demands of Arafat, leader of the PLO, were far from that.

Within 2 days of Arafat mouthing symbolic words which denounced terrorism, the PLO issued continuing statements that this did not mean the PLO would have to stop killing Jews to achieve its goals of Palestinian Arab independence.

In December 1989, I asked a close Reagan adviser, Dr. Alan Keyes, with an impeccable pro Israel stance, who served as under Sec’y of State for Inter Organization Affairs, as to why the Reagan Administration turned on Israel in favor of the PLO.

Dr. Keyes gave a clear response: The Saudis were fearful that the PLO, would organize an Intifada resurrection in Saudi Arabia which would result in the PLO burning their oil fields, destabilizing the Arab & world economy.

Yet the Reagan unconditional acceptance of the PLO has marked US Middle East policy until the inauguration of Donald Trump.

During these 28 years of this new PLO policy, the US helped create the nascent Palestinian Authority, which introduced a new school system of schoolbooks & teachers who have indoctrinated the next generation of Palestinian Arab children with the “values” of liberating all of Palestine by force of arms.

In 1996, I met Arafat & asked to see the new PLO schoolbooks, which would be placed in use in the PA/UNRWA school system. Arafat complied & arranged for our office to receive new Palestinian Authority schoolbooks. Ever since, our office has have produced updated translations that seem to prove the thesis of MK Benyamin Begin, who often remarks that PLO advocates the “2stage solution”, not the 2 state solution.

Yet successive US administrations refused to acknowledge the lethal content of the new Palestinian Authority curriculum used in the UNRWA school system, which prepares 492,000 Arab students in Judea, Jerusalem, Samaria & Gaza for a Jihad holy war against Israel.

All that changed in February, at the first press conference that President Trump held with Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, when the new US President dramatically declared that he had seen the Palestinian Authority textbooks &, as a result, expressed doubts as to the sincerity of the PA as a peace partner.

How did the President get to see the PA school books?

Only through happenstance in Jerusalem. I covered a conference in Jerusalem where conservative political parties from a number of nations & raised questions about the neglected issue of education during the years of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, which hardly reached any results that bespoke of peace on the horizon.

Unknown to yours truly, the person sitting next to me at this conference was the chief a representative of the Trump transition team visiting Israel.

The Trump representative left Israel with full documentation of the latest Palestinian Authority schoolbooks & with factual refutation of US State Department reports, which had misled successive US administrations to believe the peaceful intentions of the Palestinian Authority & UNRWA.

Within a matter of weeks, the Trump representative to Israel placed the PA curriculum on the desk of the new US President. As a result, the US President hinted that the Israeli government should now act against the incitement in PA schools.

The US government, therefore, did not object when Israel placed the PA warlike intentions front & center on the face book page of the Israeli Foreign Ministry & the Israel Prime Minister’s office.

The US government raised no objections when the Israeli government closed down an Arab school in Jerusalem, because it adopted the war education curriculum of the PA.

Meanwhile, Mr. Netanyahu, who now acts as foreign minister prime minister, directed Israel Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely to raise the issue of the PA inciteful schoolbooks to every diplomatic mission in Israel.

She has done so & will continue to do so & with an invitation to address AIPAC with that message, with the sanction of the new President of the United States, who has removed 28 years of US constraints against denouncing the warlike policies that emanate from the PLO & their administrative arm, the Palestinian Authority.

IsraPundit by Ted Belman March 26, 2017

3.Islam, Not Christianity, is Saturating Europe by Giulio Meotti, Gatestone Institute

Hundreds of Muslims engage in a mass prayer service next to the Coliseum in Rome, on October 21, 2016. (Image source: Ruptly video screenshot)

· Jihadists seem to be leading an assault against freedom and against secular democracies.

· Sunni Islam’s most prominent preacher, Yusuf al Qaradawi, declared that the day will come when, like Constantinople, Rome will be Islamized.

· It is Islam, not Christianity, that now saturates Europe’s landscape and imagination.

According to US President Trump’s strategic advisor Steve Bannon, the “Judeo-Christian West is collapsing, it is imploding. And it’s imploding on our watch. And the blowback of that is going to be tremendous”.

The impotence and the fragility of our civilization is haunting many Europeans as well.

Europe, according to the historian David Engels will face the fate of the ancient Roman Republic: a civil war. Everywhere, Europeans see signs of fracture. Jihadists seem to be leading an assault against freedom and against secular democracies. Fears occupy the collective imagination of Europeans. A survey of more than 10,000 people from ten different European countries has revealed increasing public opposition to Muslim immigration. The Chatham House Royal Institute of International Affairs carried out a survey, asking online respondents their views on the statement that “all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped”. In the 10 European countries surveyed, an average of 55% agreed with the statement.

Mainstream media are now questioning if “Europe fears Muslims more than the United States”. The photograph used in the article was a recent Muslim mass prayer in front of Italy’s monument, the Coliseum. In echoes of the capture of the great Christian civilization of Byzantium in Constantinople, Sunni Islam’s most prominent preacher, Yusuf al Qaradawi, declared that the day will come when Rome will be Islamized.

Do civilizations die from outside or inside? Is their disappearance the result of external aggression (war, natural disasters, epidemics) or of an internal erosion (decay, incompetence, disastrous choices)? Arnold Toynbee, in the last century, was adamant: “Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder”.

“The contemporary historian of ancient Greece and ancient Rome saw their civilisations begin their decline and fall, both the Greeks and the Romans attributed it to falling birth rates because nobody wanted the responsibilities of bringing up children,” said Britain’s former chief rabbi, Lord Sacks.

