Gaza War Diary 1 Sun-Tue. Mar. 4-7, 2017 Day 1273-1276 1 1:30am
Dear Family & Friends,
A TRIBUTE TO OUR WONDERFUL WOMEN IN ISRAEL! May they always be blessed with success & good deeds!
PURIM IS ACOMIN’ IN.
Where will you celebrate the 2 readings of the Megillat Ester? Remember that we celebrate 2 nights & days of the Jews in Persia (now Iran), were miraculously saved from annihilation by the order of Haman. Saturday night & Sunday day for most of Persia & Sunday night with Monday day for walled cities – like Jerusalem & Her suburbs. So I must hear the Megilla on Saturday night & Sunday day – then have a festive meal, a seudah, with friends. Remember when you hear the name read of ‘Haman’, shake your ‘grogger’ to drown out his name with the noise. Haman was a descendent of the Amalekites whom HaShem ordered the Jewish people to kill to the last one. Read up on why & all the other customs & stories of Purim. An Art-Scroll megilla makes a very good teacher.
All the very best, Gail/Geula/Savta/Savta Raba x 2/Mom
Deputy Foreign Minister meets US Congressman on trip to examine possibility of moving US embassy to Jerusalem.
By Arutz Sheva Staff, 05/03/17 21:56
Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Security Ron DeSantis with Dep. FM Tzipi Hotovely
MK Hotovely Staff
Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) met Sunday evening with US Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-Florida), who visited Israel as part of an official congressional delegation to Israel.
The delegation came to examine and discuss the possibility of relocating the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the capital of Israel, Jerusalem.
Hotovely said: “Israel welcomes the relocation of the American embassy to the capital of Israel, which is the natural location for foreign embassies, as it is in the rest of the world.”
The Deputy Foreign Minister added that she hopes that the US would take the lead in correcting the historic injustice of the refusal to recognize Israel’s capital. “This is an act of leadership which will transmit a message that the US has restored its leadership role in the Middle East.”
The meeting was held in an informal atmosphere.
DeSantis, the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Security, told reporters at a press conference earlier Sunday evening that US President Donald Trump intends to stand by his campaign pledge to move the embassy to Jerusalem.
“The American people are excited to see the embassy move from Jerusalem after fifty years,” said DeSantis.
2.Lessons of the Hamas War by C
The State Comptroller’s Report on Operation Protective Edge, Israel’s war with Hamas in the summer of 2014, is exceedingly detailed. The problem is that it addresses the wrong details.
Israel’s problem with Hamas wasn’t its tactics for destroying Hamas’s attack tunnels. Israel faced two challenges in its war with Hamas that summer. The first had to do with the regional and global context of the war. The second had to do with its understanding of its enemy on the ground.
War between Hamas and Israel took place as the Sunni Arab world was steeped in a two-pronged existential struggle. On the one hand, Sunni regimes fought jihadist groups that emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood movement. On the other, they fought against Iran and its proxies in a bid to block Iran’s moves toward regional hegemony.
On both fronts, the Sunni regimes, led by Egypt under President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Saudi regime and the United Arab Emirates, were shocked to discover that the Obama administration was siding with their enemies against them.
If Israel went to the war against Hamas thinking the Obama administration would treat it differently than it treated the Sunni regimes, it quickly discovered it was mistaken. From the outset of the battle between Hamas & Israel, the Obama administration supported Hamas against Israel.
America’s support for Hamas was expressed at the earliest stages of the war when then-secretary of state John Kerry demanded Israel accept an immediate cease-fire based entirely on Hamas’s terms. This demand, in various forms, remained the administration’s position throughout the 50-day war.
Hamas’s terms were impossible for Israel. They included opening the jihadist regime’s land borders with Israel & Egypt, and providing it with open access to the sea. Hamas demanded to be reconnected to the international banking system in order to enable funds to enter Gaza freely from any spot on the globe. Hamas also demanded that Israel release its terrorists from its prisons.
If Israel had accepted any of Hamas’s cease-fire terms, its agreement would have constituted a strategic defeat for Israel & a historic victory for Hamas.
Open borders for Hamas means the free flow of armaments, recruits, trainers & money to Gaza. Were Hamas to be connected to the international banking system, the jihadist regime would have become the banking center of the global jihad.
The Obama administration’s support for Hamas was not passive.
Obama and Kerry threatened to join the Europeans in condemning Israel at the UN. Administration officials continuously railed against IDF operations in Gaza, insinuating that Israel was committing war crimes by insisting that Israel wasn’t doing enough to avoid civilian casualties.
As the war progressed, the administration’s actions against Israel became more aggressive. Washington placed a partial embargo on weapons shipments to Israel.
Then on July 23, 2014, the administration took the almost inconceivable step of having the Federal Aviation Administration ban flights of US carriers to Ben-Gurion Airport for 36 hours. The flight ban was instituted after a Hamas missile fell a mile from the airport.
The FAA did not ban flights to Pakistan or Afghanistan after jihadists on the ground successfully bombed airplanes out of the sky.
It took Sen. Ted Cruz’s threat to place a hold on all State Department appointments, and Canada’s Conservative Party government’s behind-the-scenes diplomatic revolt to get the flight ban rescinded.
The government and the IDF were shocked by the ferocity of the administration’s hostility. But to his great credit, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu surmounted it.
Netanyahu realized that Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood nexus of jihad and also supported by Iran. As a result the Egyptians, Saudis and UAE rightly view it as a major enemy. Indeed, Egypt was in a state of war with Hamas in 2014. Gaza serves as the logistical base of the Salafist forces warring against the Egyptian military.
Netanyahu asked Sisi for help in blunting the American campaign for Hamas. Sisi was quick to agree and brought the Saudis and the UAE into an all-but-declared operational alliance with Israel against Hamas.
Since the Egyptians were hosting the cease-fire talks, Egypt was well-positioned to blunt Obama’s demand that Israel accept Hamas’s cease-fire terms.
In a bid to undermine Egypt, Obama and Kerry colluded with Hamas’s state sponsors Turkey and Qatar to push Sisi out of the cease-fire discussions. But due to Saudi and UAE support for Sisi and Israel, the administration’s attempts to sideline the Egyptians failed.
The cease-fire terms that were adopted at the end of the war contained none of Hamas’s demands. Israel had won the diplomatic war.
It was a strange victory, however. Netanyahu was never able to let the public know what was happening.
Had he informed the public, the knowledge that the US was backing Hamas would have caused mass demoralization and panic. So Netanyahu had to fight the diplomatic fight of his life secretly.
The war on the ground was greatly influenced by the diplomatic war. But the war on the ground was first and foremost a product of the nature of Hamas and of the nature of Hamas’s relationship with the PLO.
Unfortunately, the Comptroller’s Report indicates that the IDF didn’t understand either. According to the report, in the weeks before the war began, the then-coordinator of government activities in the territories, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Eitan Dangot, told the security cabinet that the humanitarian situation in Gaza was at a crisis point and that hostilities were likely to break out if Israel didn’t allow humanitarian aid into the Strip.
On Wednesday we learned that Dangot’s view continues to prevail in the army. The IDF’s intelligence chief, Maj.-Gen. Herzi Halevi, told the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Israel must send humanitarian aid to Gaza to avert a war.
There is truth to the IDF’s position. Hamas did in fact go to war against Israel in the summer of 2014 because it was short on supplies.
After Sisi overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt the previous summer, he shut Egypt’s border with Gaza because Gaza was the logistical base of the insurgency against his regime. The closed border cut off Hamas’s supply train of everything from antitank missiles to cigarettes and flour.
The problem with the IDF’s view of Hamas is that providing aid to Gaza means supplying Hamas first and foremost. Every shipment into Gaza strengthens Hamas far more than it serves the needs of Gaza’s civilian population. We got a good look at Hamas’s contempt for the suffering of its people during Protective Edge.
After seeing the vast dimensions of Hamas’s tunnel infrastructure, the then-OC Southern Command, Maj.-Gen. Sami Turgeman, told reporters that Hamas had diverted enough concrete to its tunnel project to build 200 kindergartens, two hospitals, 20 clinics and 20 schools.
Moreover, the civilian institutions that are supposed to be assisted by humanitarian aid all serve Hamas. During the war, three soldiers from the IDF’s Maglan unit were killed in southern Gaza when they were buried in rubble of a booby-trapped UNRWA clinic.
The soldiers were in the clinic to seal off the entry shaft of a tunnel that was located in an exam room.
Hamas had booby trapped the walls of the clinic & detonated it when the soldiers walked through the door.
All of the civilian institutions in Gaza, including those run by the UN, as well as thousands of private homes, are used by Hamas as part of its war machine against Israel.
So any discussion of whether or not to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza is not a humanitarian discussion. It is a discussion about whether or not to strengthen Hamas & reinforce its control over the population of Gaza.
This brings us to the goals of the war in Gaza in 2014. At the time, the government debated two possible endgames.
The first was supported by then-justice minister Tzipi Livni. Livni, and the Left more generally, supported using the war with Hamas as a means of unseating Hamas and restoring the PLO-controlled Palestinian Authority to power in the area.
There were 4 problems with this notion. First, it would require Israel to re-conquer Gaza.
Second, the Obama administration would never have agreed to an Israeli conquest of Gaza.
Third, Israel doesn’t have the forces to deploy to Gaza to retake control of the area without rendering its other borders vulnerable.
The final problem with Livni’s idea is that the PLO is no better than Hamas. From the outset of the war, the PLO gave Hamas unqualified support. Fatah militias in Gaza manned the missile launchers side by side with Hamas fighters. PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas represented Hamas at the cease-fire talks in Cairo. He led the political war against Israel in the West. He financed Hamas’s war effort. Throughout the war Abbas sent a steady stream of funds to Gaza.
If PLO forces were returned to Gaza, they would behave precisely as they behaved from 2000 until Hamas kicked them out in 2007. That is, they would have acted as Hamas’s full partners in their joint war against Israel.
The second possible endgame involved a long-term strategy of defeating Hamas through attrition. This was the goal the government ended up partially adopting. The government ordered the IDF to destroy as much of Hamas’s missile arsenal as possible and to destroy its offensive tunnels into Israel. When the goals had been achieved to the point where the cost of opposing Obama grew greater than the battle gains, Netanyahu agreed to a cease-fire.
For the attrition strategy to have succeeded, the cease-fire would have only been the first stage of a longer war. For the attrition strategy to work, Israel needed to refuse to resupply Hamas. With its missile arsenal depleted and its tunnels destroyed, had Israel maintained the ban on supplies to Gaza, the residents would have revolted and Hamas wouldn’t have had the option of deflecting their anger onto Israel by starting a new war.
The IDF unfortunately never accepted attrition as the goal. From the Comptroller’s Report and Halevi’s statement to the Knesset this week, it appears the General Staff rejected attrition because it refuses to accept either the nature of Hamas or the nature of the PLO. Immediately after the cease-fire went into force, the General Staff recommended rebuilding Gaza and allowing an almost free flow of building supplies, including concrete, into Hamas’s mini-state.
The Comptroller’s Report is notable mainly because it shows that nearly three years after Protective Edge, official Israel still doesn’t understand what happened that summer. The problem with Hamas was never tactical. It was always strategic. Israel won the diplomatic battle because it understood the correlation of its strategic interests with those of the Sunni regimes.
It lost the military battle of attrition because it permitted Hamas to resupply.
IsraPundit by Ted Belman March 7, 2017
Caroline B. Glick
The Israeli Defense Minister raises fears over applying sovereignty to Judea & Samaria.
Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman is in over his head.
Few had high hopes for Liberman when he was appointed to his post, but most observers on the political Right were willing to swallow the pill of having a man with an understanding of military and strategic affairs that began and ended with applause lines because his appointment solved two pressing political problems.
Liberman’s appointment to serve as defense minister brought his Yisrael Beitenu party into the government, which increased the size of the coalition from its razor-thin 61-seat majority to a more healthy 66 seats. Moreover, by appointing him, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was
able to remove Moshe Ya’alon from the Defense Ministry. Ya’alon had become unacceptable to Likud voters due to his rush to convict IDF Sgt. Elor Azaria as guilty of criminal wrongdoing last March when Azaria killed a downed terrorist who had stabbed a fellow soldier in Hebron.
Monday morning Liberman showed that concerns about his suitability for his position were spot on.
Speaking to reporters at the Knesset, Liberman said that growing discussion among leading members of the coalition about applying Israeli law to parts of Judea and Samaria must stop.
“Anyone who wants to apply Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria needs to understand such a step will bring immediate repercussions from the new US government,” Liberman alleged.