Everywhere in Europe there are signs of a takeover. Muslim students now outnumber Christian students in more than 30 British church schools. One Anglican primary school has a “100 percent Muslim population”. The Church of England estimated that about 20 of its schools have more Muslim students than Christian ones, and 15 Roman Catholic schools have majority Muslim students. In Germany as well, there are fears of a massive Muslim influx into the school system, and German teachers are openly denouncing the threat of a “ghettoization”.

France saw 34,000 fewer babies born last year than in 2014, a new report just found. The number of French women having children has reached its lowest level in 40 years. A low fertility rate has become a plague all over Europe: “In 1995 only one country, Italy, had more people over 65 than under 15; today there are 30 and by 2020 that number will hit 35.” Welcome to the “Greying of Europe“.

Additionally, if it were not for Muslim women, France would have an even lower birth rate: “With a fertility rate of 3.5 children per woman, the Algerians contribute significantly to the growth of the population in France”, wrote the well-known demographer Gérard-François Dumont.[1]

Thanks to Muslim migrants, Sweden’s maternity wards are busy these days.[2]

In Milan, Italy’s financial center, Mohammed is the top name among newborn babies. The same is true in London, in the four biggest Dutch cities and elsewhere in Europe, from Brussels to Marseille. It is Islam, not Christianity, that now saturates Europe’s landscape and imagination.

Meanwhile, Europe’s leaders are almost all childless. In Germany, Angela Merkel has no children, as British prime minister Theresa May and one of France’s leading presidential candidates, Emmanuel Macron. As Europe’s leaders have no children and no reason to worry about the future (everything ends with them), they are now opening Europe’s borders to keep the continent in a demographic equilibrium. “I believe Europeans should understand that we need migration for our economies and for our welfare systems, with the current demographic trend we have to be sustainable”, said Federica Mogherini, the European Union representative for foreign affairs.

The Battle of Poitiers in 1356 was the high-water point of the Muslim tide in Western Europe. If Christians had not won, “perhaps,” wrote Edward Gibbon, “the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet”. Does that sound familiar these days?

Islamists take culture and history more seriously than the Westerners do. Recently, in Paris, an Egyptian terrorist tried to strike the great museum, the Louvre. He planned to deface the museum’s artwork, he said, because “it is a powerful symbol of French culture”. Think about an Islamic extremist shouting “Allahu Akbar” while slashing the Mona Lisa. This is the trend we need to start reversing.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

Islam, Not Christianity, is Saturating Europe by Giulio Meotti

4.The Oslo Disaster by Prof. Efraim Karsh Sept. 4, 2016

Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 123

Prof. Efraim Karsh, the incoming director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, indicts the Oslo diplomatic process as “the starkest strategic blunder in Israel’s history” and as “one of the worst calamities ever to have afflicted Israelis and Palestinians.”

“Twenty three years after its euphoric launch on the White House lawn,” Karsh writes in this comprehensive study, “the Oslo ‘peace process’ has substantially worsened the position of both parties and made the prospects for peace and reconciliation ever more remote.”

“The process has led to establishment of an ineradicable terror entity on Israel’s doorstep, deepened Israel’s internal cleavages, destabilized its political system, and weakened its international standing.”

“It has been a disaster for West Bank and Gaza Palestinians too. It has brought about subjugation to corrupt and repressive PLO and Hamas regimes. These regimes have reversed the hesitant advent of civil society in these territories, shattered their socioeconomic wellbeing, and made the prospects for peace and reconciliation with Israel ever more remote.”

“This abject failure is a direct result of the Palestinian leadership’s perception of the process as a pathway not to a two-state solution – meaning Israel alongside a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza – but to the subversion of the State of Israel. They view Oslo not as a path to nation-building and state creation, but to the formation of a repressive terror entity that perpetuates conflict with Israel, while keeping its hapless constituents in constant and bewildered awe as Palestinian leaders line their pockets from the proceeds of this misery.”

Karsh details at length how the Oslo process has weakened Israel’s national security in several key respects.

On the strategic and military levels, it allowed the PLO to achieve in one fell swoop its strategic vision of transforming the West Bank and the Gaza Strip into terror hotbeds that would disrupt Israel’s way of life (to use Yasser Arafat’s words).

Politically and diplomatically, he says, Oslo instantaneously transformed the PLO (and, to a lesser extent, Hamas) into an internationally accepted political actor while upholding its commitment to Israel’s destruction, edging toward fully fledged statehood outside the Oslo framework, and steadily undermining Israel’s international standing.

The ending of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian population of the territories within three-and-a-half years from the onset of the process has gone totally unnoticed (due partly to Palestinian propaganda, partly to Israel’s failure to get this critical point across), with the Jewish state still subject to international opprobrium for the nonexistent “occupation.”

Domestically, Oslo radicalized Israel’s Arab minority, nipping in the bud its decades-long “Israelization” process & putting it on a collision course with Israel’s Jewish community. No less importantly, it made Israeli politics captive to the vicissitudes of Palestinian-Israeli relations, with the PLO & Hamas becoming the effective arbiters of Israel’s political discourse & electoral process.

“On the face of it,” Karsh writes, “Israel’s massive setbacks can be considered Palestinian gains. Yet one’s loss is not necessarily the other’s gain. The Palestinian leadership’s zero-sum approach and predication of Palestinian national identity on hatred of the ‘other,’ rather than on a distinct shared legacy, has resulted in decades of dispersal and statelessness.”