He added, “We received a direct – not indirect – message: ‘Apply sovereignty and you will be cutting ties with the new administration.”
Liberman’s statement was both ignorant and damaging.
It was ignorant because it critically misrepresented how decisions are made in US administrations. It isn’t hard to guess which Trump administration official is threatening Israel and trying to force the government to abide by the failed and damaging policy of surrendering Jude and Samaria to Palestinian terrorists.
As defense minister, he speaks to his counterpart, US Defense Secretary James Mattis. Mattis is no friend of Israel’s.
During his confirmation hearings in the Senate, when Senator Lindsay Graham asked him what the capital of Israel is, Mattis replied “Tel Aviv.”
Mattis also said that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a “vital [US] interest.”
After being fired from his command of Central Command in 2013, Mattis claimed that the US alliance with Israel harms the US. In his words, “I paid a military security price every day as the commander of CentCom because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel, and… moderate Arabs who want to be with us… can’t come out publicly in support of people who don’t show respect for the Arab Palestinians.”
In the same address, Mattis argued that if Israel continues to allow Jews to assert their property rights in Judea and Samaria, it will risk becoming an “apartheid” state.
When President Donald Trump appointed Mattis, supporters of Israel in the US were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope that his statements were the product of his service in the anti-Israel Obama administration and that once liberated from its intellectual straitjacket, he would abandon his preposterous positions on Israel. Concern over Mattis was abated by the fact that he opposed president Obama’s Iran policy.
But last week Mattis made clear that he actually shares Obama’s worldview when he decided to appoint Anne Patterson to serve as his undersecretary of defense for policy. Patterson, who served as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs under Obama, is a harsh critic of Israel and an apologist for the Palestinian Authority’s support for terrorism.
In testimony before Congress in April 2014 for instance, Patterson defended the PA’s practice of paying salaries to Palestinian terrorists and their families. The payments are legitimate, she told lawmakers, because “they need to provide for the families.”
Last year, when Mahmoud Shalan, a Palestinian terrorist with US citizenship was shot by soldiers at a checkpoint after he tried to kill them & later died of his wounds, Patterson demanded an explanation from Israel for his death.
As Steven Flatow, father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered by Palestinian terrorists in Gaza in 1995, noted in an article at JNS news service, Patterson did not demand the PA provide an explanation for why Shalan, a resident of the PA, was engaged in terrorism against Israelis.
Before being appointed to head the State Department’s Near East bureau, Patterson served as Obama’s ambassador to Egypt from 2011 to 2013, during tumult that saw 2 leaders outed in so many years.
Patterson supported the overthrow of longtime US ally then-president Hosni Mubarak.
She supported the Muslim Brotherhood regime that replaced him.
She urged Christians and others who were being persecuted by the Muslim Brotherhood regime not to demonstrate against it. She supported Morsi’s moves to seize tyrannical power and transform Egypt into an Iranian-allied Islamic state.
After the military overthrew Morsi and his regime, Patterson supported cutting off US military assistance to the regime of President Abdel Fattah Sisi.
For her pro-Muslim Brotherhood positions, Patterson became one of the most hated people in Egypt and a symbol of the Obama administration’s abandonment of Egypt.
Mattis’s decision to appoint Patterson was rejected by the White House, on the basis of Patterson’s record in Egypt and at the State Department.
The Patterson episode shows that Mattis continues to embrace Obama’s policy of supporting Islamists and opposing US allies. The White House’s rejection of Patterson shows that Mattis is not in charge of policymaking, the White House is.
The fact that Liberman has represented Mattis’s threats to Israel as the official policy of the Trump administration indicates he doesn’t understand either who Mattis is, or how decisions are made in US administrations generally or how they’re made in Trump’s administration in particular.
Moreover, by claiming that Mattis’s positions are US policy, Liberman insulted Trump, attributing policymaking powers to Trump’s appointed adviser that belong to the president alone.
Trump, for his part, has clearly not made a determination of where he stands on the disposition of Judea and Samaria. But he has made clear that he has no intention of striking out at Israel. He similarly made clear that he has no intention of maintaining Obama’s position, which Patterson communicated to Congress, of supporting payoffs to Palestinian terrorists.
If this weren’t reason enough to be appalled by Liberman’s deeply destructive statement, the fact is that this isn’t the main problem with it.
Liberman’s argument that Israel must maintain allegiance to the failed and destructive policy of empowering the PLO lest it wreck its ties to America is most destructive because it undermines Israeli democracy and Israel’s international position. Liberman’s statement invites – indeed begs for – a foreign government to threaten Israel in order to cow elected officials and the public into accepting a policy they rightly reject and abandoning discussion of an alternative path that advances Israel’s strategic interests.
In behaving in this manner, Liberman is adopting the anti-democratic practice of Israel’s political Left. Incapable of winning the public’s support for their obsessive agenda of giving land to Palestinian terrorists, for years, leftist politicians like former justice minister Tzipi Livni have threatened the public and her fellow elected officials that if they dare step away from the disastrous policy, Israeli officials and citizens will face war crimes indictments in international courts.
To his great discredit, Prime Minister Netanyahu began engaging in this sort of behavior recently as he warned that passage of the Settlements Regulation Law would expose Israel to war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court.
Netanyahu was substantively ridiculous. There is no international legal basis for such charges. On its own, the ICC would be unlikely to initiate such proceedings, given their legal weakness. But by arguing that action by the ICC would be a reasonable response to the law, Netanyahu created the political opening for anti-Israel lawfare by the ICC.
After all, if the prime minister himself is saying such charges will ensue, far be it for ICC prosecutors to disagree with him.
This practice of alleging foreign opposition – and so inviting foreigners to attack Israel – in order to prevent Israel’s elected officials from loyally performing their duties in accordance with the wishes of their constituents has always been harmful to the country.
Liberman’s false statement regarding the purported policies of the Trump administration brings this practice to a new low.
Liberman should issue an immediate clarification.
Prime Minister Netanyahu should reject Liberman’s statement. Both men should affirm their commitment to Israeli democracy & the power of elected officials to determine the course of the nation in accordance with Israel law & on basis of their assessments of Israel’s national interests.
MK Mickey Zohar rebuts DM denunciation of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria at Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.