“Even if the PLO were to succeed in gaining international recognition of a fully fledged Palestinian state (with or without a formal peace treaty with Israel) and in preventing Hamas from seizing power, it would still be a failed entity in the worst tradition of Arab dictatorships, in permanent conflict with its Israeli neighbor while brutally repressing its unfortunate subjects.”

Karsh bemoans that fact that “there has been no real reckoning by the Oslo architects and their erstwhile ‘peace camp’ successors, both in Israel and abroad, of the worst blunder in Israel’s history, and no rethinking of its disastrously misconceived assumptions – let alone any public admission of guilt or show of remorse over its horrific costs.”

“Instead, they continue to willfully ignore the Palestinian leadership’s total lack of interest in the two-state solution and serial violation of contractual obligations. They continue to whitewash ongoing Palestinian violence, belittle the extent of Israeli suffering, and blame Jerusalem for the stalled process despite the public endorsement of the two-state solution by five successive Israeli prime ministers: Peres, Barak, Sharon, Olmert, and Netanyahu.”

“Not only has the same terror-tainted Palestinian leadership come to be universally viewed as the prospective government of a future Palestinian state, but its goal of having this state established without negotiating with Israel, or even recognizing its right to exist, seems to be gaining ever wider currency. This soft racism – asking nothing of the Palestinians as if they are too dim or too primitive to be held accountable for their own words and actions – is an assured recipe for disaster.”

“For so long as not a single Palestinian leader evinces genuine acceptance of the two-state solution or acts in a way signifying an unqualified embrace of the idea, there can be no true or lasting reconciliation with Israel. And so long as the territories continue to be governed by the PLO’s and Hamas’s rule of the jungle, no Palestinian civil society, let alone a viable state, can develop.”

“Just as the creation of free and democratic societies in Germany and Japan after World War II necessitated a comprehensive sociopolitical and educational transformation, so it will only be when Palestinian society undergoes a real ‘spring’ that the century-long conflict between Arabs and Jews can at long last be resolved and a semi-functioning Palestinian state come into being. This requires sweeping the corrupt and oppressive PLO and Hamas rulers from power, eliminating endemic violence from political and social life, and teaching the virtues of coexistence with Israeli neighbors.”

“Sadly, the possibility of a Palestinian spring, which seemed to be in the offing in 1993 when the PLO hovered on the verge of extinction and West Bank and Gaza leadership appeared eager to strike a historic deal within the framework of the Washington peace negotiations, has been destroyed for the foreseeable future by the Oslo ‘peace process’.”

A renowned authority on Middle Eastern history and politics, Prof. Karsh has authored over 100 scholarly articles and sixteen books, and is editor of the Middle East Quarterly and Israel Affairs academic journals.

He taught for 25 years at King’s College London, where he founded and directed the Middle East and Mediterranean Studies Program (currently the Institute of Middle Eastern Studies). In 2013 he joined Bar-Ilan University as professor of political science. In November 2016 he will succeed Prof. Efraim Inbar as director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

Prof. Karsh will lectured (in Hebrew) on his conclusions Wednesday September 7, 2016 at (BESA Center, building 203, room 131, Bar-Ilan University).

The Oslo Disaster by Prof. Efraim Karsh

5. Return of the Russian Bear to the Middle East Dr. Shai Har-Zvi 6/5/16

This study looks at the aggressive new posture in Russian foreign policy under President Vladimir Putin, in the wake of its intervention in Syria and the Crimean peninsula.

Read more

6.New Permutations in the Mideast “Game of Camps” Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman 1/17/16

A review of the four rival camps into which the Middle East is today divided. 1. Iran with her proxies and allies; 2. Salafi Jihadists, currently dominated by the so-called Islamic State; 3. Muslim Brotherhood movement in its various manifestations, including Hamas, supported by Qatar and by Erdogan’s Turkey; 4. The “forces of stability” — all those who fear and resist the rise of the first three camps, with Israel an active and important player in this latter camp.

Read more

7.Perfect Storm: The Implications of Middle East Chaos by Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror 7/5/15

The storms now convulsing the Middle East are civilizational shifts of historical proportions. Anyone from the outside trying to influence these regional upheavals in a positive direction will find the task very difficult. Israel must focus narrowly on the greatest threat looming in its vicinity — the Iranian drive for nuclear weaponry.

Read more





You are here

8.Hate crime through the Looking Glass by Melanie Phillips



We’ve repeatedly been told that Britain is in the grip of a huge rise in Islamophobic attacks. According to ‘Tell Mama’, the group that monitors hate crime against Muslims, anti-Muslim attacks reportedly shot up by 326 per cent in 2015 and spiked again after the Brexit vote last year.

All such hateful crimes & incidents are utterly to be deplored. These statistics, though, have come in for criticism about their methodology & should be treated accordingly with caution. The principal caveats concern the subjectivity of these reports, exacerbated by the presumed echo-chamber effect of such alarmism which encourages some people wrongly to perceive themselves as victims.

None of this, though, captures the utterly surreal, “Alice Through the Looking Glass” madness of the official police recording of Islamophobic hate crime which has been unearthed by Hardeep Singh of the Network of Sikh Organisations. Through a Freedom of Information request, he obtained from the Metropolitan Police a breakdown of the “victims of Islamophobic hate crime” for 2016.

This showed a total of 1227 recorded Islamophobic attacks. But here’s the thing: of these victims, only 912 were Muslim. Of the other victims of supposedly anti-Muslim hate crime 39 were “Christian”, 19 were Hindu, 11 were atheists, seven were agnostic, four were Sikh, two were Greek Orthodox, two were Roman Catholic, two were Jewish and one was a Buddhist. Of the remainder 86 were “unknown”, 85 were “blank” and 57 victims weren’t contacted.

So how can it possibly be that so many victims of anti-Muslim hatred aren’t Muslim at all? The answer lies in the bizarre way the police define hate crime in general. The Met say: “An Islamophobic Offence [sic] is any offence which is perceived as Islamophobic by the victim or any other person, [my emphasis] that is intended to impact upon those known or perceived to be Muslim.”

Eh? What this tortured last bit seems to mean is explained more fully by the
College of Policing’s
“Hate Crime Operational Guidance”. This similarly lays down that “the perception of the victim, or any other person (see 1.2.4 Other person), is the defining factor in determining whether an incident is a hate incident, or in recognising the hostility element of a hate crime.”

What section “1.2.4 Other person” says, by way of elucidation, is that this other person might be a police officer, a witness, a family member, “civil society organisations who know details of the victim, the crime or hate crimes in the locality, such as a third-party reporting charity”, a professional who supports the victim, “someone who has knowledge of hate crime in the area – this could include many professionals and experts such as the manager of an education centre used by people with learning disabilities who regularly receives reports of abuse from students”, or a “person from within the group targeted with the hostility”.

So it’s not just the subjective opinion of the victim that is to define hate crime, but anyone from this panoply of individuals too. The guidance also states that the victim doesn’t actually have to be from any of the listed victim groups; a hate crime is committed merely if the attacker intended to target one of those groups.

But how would anyone know, if a Sikh or Hindu or Catholic or Jew was attacked, that their attacker actually intended to attack a Muslim but got it wrong? Are we to believe that in all 87 of these “Islamophobic” attacks on Christians, Sikhs, Hindus etc the attacker shouted something hateful about Muslims?

No matter! The police don’t want actual facts. The guidance goes on: “The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incident.”

So whether or not a crime is actually a hate crime doesn’t depend upon any objective test. Perish the thought that the police might value such evidence!

As Humpty Dumpty might have said, had Lewis Carroll been sufficiently politically correct: “When I use the phrase hate crime, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”


From: Yisrael Medad

Why Did Trump Keep Obama’s Sr. Israel Adviser? Depends Who You’re Asking 9.Yael Lempert, a Obama holdover, is bearing the brunt of right-wing frustration over Trump’s Israel policy by Barak Ravid & Amir Tibon Ha’aretz


Yael Lempert stands next to John Kerry in Paris, June 3, 2016. State Department Photo

She’s a leader in the war against Israel; she’s pro-Palestinian; she’s poisoning the atmosphere & a radical leftist – these are just some of the epithets currently appearing on blogs & websites in Israel & the United States identified with the conservative right & the settler lobby. The target of these attacks, which began during negotiations between the White House & the Prime Minister’s Office on reining in settlement construction, was a relatively unknown U.S. diplomat called Yael Lempert.

Lempert, 43, held the Israel portfolio on the National Security Council during Barack Obama’s last 2 years as president. Her flagship project was to head negotiations between the Netanyahu government & Obama administration over the military aid package, in addition to her work on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The $38-billion deal, over 10 years, was the biggest the United States ever signed with any country.

In the days after Donald Trump’s election last November, Lempert – a career diplomat for 20 years, during which time she served in such places as the U.S. embassies in Baghdad & Cairo & the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem – began clearing her desk ahead of a planned return to her old workplace in the State Department. However, one of Trump’s advisers asked her to stay on for the transition & assembling of the new team.

Days turned into weeks & Lempert eventually discovered that, after the vast majority of her colleagues in the National Security Council building had left, she was the sole survivor of the changing of the guard at the White House.

Officials in the Prime Minister’s Office also noticed. Some of Benjamin Netanyahu’s advisers who participated in the preparatory talks in Washington, prior to the premier’s visit to the White House in February, were surprised to find Lempert attending some of the meetings.

Lempert also had a place at the table at the mid-February meeting between Netanyahu and U.S. Vice President Mike Pence. The suspicions within Netanyahu’s office concerning anyone who had been within a five-mile radius of President Obama began working overtime.

A few weeks ago, senior officials in the Trump administration asked Lempert to remain at her post & help with advancing one of the new president’s main foreign policy goals: achieving “the ultimate deal” between Israel & the Palestinians. Lempert agreed & a few days later found herself on a plane with the president’s envoy, Jason Greenblatt, en route for another U.S. attempt to broker a historic peace deal in the Middle East.

“Lempert is an experienced and skilled diplomat,” “She was asked by the Obama administration to come work at the White House because she is a professional & she was asked by the Trump administration to stay at the White House because she is a professional. The Trump team asked most of the staffers from the Obama White House to leave, but they asked her to stay – this tells you they appreciate her knowledge & experience.”

Lempert did not participate in all of Greenblatt’s meetings during their visit to Israel last week. Netanyahu’s conversations with the new U.S. envoy took place mostly in private. Still, Lempert played a central role in selecting the people Greenblatt met in Jerusalem & Ramallah & putting together the positions he presented to the Israelis & Palestinians.

A senior minister in the security cabinet told Ha’aretz that Lempert’s presence during Greenblatt’s visit –& her involvement in talks between the White House & Prime Minister’s Office about reining in settlement construction – were a concern for Netanyahu & his advisers.