By Hezki Baruch, Arutz Sheva Translated by Mordechai Sones 06/03/17 16:51
MK Miki Zohar – Spokesman
MK Mickey Zohar (Likud) refuted Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman’s denunciation of those who promote annexing Judea and Samaria at the opening of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee meeting in an interview with Arutz Sheva.
Zohar first treated the claim that annexation contravenes US government policy, creating a political crisis: “I would suggest that Minister Liberman be patient before determining US government policy. There is a new administration, we will adapt a new policy to go with it, and my goal is to create a fresh political discourse”.
According to him, “Liberman is inflicting political damage on the Rightist program that the public sent us to implement in the Knesset. The Rightist policy we were elected for is to rescind the idea of a Palestinian state and to construct a new dialog that talks about living together with the same rights & responsibilities. There is no other way or a different solution. Establishing a Palestinian state, apart [causing] terrorism & Jewish blood, will not lead to anything.”
Liberman said that such a move would require Israel to provide the Palestinians with NIS 20 billion and would generate a dispute with the US administration; do you agree?
“I do not agree. First, it does not come to 20 billion shekels. Secondly, if there is genuine peace here, the world will rally to their aid economically. Third, this will significantly lessen our defense spending. Peace can only happen in one state. A State of Israel with a Jewish majority and an Arab-Palestinian minority – and realizing it will require courage and daring, and we can realize it together with the new US administration.”
“Equal rights without being able to vote?”
“Rights come with responsibilities. If you want the right to vote legitimately then serve in the military or National Service, recognize the Israeli flag & recognize Israel as a legitimate Jewish & democratic state with an Arab minority. If you recognize these three things there is no reason you should not be able to vote for the Knesset. To my great consternation or to my great joy, the Palestinians do not want to adopt these three things & so we offer them an autonomous Palestinian council so that they can operate there without feeling they are absolutely committed to all the principles we talked about. Israeli law, particularly in security issues, will apply to the Palestinian population. We can live here in coexistence & not as a form of apartheid, as the word is bandied about. Voting for the Knesset or not voting for the Knesset is completely different from the word ‘apartheid’ that we hear.” Translated by Mordechai Sones
5.No Freedom of Religion at our holiest site By Alyse Lichtenfeld
Something is wrong when a state professing Freedom of Religion bars citizens from praying at their holiest site. Arutz Sheva 04/03/17 23:00
The writer, originally from Highland Park, Illinois, now lives in Herzliya where she is a Government & Diplomacy student at IDC.
Israeli society and politics are constructed of multiple religions and ethnicities, and their respective aspirations as citizens of Israel. The existence of a Jewish majority has resulted in many aspects of society being governed by Jewish law, though Israel is not and never intended to be a theocracy, as Ben Gurion clarified in the status quo agreement. However, Israel certainly proudly wears its Jewish identity, whether religious or leaning towards a more Jewish ethnic identity (Lapidoth, 1998).
While Israel has a Jewish majority, Freedom of Religion is a basic right in Israel. As ensured by the Declaration of Independence, all citizens of Israel enjoy equal rights regardless of religion, race, or gender. In addition, the holy places of all religions will be safeguarded. (Cohen, 1998). While this right is not legally binding, it is crucial when dealing with the interpretation of law & the rights codified into the Basic Laws of 1992 are upheld in its spirit. (Lapidoth, 1998).
It is an unfortunate fact that on our holiest ground, Jewish religious rights have been snatched from us on the basis of maintaining & promoting “public order & security.”
The Temple Mount, or Har Habayit, is undeniably the holiest site for Jews. It is where the First & Second Beit Hamikdash stood & where our third will stand. It is an unfortunate fact that on our holiest ground, Jewish religious rights have been snatched from us on the basis of maintaining and promoting “public order & security” (Lapidoth, 1998, from an Israeli Supreme Court statement). The only true impediment to public order and security on Temple Mount is the incitement of terror by Arab religious leaders in reaction to Jews entering the area. This originates in an Arab society which is hostile toward Jewish footsteps on Temple Mount where their shrine stands.
Freedom of Religion in Israel is severed by the fact that this basic right is not properly upheld. While it is promised that holy sites will be safeguarded, the holiest Jewish site is certainly not being safeguarded. Firstly, Jews are not even permitted to practice any religious act on Temple Mount. While claims of promoting peace and security seem pleasant and pragmatic, giving into the hatefully inspired wishes of the Islamic Waqf, the Islamic organization that controls Temple Mount, Israel is putting the basic right Freedom of Religion in the back seat.
Furthermore, even after accepting the solemn fact of lack of Jewish rights on the Temple Mount, only certain hours exist for non-Muslims who wish to visit the Temple Mount. While a few hours allocated to tourists visiting the actual mosque or shrine would be reasonable, so as to preserve Muslim prayer services, strictly regulating times to simply walk in the area is a phenomenon that is unheard of. For instance, the Western Wall, or HaKotel, under Jewish control, would never be off limits for non-Jews.
It is about time for reservations of Freedom of Religion to be closely examined, especially in the case of the Temple Mount where promoting peace and security is clearly not a priority of the other side.
Lapidoth, R; Freedom of Religion and Conscience in Israel, 47 Cath. U.L. Rev 441 (1998)
Cohn, Haim. “Israel Among the Nations.” Kluwer Law International (1998): n. pag. Web.
6.Prime Minister Ayelet Shaked?
‘It could definitely happen,’ says Justice Minister.
By Reut Hadar, Arutz Sheva 05/03/17 21:42
Ayelet Shaked – photo by Marc Israel Sellem/Flash 90
Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Jewish Home) says while she currently has no aspirations to lead Israel’s government, she isn’t ruling out running for premier in the future.
In an interview Sunday with Channel 20, Shaked was asked whether she would ever consider running for Prime Minister.
“Perhaps in the future,” responded Shaked. “I’m not thinking about it right now, but I also definitely wouldn’t rule it out. As far as I’m concerned, the sky is the limit.”
If Shaked did run for & win the premiership, she would become the 2nd woman to head the Israeli government. Golda Meir, served as first Prime Minister from 1969 to 1974.
“I think that if I decide that I want to run, I definitely wouldn’t be afraid to do so,” continued Shaked. “Right now I have young children, so this isn’t something that I’d want to do next year, but it could definitely happen one day.”
During the interview, which will air later this week in honor of International Women’s Day, Shaked noted she has never faced gender-based discrimination in her political career.