“The feeling I got was that the Prime Minister’s Office would rather distance her,” said the senior minister.

Coincidentally or not, websites identified with the right in Israel & the United States started writing articles condemning Lempert during – and especially after – the U.S. envoy’s visit. For example, writing in Makor Rishon – which is pro-settlement & religious Zionist – Ariel Kahana wrote that official Israeli sources were increasing the level of criticism toward Lempert. He said they claimed she was “poisoning the atmosphere” and constituting a negative influence on Greenblatt.

His article also claimed that Lempert tried to prevent the meeting between the U.S. envoy & 2 settlement council heads, which only took place in the wake of pressure by Netanyahu’s office.

A few days before that, writing in the online Jewish magazine Tablet, conservative columnist Lee Smith quoted a former Clinton official as saying that Lempert “is considered one of the harshest critics of Israel on the foreign policy far left.” The former official also accused her of trying to destabilize the Israeli-American alliance.

A similar critique appeared the very same day, March 15, in an article by Daniel Horowitz on the Conservative Review website.

“Lempert was literally Obama’s point person in the White House orchestrating his war against Israel,” he wrote. “This decision [by Trump to keep her at the White House] is Orwellian.”

Another article published a few days later in FrontPageMag raised the question of whether Lempert’s influence would cause the tense relations between Israel & the White House during Obama’s presidency to continue during the Trump era.

“Yael has unfairly become a lightning rod for people who don’t seem to like the direction the Trump administration is going in with regard to Israel,” said a former senior U.S. diplomat who served both Republican & Democratic administrations. “Rather than blame Trump, [Jared] Kushner or Greenblatt, it is much easier for them to blame her and tar her with the Obama label, rather than point to those more senior than her who are making the real decisions – be it on moving the embassy to Jerusalem, on settlements, or on the two-state solution. This is unfair: she is widely recognized as a consummate professional who is known for her positive, nonpartisan, can-do approach. That seems to be the reason the Trump White House asked her to stay on rather than return to the State Department.”

Elliott Abrams, who served as deputy national security adviser for global democracy strategy under George W. Bush & who was nearly named deputy secretary of state in the Trump administration, also came to Lempert’s defense.

“It is a mistake to attack career foreign service officers and other career civil servants because they have implemented the policy of the president whose administration is in office,” Abrams told Ha’aretz this week. “Yael is a professional with great knowledge of the Middle East & will give her best advice to political appointees of this administration as she gave it to political appointees of the Obama administration. They don’t have to take the advice … but if their policies are to be effective, they will need the kind of detailed knowledge she has. The Trump team asked her to stay on after January 20 for exactly that reason & they were right to do so.”

The publication of the articles created a feeling among many in Washington and Jerusalem that there was a coordinated campaign against Lempert, raising suspicions that Netanyahu & Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer were behind the briefings against her.

Netanyahu’s office denied taking any action against the U.S. diplomat.

The Israeli Embassy in Washington also denied the suspicions & said Dermer & Lempert have had & continue to enjoy, a good working relationship.

“We have no objections to working with Yael Lempert or with any other American official,” stated the Prime Minister’s Office. “President Trump sets the policy & we believe this policy will allow us to reach understandings aspiring to advance peace. Members of the office & the embassy in Washington worked closely with Yael Lempert to complete the military aid agreement. She worked & continues to work vigorously to promote cooperation between the countries.”

Despite the attacks against her, Lempert has no intention of going anywhere. Earlier this week she participated in talks in Washington between Netanyahu’s advisers and Greenblatt about achieving understandings regarding settlement construction. She will probably return to the region soon for another round of talks in Jerusalem and Ramallah.

A senior U.S. official said that Greenblatt himself had good chemistry with her & that Lempert was working hard for him.

Greenblatt himself also defended Lempert. “Since taking on my role as Special Representative for International Negotiations, I have been ably supported by the extremely hard-working officials at the National Security Council, including NSC Senior Director Yael Lempert, the State Department & U.S. missions in the Middle East region, who are enthusiastically working to advance the president’s agenda,” he told Ha’aretz. “I am grateful to those dedicated officials who continue to assist me in my role.”

Yisrael Medad, Post Office Box 9407, Shiloh, Mobile Post Efraim 4483000 Israel Video of Shilo “Enough Destruction; More Construction” sent by Yisrael Medad, 6 min.

Yael Lempert, a Obama holdover, is bearing brunt of right-wing frustration over Trump’s Israel policy

10.Trump’s policy on Judea & Samaria By Nitsan Keidar, Arutz Sheva 25/03/17 Report says Trump will agree to unlimited building in Judea & Samaria – as long as it stays within existing ‘settlement blocs.’

Donald Trump – Reuters

US President Donald Trump is expected to recognize thousands of new housing units in Judea & Samaria, and to approve the erection of a new town for Amona’s expellees, reported Israel’s Channel 2.

According to the reports, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will later agree to limit building in Judea & Samaria, while advancing building in the existing “settlement blocs.”

However, Netanyahu’s aides have said the report is inaccurate & it is not clear how the Likud & Jewish Home parties will react to the final policy.

On Sunday, the White House & Israel published a joint readout announcing 4 days of discussions on the Israeli-Arab conflict.

“The issues the two delegations discussed are exceptionally complicated & the fact that both governments dedicated such senior delegations for nearly a full week of talks reflects the close cooperation between the 2 countries & the importance both assign to this vital task,” the readout said.