“I’ve never encountered discrimination in politics on the basis of gender; even when I was elected, I ran, was chosen for the top spot (after the party head) in the primaries, but obviously discrimination exists, particularly in salaries.”
7.Amona, Ofra & Sovereignty 8 from email@example.com
The spectacles of Amona & Ofra being evacuated & destroyed, demand acceleration
of the Sovereignty process
Distribution of Issue No. 8 of the Sovereignty Journal, in hundreds of thousands of copies in Hebrew & in English, began this weekend. Included in this issue are interviews, essays & reports dealing with the vision of sovereignty.
To order your copy mailed to your house order from: firstname.lastname@example.org
What are the silenced & hidden truths regarding the way international law relates to Israel’s rights in Judea and Samaria? How does the deputy foreign minister see the vision of sovereignty?
Thirty five years after the application of Israeli law in the Golan Heights, what tips does Yehuda Harel, one of the leading proponents of that campaign, have for the leaders of the present campaign for Sovereignty?
What does the President of Israel, Reuven Rivlin think about Sovereignty?
All of these questions & more are answered in Issue No. 8 of the Sovereignty Journal, which has been published by Women in Green & the Forum for Sovereignty.
It is being distributed in the coming days in Hebrew & in English by 200,000 copies throughout the Land of Israel & abroad.
Among other things in this issue is the story of the Left’s internal differences & gradual disillusionment with the idea of two states;
an interview with Jewish Home Faction Chairman, MK Mualem-Refaeli, one of the leading proponents of the sovereignty plan in the Knesset; an interview with Rav Shlomo Aviner on Judaism, ethics & policy;
snippets from the Fourth Sovereignty Conference with statements by ministers, members of Knesset, intellectuals, public figures & even representatives of minorities, Palestinians, Christians & Israeli Arabs on the vision of Sovereignty.
Atty. Marc Zell on what can be expected from Trump as president of the U.S. & more.
“The spectacles from Amona & Ofra demolished obligate us to continue, with even
greater energy, to promote the plan for the application of Sovereignty”, say Yehudit Katsover & Nadia Matar, the heads of Women in Green, which is behind publication of the journal. According to them, “the political quiet that has reigned after Netanyahu’s visit to the United States & the establishment of the joint committee do not augur well.
We must wake up & present a policy for a solution. We realize that when we engage in mud fights with the government, we are the losers.
But on the other hand, we have ideological & political power. With the Almighty’s help, we will build & we will bring about a good future for our children & our grandchildren & our great-grandchildren in the Land of Israel”.
Katsover & Matar add that “the Prime Minister must know that he cannot continue to deceive us. The ethical basis for his leadership is increasingly weakened. More & more voices are heard demanding to replace him. OR – the Prime Minister must return to the principles in whose name the People awarded him the mandate to lead. He must return to the clear positions of the Right, which he propounded in articles, books & speeches at the beginning of his path as politician & statesman”.
To order a copy of the latest Sovereignty 8, please email us your full name, address, street, zip, city & country to: email@example.com & we will send you as many copies as you order. The journal will be posted on our website, please G-d, in the next few days.
Yehudit Katsover & Nadia Matar www.womeningreen.org www.ribonut.co.il
8.Misunderstanding the causes of anti-Semitism By Dr. Rafael Medoff Events of recent weeks have revealed a surprising abundance of self-proclaimed experts on the causes of anti-Semitism. 04/03/17 23:10 Arutz Sheva Dr. Rafael Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in Washington, D.C. His latest book is “FDR and the Holocaust: A Breach of Faith”.
A Jewish ex-New York Times reporter, writing on the op-ed page of the Washington Post on March 3, declared that “the growing examples of anti-Semitism” —the bomb threats & cemetery desecrations— were “enabled, if not inspired, by [President Donald] Trump’s white nationalism.”
The leader of one Jewish progressive group recently suggested the president is engaged in “outright advancement” of anti-Semitism. At the other end of the political spectrum, the president of a small Zionist organization asserted, without evidence, that the anti-Semitic incidents were “acts of frustration & misery” over the Trump administration’s support for Israel. He even claimed the attacks were “encouraged” by the recent UN resolution on Israel.
There was also a veritable torrent of assertions by pundits and Jewish organizational officials that if President Trump would be more vocal in his condemnations, that would help stem the tide of hate.
Presidential pronouncements can indeed play a role in shaping public attitudes. There is value in trying to foster a social environment that discourages bigotry. So it’s good that President Trump has made public pronouncements on the subject, including in his State of the Union address.
But the arrest and indictment of a St. Louis man for making “at least eight” of the anti-Jewish bomb threats pulls the rug out from under the politically-oriented “explanations” of anti-Semitism, and reminds us not to expect a presidential statement to have a significant or immediate impact.
The suspect, Juan Thompson, is not a “white nationalist.” He was not inspired or encouraged by Donald Trump. Nor was he protesting the president’s support for Israel or the UN resolution. He’s an African-American journalist with extreme political views that predate Trump and are unrelated to Israel. Thompson’s Twitter profile features this Malcom X quotation: “You show me a capitalist, and I’ll show you a bloodsucker.” According to the indictment, Thompson perpetrated the crimes in order to pin them on his ex-girlfriend.
Sure, it’s convenient to blame anti-Semitism on one’s political opponents. But it would make more sense to blame the anti-Semites themselves. Thugs who threaten Jewish institutions or desecrate Jewish gravestones are not usually motivated by some policy position of a president. They assault Jewish institutions or Jewish property because they hate Jews, or because of deep personal problems, or some combination thereof.
Anti-Semitic incidents will not come to a halt with the arrest of Juan Thompson. So how will all our experts “explain” incidents that occur months, or years, after some presidential statement or United Nations resolution? Who will be blamed then?
It’s a fair bet that some Jews will take to blaming each other. The sad phenomenon of Jews accusing other Jews of provoking anti-Semitism can be found throughout Jewish history. In recent times, assimilated Jews claimed that Zionist Jews would provoke accusations of dual loyalty. Jewish conservatives claimed that Jewish opponents of the Vietnam War would provoke an anti-Semitic backlash. Some liberal Jews today claim that Israel’s behavior is the cause of Arab anti-Semitism.
This blame game might be called Good Jew/Bad Jew. The “good Jew” insists that it is only because of the actions of the “bad Jews” that there is anti-Semitism. If those “bad Jews” would just stop doing ____ (name the objectionable behavior), anti-Semites would stop hating all Jews.