“The Israelis welcomed United States interest in continuing to play a facilitating role in advancing issues regarding electricity and water in ways that will benefit both Israel and the Palestinians and also move the Palestinians toward self-sustainability in these crucial areas.

“Following up on discussions Mr. Greenblatt had in Ramallah last week, the two sides agreed on the importance of implementing measures benefiting the people of Gaza.

“The two delegations also discussed Israeli settlement construction, following up on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to Washington and Mr. Greenblatt’s recent visit to Israel. The United States delegation reiterated President Trump’s concerns regarding settlement activity in the context of moving towards a peace agreement.

“The Israeli delegation made clear that Israel’s intent going forward is to adopt a policy regarding settlement activity that takes those concerns into consideration. The talks were serious and constructive, and they are ongoing,” the readout concluded.

Trump will agree to unlimited building in Judea & Samaria – as long as it stays within existing ‘settlement blocs.’

11.US To Accept Amona Alternative In Return For Decreased Settlement Construction By Herb Keinon Jpost.Com 3/25/17 Trump Has Prioritized Making Peace Between Israelis & Palestinians, Characterizing A Comprehensive Agreement Between The Two Parties As The “Deal Of All Deals.”

PM Netanyahu and President Trump. (photo credit:AVI OHAYON – GPO)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be able to fulfill his pledge & build a new settlement for Amona evacuees, but then restrain settlement construction elsewhere & focus on construction in the large settlement blocs according to terms of an agreement being hammered out with Washington, Channel 2 reported Saturday.
According to the report, the Trump Administration will also give Israel a green light to find a solution for other outposts – like Amona –where there are legal questions regarding land ownership. Channel 2 said that this agreement still needs the approval of both sides.

US stresses ‘concern’ with Israeli settlements after intensive talks

Israel ignores UN demand for end to settlement building, UN report finds

A spokesman in the Prime Minister’s Office said that the report “was incorrect,” but the PMO has not given any details itself about the contours of the agreement under discussion.
The report comes following two weeks of high-level talks between Israeli & US officials looking for a formula that would be acceptable to both sides & would govern future building beyond the Green Line. Netanyahu, during his visit to China last week, said that “significant progress was being made.”
Nevertheless, a week of talks in Washington ended last Thursday night with a joint statement saying only that the discussions were “serious & constructive & they are ongoing.”
Discussions about finding a formula that would govern construction over the Green Line began when Jason Greenblatt, Trump’s special representative for international negotiations, came to Israel two weeks ago. The discussions continued last week in Washington, with the Israeli side represented by Netanyahu’s Chief of staff Yoav Horowitz, his foreign policy advisor Jonathan Schachter & Ambassador to the UN Ron Dermer. Greenblatt was joined in Washington by State Department & National Security Council officials.
According to the joint statement, “The United States delegation reiterated President Trump’s concerns regarding settlement activity in the context of moving towards a peace agreement. The Israeli delegation made clear that Israel’s intent going forward is to adopt a policy regarding settlement activity that takes those concerns into consideration.”
Jerusalem is keen on reaching an agreement with Washington on the matter in the early days of the new administration to remove it as a constant irritant in the relationship, as it was during the Obama years.
The statement said that the focus of the “four days” of intensive talks in Washington was on “concrete, near-term measures to improve the overall climate in order to advance the prospects for a genuine & lasting peace between Israel & the Palestinians.”

According to the statement, the issues under discussion “are exceptionally complicated & the fact both governments dedicated such senior delegations for nearly a full week of talk reflects the close cooperation between the 2 countries & the importance both assign to this vital task.”
While most of the media attention has focused on the settlement issue in the discussions, the statement said “a principal focus” was specific measures that could be taken to have a “meaningful impact on the economic environment in the West Bank & Gaza, allowing the Palestinians to more fully realize their economic potential.”
The statement also said that the two sides agreed on the importance of implementing measures benefiting the people of Gaza “in ways that benefit the population without further empowering Hamas or other terrorist organizations.”
Trump has prioritized making peace between Israelis and Palestinians, characterizing a comprehensive agreement between the two parties as the “deal of all deals.” He has told both parties that now is the time for negotiations.
The last round of negotiations – led by then Sec. of State John Kerry – ended in failure in 2014.
Michael Wilner contributed to this report from Washington

Us To Accept Amona Alternative In Return For Decreased Settlement Construction By Herb Keinon

12.As a Muslim, I am Shocked by Liberals & Leftists by Majid Rafizadeh 3/25/17 at 5am

§ It is the fear of this violence, torture and death, wielded by extremist Muslims, that keeps every person desperate to obey.

§ If liberals are in favor of freedom of speech, why do they turn a blind eye to Islamist governments such as Iran, which execute people for expressing their opinion? And why do they not let people in the West express their opinion without attacking them or even giving them the respect of hearing what they have to say? They seem, in fact, like the autocratic people from whom I was fleeing, who also did not want their simplistic, binary way of thinking to be threatened by logic or fact.

§ As, in Islam, one is not allowed to attack except to defend the prophet or Islam, extremist Muslims need to keep finding or creating supposed attacks to make themselves appear as victims.

§ Finally, a short message to liberals might go: Dear Liberal, If you truly stand for values such as peace, social justice, liberty and freedoms, your apologetic view of radical Islam is in total contradiction with all of those values. Your view even hinders the efforts of many Muslims to make a peaceful reformation in Islam precisely to advance the those values.

If you had grown up, as I did, between two authoritarian governments — the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria — under the leadership of people such as Hafez al Assad, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you would have seen your youth influenced by two major denominations of Islam in the Muslim world: the Shia and the Sunni. I studied both, and at one point was even a devout Muslim. My parents, who still live in Iran and Syria, come from two different ethnic Muslim groups: Arab and Persian.

You also would have seen how the religion of Islam intertwines with politics, and how radical Islam rules a society through its religious laws, Sharia. You would have witnessed how radical Islam can dominate and scrutinize people’s day-to-day choices: in eating, clothing, socializing, entertainment, everything.

You would have seen the tentacles of its control close over every aspect of your life. You would have seen the way, wielded by fundamentalists, radical Islam can be a powerful tool for unbridled violence. It is the fear of this violence, torture, and death, wielded by extremist Muslims, that keeps every person desperate to obey.

My father was brutally tortured — justified by some of the fundamentalist Islamic laws of the ruling governments in both Iran and Syria. The punishment extended to my mother, my family, and other relatives, who were tormented on a regular basis.

What was even more painful was, upon coming to the West, seeing the attitude of many people who label themselves liberals and leftists, towards radical Islam.

These liberals seem to view themselves as open-minded, but they have a preconceived way of thinking about Islam: to them, it seems, there is no radical Islam, Islam is only a force for the good, Islam can do no evil.

How could they not see the way extremist Muslims exploit some aspects of the religion of Islam to legitimize its acts? How could they not even acknowledge that radical Islam, a force that threatens to destroy the planet, let alone my family, exists?

Instead, many liberals would criticize me or attempt to turn a blind eye, as if I were accidentally making some embarrassing mistake. They seemed instead to love being surrounded by Western Muslim “scholars”, those who are apologetic towards radical Islam and — notably — have never actually lived in a Muslim country under the strangling grip of the official fundamentalist laws, sharia.

Why do many liberals, who criticize Christianity and religious conviction in general, appear to open their arms to radical Islam so affectionately? Why are so many liberals, who call themselves the robust defenders of peace, social justice, and freedoms, apologetic for all types of fundamentalist Islamist laws?

If, as liberals argue, they support women’s and LGBT rights, why, by their silence, do they condone gays executed and women subjugated on a daily basis throughout most of the enormous Muslim world? If liberals are in favor of freedom of speech, why do they turn a blind eye to Islamist governments such as Iran that, based on the government’s radical, theocratic laws, execute people for expressing their opinion? And why do they not let people in the West express their opinion without attacking them before even giving them the respect of hearing what they have to say?

Liberals argue that they are in favor of critical thinking, but they do not like anyone challenging their “comfort zone”. They seem, in fact, to be just like the autocratic people from whom I was fleeing, who also did not want their simplistic, binary way of thinking to be threatened by logic or fact.

Even if a person is from a Muslim country, and has direct experience with extremist Islam, many liberals will strenuously avoid this information. They seem not to want their apologetic view of radical Islam to be questioned or contradicted. They apparently have no desire to open their closed minds on the subject. The thought of a question evidently wounds them, as if an answer would mean that they were turning their backs on the ongoing crimes against humanity. How come, then, that so many liberals appear resistant to seeing that the crimes of radical Islam are those crimes against humanity? And at present, the largest?

Second, these liberals — indulging in faulty, sophisitic, logic — seem to think that if they criticize Christianity and Islamists criticize Christianity, then Islamists will like them for hating the same thing. In the same vein, many liberals hate the U.S. Republican government and many radical Muslim groups hate the U.S. Republican government, so perhaps many liberals think that Muslims will like them for hating the same government? Sadly, as these liberals will soon find out, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Third, and more fundamentally, sympathizing with all kinds of Islamist practices and radical Islam seems to fit a wider narrative of bashing the West and white people for “imperialism, colonialism, and any sense of superiority”. Unfortunately that view fails to take into account that there have been no greater imperialists the Muslim armies; they conquered Persia, the great Christian Byzantine Empire in Turkey, North Africa and the Middle East, virtually all of Eastern Europe, most of Spain, and Greece.

As, in Islam, one is not allowed to attack except to defend the prophet Muhammed or Islam, extremist Muslims need to keep either finding or creating supposed attacks to make themselves appear as victims.

Anjem Choudary, a radical British Muslim cleric, was sentenced late last year by a British judge to 5 ½ years in prison for encouraging people to join the Islamic State. (Image source: Dan H/Flickr)

Many liberals, not knowing the background, buy into this claim. By siding with the “other”, they probably feel a moral superiority: they are helping a cause, championing the “other” & rescuing a “victim”! But this moral superiority is both superficial & misplaced. It is more like that of the proverbial boy who murders his parents & then asks the judge for mercy ‘cuz he’s an orphan.

Maybe that is why, when many liberals hear criticism of radical Islam and the nuances of some aspects it, they refuse to hear it. For them, as radical Islam is not being depicted as a victim anymore, this view does not offer them the comfort of being morally superior defending victims. Ironically, that is the same motive for many radical Islamists: feeling morally superior defending Islam. The liberals then become confused, and do not know how to answer because I am a Muslim, have grown up there — not a Western Muslim who has never lived in a Muslim society. I am not even a Western conservative, with whom the liberals are also at odds. Many liberals, like all people happily married to a fantasy, and despite towering evidence, will stick to the fantasy and to their binary way of thinking. It is like trying to tell your friend that the stripper he wants to marry might not want to stay home, make babies and cook. He is so emotionally addicted to his dream that he will do anything to protect it.