That hypothesis has been tested many times, and always fails. Even those German Jews who gave up all Jewish beliefs and practices were still murdered by the Nazis. Russian Jews who embraced communism were still purged and persecuted by the Soviets. Jews in Arab countries were oppressed long before the State of Israel came into existence. And neither Jewish liberalism nor Jewish conservatism has provoked pogroms in the United States.
The bomb threats and cemetery desecrations were not caused by either President Trump’s policies or President Obama’s abstention on the UN resolution, nor by Jews being too liberal or too conservative. There is no simple explanation for anti-Semitism. Sometimes it is influenced by religious or political factors, sometimes by socioeconomic situations. Often it is triggered by deeply personal circumstances. Anti-Semitism has no single cause, and no single cure.
Passions are rising throughout the American Jewish community, and those passions sometimes fuel bitter partisanship. Vigorous debate is an important part of a healthy democratic society. But using anti-Semitism as a rhetorical cudgel with which to beat one’s political rivals is not. Reckless blaming of those with whom one disagrees, instead of blaming the anti-Semites themselves, does a disservice to public discourse.
Dr. Medoff is the author or editor of 16 books on Jewish history, Zionism, & the Holocaust.
9.France’s Fatal Attraction to Islam by Giulio Meotti
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10001/france-islam March 4, 2017 at 5:00 am
Two years ago, the rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, Dalil Boubakeur, suggested converting empty churches into mosques, to accommodate the growing Muslim community in abandoned Christian sites. Now, many people in France seem to have taken the idea so seriously that a report released by the foundation Terra Nova, France’s main think tank that provides ideas to the governing Socialist Party, suggests that in order to integrate Muslims better, French authorities should replace the two Catholic holidays — Easter Monday & Pentecost — with Islamic holidays. To be ecumenical, they also included a Jewish holiday.
Written by Alain Christnacht & Marc-Olivier Padis, the study, “The Emancipation of Islam of France,” states: “In order to treat all the denominations equally, it should include two important new holidays, Yom Kippur & Eid el Kebir, with the removal of two Mondays that do not correspond to particular solemnity”.
Thus, Easter & Pentecost can be sacrificed to keep the ever-elusive multicultural “peace”.
Terra Nova’s proposal was rejected by the Episcopal Conference of France, but endorsed by the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, close to the Muslim Brotherhood, which would also like to include the Islamic holidays of Eid al-Fitr & Eid al-Adha in the calendar. The idea of replacing the Christian holidays was also sponsored by the Observatory of Secularism, an organ created by President François Hollande to coordinate secularist policies. The Observatory of Secularism also proposed eliminating some Christian holidays to make way for the Islamic, Jewish & secular holidays. “France must replace two Christian holidays to make way for the Yom Kippur & Eid,” said Dounia Bouzar, a member of the Observatory.
In his recent book, Will the Church Bells Ring Tomorrow?, Philippe de Villiers notes the disappearance of churches in France & their replacement by mosques. Pictured above: On August 3, 2016, French riot police dragged a priest & his congregation from the church of St. Rita in Paris, prior to its scheduled demolition. Front National leader Marine Le Pen said in fury: “What if they built parking lots in the place of Salafist mosques & not of our churches?” (Image: RT video screenshot)
“France is no longer a Catholic country”, wrote Frederic Lenoir, editor-in-chief of Le Monde des Religions. The newspaper Le Figaro wondered if Islam can already be considered “France’s prime religion.” Instead of fighting to save what is savable, French opinion-makers are already writing the terms of surrender. That is the meaning of Terra Nova’s proposal.
A similar shocking idea came from another think tank, the Montaigne Institute, which provides ideas to another presidential candidate, Emmanuel Macron. In its report, written by Hakim El Karoui, the Montaigne Institute proposed the creation of a “Grand Imam of France“, no less, as if Paris & Cairo would have the same historic roots. Macron recently apologized for French colonialism, feeding a defeatist sense of guilt that fuels Islamic extremists in their demands.
The Montaigne Institute has also suggested teaching Arabic in public schools. This idea was also sponsored by Jack Lang, president of the Institute of the Arab world, who stated, “The Arab world is part of us”. By hybridizing cultures & rejecting Christianity, France will soon end up not even teaching also Arabic, but only Arabic – & Ramadan instead of Easter.
If the goal is accommodating Muslims in the French Republic instead of assimilating them, why not ban pork in the schools, avoid sensitive subjects such as the Crusades & the Holocaust, separate men & women in swimming pools, call cartoonists to “responsibility” & allow Islamic veils in the public administration? In fact, all these things are taking place in France today. The result is not “emancipation,” but religious segregation.
It is in this Apartheid that Islamic extremists grow & permeate hearts & minds. France’s director-general of intelligence, Patrick Calvar, has been clear: “The confrontation is inevitable,” he said. There are an estimated 15,000 Salafists among France’s seven million Muslims, “whose radical-fundamentalist creed dominates many of the predominantly Muslim housing projects at the edges of cities such as Paris, Nice or Lyon. Their preachers call for a civil war, with all Muslims tasked to wipe out the infidels down the street”.
The Socialist front-runner for the Presidential elections, Benoit Hamon, to whom the Terra Nova’s report was directed, even justified the disappearance of French women from the cafés in Muslim-majority areas: “Historically, in the workers’ cafes, there were no women,” he said.
Instead of wasting their time trying to organize an “Islam of France”, French political leaders, opinion-makers & think tanks should look for ways to counter the creeping Islamization of their country. Otherwise we may soon be seeing not only a “Grand Imam de France”, but also lashes & stonings on the Champs Élysées.
Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.
Related Topics: France
Recent Articles by Giulio Meotti
§ Scandinavia: The West’s Citadel of Anti-Semitism, 2017-02-17
§ Quebec: The Crisis of the West, 2017-02-03
§ When “Peace” Means Capitulation to Islam, 2017-01-08
Posted: 03 Mar 2017 05:41 PM PST
The following is the “About Us” page on TheReligionOfPeace.com. It was so good I gained permission to republish it here (& on Inquiry Into Islam).
TheReligionofPeace.com (TROP) is a pluralistic, non-partisan site concerned with Islam’s true political and religious teachings according to its own texts. The purpose is to underscore the threat that Islam poses to human dignity & freedom, part of which includes documenting the violence & dysfunction that ensues as a direct consequence of this religion’s supremacist teachings.
What other religion’s most devoted members videotape themselves cutting people’s throats while screaming praises to their god? What other faith has tens of thousands of terrorists across the globe united by an explicit commitment to advance the cause of their religion by pursuing horrific mass murder & mutilation?
The list could go on (& does — each day on TheReligionofPeace.com). Islam so routinely produces horrible atrocities in the name of Allah that no one is all that surprised when…
Adults are tied to a tree or planted in the ground& bludgeoned to death by fundamentalists for engaging in consensual sex…
Religious leaders are charged by authorities with plotting spectacular acts of mass murder in the name of their god…
How shocking any of this would be if it didn’t involve the Islamic religion. As it is, much of it barely registers in the media. The very fact that the bar of expectation is set so low for “the Religion of Peace” underscores just how different it really is.
Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld has been a long-term adviser on strategy issues to the boards of several major multinational corporations in Europe & North America. He is board member & former chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs & recipient of the LIfetime Achievement Award (2012) of the Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism.
There are far more anti-Semites in the United States than there are Jews in the world. This was known well before the recent spate of threats against Jewish institutions, desecration of cemeteries and other expressions of anti-Semitism.
For several years now the Anti-Defamation League has done opinion polls on anti-Semitism in many countries around the world. People were asked questions which almost entirely focused on classic anti-Semitism & did not refer to the newest type of anti-Semitism, anti-Israelism.
The ADL study asked interviewees whether eleven negative stereotypes were “probably true” or “probably false.” Respondents who said that at least 6 out of 11 statements are “probably true” were considered to harbor anti-Semitic attitudes. The 2015 ADL study thus found that there were 24 million adult anti-Semites in the US which equals 9% of the population. It should be noted that there are at most 11 million adult Jews in the world.
The negative attitudes are far worse if we look at the answers to one of the survey’s questions. The most commonly held stereotype about Jews in the U.S. is: “Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the United States.” The ADL found that over 80 million Americans (33%) share that opinion. The next most common stereotypes were: “Jews still talk too much about the Holocaust” (22% of respondents) & “Jews have too much power in business”. (18% of respondents).
Approximately seven-in-ten Jews in the U.S. say they are either very (30%) or somewhat (39%) attached to Israel while more than eight-in-ten say caring about Israel is either an essential (43%) or important (44%) part of what being Jewish means to them personally. This does not mean that these people are more loyal to Israel than to the United States. As the two countries are close allies, there is no tension here.
It is a standard question now to ask whether the arrival of the Trump administration has led to increased anti-Semitism. The answer is more complicated than it seems. Experience shows that in quiet times, Jews encounter less problems from anti-Semitism than in periods of unrest. The United States is currently undergoing a period of polarization. During the presidential election campaign the Sanders camp, the Trump camp & the Clinton camp all contributed to this polarization & it did not dissipate after the election.
It should also be stated that all was far from fine before this current outburst of anti-Semitism. According to 2015 FBI hate crime statistics more than half of the 1200 plus religious motivated incidents were aimed at Jews, yet Jews represent only 2% of the American population.
Under the Obama administration the media gave far too little attention to other forms of anti-Semitism that are flourishing. An AMCHA Initiative 2016 study showed a 45% increase in campus anti-Semitism during the first half of 2016 as compared with the first half of 2015.
In a survey of Jewish students eligible to take summer 2015 Taglit-Birthright Israel trips by Brandeis University’s Center for Modern Jewish studies, more than ½ reported experiencing or witnessing anti-Semitism in 2014 & 2015. More than ¼ of undergraduate students described hostility toward Israel among their peers as a “fairly” or “very” big problem.
Other left wing anti-Semitic initiatives also blossomed under the Obama administration. These usually mask as anti-Israelism. The ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement has in its social & political policy agenda founding document accusations towards Israel of “genocide” or “apartheid.” This movement has also endorsed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. This campaign in more general terms is another example of anti-Semitism originating in the political left. The BDS campaign acts specifically against Israel in order to isolate it economically, culturally & politically.
The State Department has a working definition of anti-Semitism as does the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The latter required the approval of the US. According to both definitions, BDS is anti-Semitic.
Currently we see more phenomena of what is probably Right wing anti-Semitism. This type of anti-Semitism has been around for a long time. One of the worst incidents took place in 2014 when a white supremacist, neo-Nazi Frazier Glenn Miller Jr., murdered 3 people, 2 outside a Jewish Community Center & one at a retirement center in Overland Park, Kansas. In Seattle in 2006, a Muslim Naveed Afzal Haq fired shots at the Jewish Federation, killing one woman & injuring 5 others.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center has rightly urged the US Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, to establish a special task force. At this point there have been more than 65 bomb threats against Jewish institutions. It is of particular importance to find out who is behind these threats because even if the bombs do not actually exist they disrupt Jewish communal life. At the same time making poorly substantiated accusations only confuses the issue.
Jews have often mentioned American Jewish exceptionalism even though Jews were heavily discriminated against for many decades. In the post war reality there is much to be said for it having become gradually true. Contrary to European countries the United States is multicultural. Jews are one ‘tribe’ among others whereas in European countries, the Jews are a very small tribe compared to one dominant tribe.
It would be a mistake to conclude that because of recent events this exceptionalism no longer exists. What gives hope in this context are the many expressions of solidarity the Jewish community has received in its plight. These include some Muslim groups. Vice-President Pence visited Missouri after the desecration of a Jewish graveyard and said, “We condemn this vile act of vandalism and those who perpetuate it in the strongest possible terms.”
Israeli Ambassador to Washington Ron Dermer revealed this week at a closed forum that President Trump’s request at his joint press conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu, that Israel restrict settlement construction, caught the latter by surprise, Makor Rishon reported Friday.
Dermer spoke at the annual conference of Israeli diplomats from all over the world at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, and stressed that despite the unexpected request, relations with the new Administration over the disputed territories would be much better than they have been before January 20.
Dermer has already begun his initial discussions with Trump’s senior advisor on international affairs Jason Greenblatt, to determine the scope of construction in Judea and Samaria. Apparently, according to MR, the gaps between the positions of the two sides are still very big.
Sources close to the Trump White House have told Makor Rishon that it can be expected that the president would continue the Obama & Bush 2 modus vivendi of turning a blind eye on Israeli construction in eastern Jerusalem plus Judea & Samaria, with a few breaks for critical statements against it. But when Trump rebukes Israeli settlement building, he will probably do it less frequently & in a less harsh tone than his Democratic predecessor.