Finally, it goes without saying that, as with all of us, liberals too attempt to preserve their financial and political interests. These material and social investments are also threatened by hearing from Muslims who have endured oppression and torture under radical Islam. Those liberals seem to suspect, correctly, that this new information might create some kind of conflict of interest, so possibly decide it might be safer not to hear it in the first place. Instead, again to protect their investment, many liberals and leftists ignore or criticize Muslims such as these.

Finally, a short message to liberals might go: Dear Liberal, If you truly stand for values such as peace, social justice, liberty and freedoms, your apologetic view of radical Islam is in total contradiction with all of those values. Your view even hinders the efforts of many Muslims to make a peaceful reformation in Islam precisely to advance those values. In addition, sadly, your view towards radical Islam actually contributes to the violence and the repression of millions of people — women, children, slaves, and all those people whom you claim you want to protect. These are the true victims. They are subjugated, dehumanized, terrorized, tortured, raped and beaten on a daily basis by the practitioners of radical Islam and the religious laws of Sharia, which are at the core of that fundamentalism. It is time to open your eyes and your minds and see what is staring at you.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, political scientist and Harvard University scholar is president of the International American Council on the Middle East.

He can be reached at Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

As a Muslim, I am Shocked by Liberals & Leftists by Majid Rafizadeh

13.FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA SAYS, “I Won’t Stop” By: Cheryl Hancock-Watts 3/22/17

After I received an email from “The Office of Barack and Michelle Obama”, I wondered why former President Obama is building a media list from those of us who are subscribed to White House email press updates. Mr. Obama has invited journalists including myself to join his news list, and he added, “As we build up our press list, please sign up for statement notifications& feel free to share with your colleagues as well. Not only is Obama enlisting journalists, but he is also hiring Interns. Former President Obama has contacted the list of former White House Interns as he seeks to hire them for his Organization. ‘The Office of Barack and Michelle Obama’ announced that they were launching a 16-week internship program in D.C. The email said responsibilities would include a variety of tasks, with an emphasis on correspondence duties. The internship will run from Feb. 27 through June 16. There were no additional details explaining undergraduate or graduate qualifications or whether or not it was unpaid or paid. Report by: Rachel Cao February, 2017 CNBC

Following are just some of the things the office of Obama is working on, or already have in place:

A Spokesperson: Kevin Lewis

A Press Office & Press List

A Media Organization (

Former Whitehouse Interns (

A Non-Profit Organization (

The Barack Obama Presidential Center in Chicago

An ‘Organization for Action’ (OFA.US)

At the website of you will find the following message:“Welcome to the Office of Barack and Michelle Obama”As President Obama has said, the change we seek will take longer than one term or one presidency. Real change—big change—takes many years and requires each generation to embrace the obligations and opportunities that come with the title of Citizen.

Following is a portion of Obama’s Farewell Speech in Chicago made on January 10th. “My fellow Americans, it has been the honor of my life to serve you. I won’t stop; in fact, I will be right there with you, as a citizen, for all my remaining days.”

After their recent vacation, Barack & Michelle Obama are re-settling in Washington DC, just two miles from the White House.

At Mr. Obama’s Foundation site, he explains a bit of his goal.“The Obama Foundation is a non-profit organization that will focus on developing the next generation of citizens…”. The foundation will oversee the new ‘Barack Obama Presidential Center’. Obama said, “The center will be based in Chicago, but it will have projects all over the city, the country, and the world.

Another one of his larger organizations OFA.US or ‘Organization for Action’, “Is committed to mobilizing and training the next generation of progressive organizers and leaders, because real, lasting change doesn’t just happen on its own.”

With more than 250 local chapters around the country, OFA volunteers are building this organization from the ground up, “We’re committed to finding and training the next generation of great progressive organizers.

New OFA fellow managers & campus coaches from across the country met recently in Chicago where they encouraged one another & prepared for a spring full of training new organizers.

46 leaders from 24 states, volunteers that have stepped up to manage Community Engagement & mentor students in OFA’s Campus Academy huddled together in Chicago to get trained on the tools & best practices they’ll need to make their programs a success.

From the OFA website, “The Americans who’ve taken action with OFA are part of a long line of people who take on the big fights.It means calling for lawmakers to stop standing in the way of Climate Change, Immigration Reform, Economic Opportunity, Expanding Equality, Gun Violence Prevention, and Health Care.” Obama went on to say, It’s troubling to see years of progress & hard work on the line, but here’s how community organizers get through it: We take action.”

During an interview with Rolling Stone, when Obama was still the President, he shared that after his term comes to an end, he & his wife will be involved in politics at a grassroots level. He also shared that once he’s out of office, he will focus on penning a book & cultivating his presidential center.“I’m gonna be organizing my presidential center, which is gonna be focused on precisely this issue of how do we train & empower the next generation of leadership,” Obama said. “How do we rethink our storytelling, the messaging & the use of technology & digital media, so that we can make a persuasive case across the nation?”

The following is a statement from an article printed on February 26, 2017 from the ‘International Christian Zionist Center’.

A movement called Organizing for Action (OFA) led by the former president Barack Obama aims to set up 250 offices across the country & utilize an estimated 30,000 agitators to discredit & resist our new leadership”. They asked for prayer for the US President Trump & his Administration.

Former President Obama Says, “I Won’t Stop”


About the Author

Gail Winston is co-founder of the Winston International Institute for the Study of Prejudice.

Leave a Reply