Dermer suggested that behind the American policy regarding the conflict is the Administration’s decision to convey to the PA that time is working against them. This approach requires that Ramallah realize that once Washington gives up on them as reliable partners for peace, it would give Israel a green light to rev up construction in Area C.
Netanyahu told the Knesset Likud faction meeting this week that the construction issue is more difficult and dangerous in the relationship with Trump than the political process – which could mean that the president would be angry should Israeli construction remove the threat of construction he wants to hold over the PA.
“We do not have a blank check,” the PM cautioned, adding that “as things looks now we will feel less pressure – but will not have a free hand” to build in Judea & Samaria.
Unlikely bedfellows commemorate the Holocaust, rabid Muslim anti-Semites collect money to repair desecrated Jewish cemeteries. Progressive Jews love it. Arutz Sheva 06/03/17 11:00
Steve Apfel is a prolific author of novels and non-fiction, essayist and commentator on ‘enemies of Zion’ which happens also to be the title of his latest book. His books are The Paymaster, 1998; Hadrian’s Echo: The whys and wherefores of Israel’s critics, 2012; War by other means: Israel and its detractors, Contributor. Israel Affairs, 2012; Enemies of Zion, (for publication in 2015); Balaam’s curse ( a novel in progress.). Webpage: http://sbpra.com/SteveApfel The annual rite long ago slipped from Jewish hands. Today commemorating the Holocaust is a mix of fanfare & signaling of virtue for everyone & his dog. When the UN designates ‘International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust’ is it not clear that haters of Zion are in the big tent.
Bigots find a ready welcome there because they are bigots only up to a point. Past that point they do more than tolerate Jews, they venerate them. If there is one thing anti-Semites love more than dead Jews it would be dead Jews by the millions. While the very name Israel makes anti-Zionists want to bring up, they will go to the ends of the earth to memorialize Jewish martyrs. A sadistic fascination comes through. Jean-Paul Sartre writes of a wartime friend who had no problem with Nazi massacres; yet on the mantelpiece in his sitting room stood a prized photo of a Jewish friend gunned down by the Gestapo. If there is one thing anti-Semites love more than dead Jews it would be dead Jews by the millions.
For this dark obsession with dead Jews there are plenty of contemporary cases. Take Linda Sarsour. An American Muslim, a gender activist, and a figurehead of the anti-Trump movement, Sarsour caps it with being an out-and-out anti-Semite. Proudly BDS, the hijab covered woman tweeted that “Nothing is creepier than Zionism.” Denying living Jews the right to a place in the (Middle East) sun did not stop Linda Sarsour putting herself out for dead Jews. Lately she made headlines for organizing a drive that raised $56,000 to repair a desecrated Jewish cemetery in St. Louis.
Rasmea Odeh is a bona fide Jew killer. On February 21, 1969 she planted a bomb in a Jerusalem supermarket that killed two young men and injured nine. An Israeli court handed her down a life sentence. Later Israel freed Odeh in a prisoner swop. Odeh now takes her proud place alongside Linda Sarsour as a leader of the women’s movement – the movement that has much to say about the value of different lives: black lives, transgender lives, women’s lives, Latino lives, Muslim lives, and so forth. About Jewish lives it has nothing to say. About Israeli lives it sees no wrong with Palestinians celebrating Israeli death by terror. Yet alongside Linda Sarsour, Odeh will stand for a minute of silence to remember Holocaust victims. Nava Pillay was the head of the vast human rights machinery at the UN. By tradition her office, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, is endowed on anti-Zionists. Nava Pillay is the epitome of one. She would disallow any statement which exposed the human rights violators that convict Israel when the Human Rights Council meets to condemn the Jew among nations. Pillay would protect China, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc on the ground that statements about them “were not imbued with the appropriate level of dignity and respect.” Yet for Israel the woman found nothing wrong with wild statements. Ethnic cleansing, pogroms against Palestinians, stealing organs from Palestinians, illegal state: these were “imbued with the appropriate level of dignity and respect.” So was a statement that Israel had inflicted a Holocaust on Palestinians. In the house that Pillay ruled, all were “in accordance with accepted UN standards.” The woman put in her own word or two about Jews. The plague of wife-beating within Palestinian society, Pillay ruled, could be blamed on Israel. Nava Pillay, then, is anti-Semitic through and through.
Yet none of this stopped the UN High Commissioner from holding a seminar to mark the UN’s Holocaust Day. Pillay spoke of a boy named Petr Ginz from Prague who died in the Auschwitz gas chambers. Her speech was accompanied by a photo of Petr, and at the end of it she called for a minute of silence.
Jew-haters never have a problem with dead Jews. They indeed like them more than anything – and the higher the toll the better. A commemoration for six million martyred Jews will draw anti-Semites like hungry raptors.
When Jews fail to comprehend this ghoulish mindset it becomes a problem. The progressive element is very prone to overlooking it. In their activism on behalf of women, black lives, refugees and so forth, progressives do more than join forces with anti-Semites; they defend them. How also matters. They defend anti-Semites by denigrating fellow Jews. Even rabbis are neck deep in the routine. Sharon Brous, a Conservative rabbi in Los Angeles said that the critics of Linda Sarsour were involved in “a deliberate smear campaign from the far right. I don’t feel at all uncomfortable about (Linda Sarsour),” the rabbi added. “A much greater problem would be if the Jewish community stepped out of activism because we’re afraid that someone on the stage has a position on BDS different than our own.”
To the mind of the progressive rabbi, Sharia treatment of women would fall into her “position different than our own.” Jewish progressives are prepared to ignore wife beating, genital mutilation and so forth. Their allied activists take precedence. They don’t care that allies such as Linda Sarsour cover up barbarous Islamic rites. Rabbi Brous would turn a blind eye rather than step “out of activism.” Her role model Sarsour, she can’t help knowing, turns more than a blind eye; Sarsour attacks moderate Muslim women in the most vulgar terms. Hirsi Ali, she said, was “not a real woman. Half jokingly Sarsour adds that she’d like to take away Ali’s vagina – a vicious bon mot, considering that Hirsi Ali was a victim of genital mutilation in her native Somalia.
What shall we say? When Jews get into bed with people fixated by dead Jews, the sky is the limit. In love with the idea of tikkun olam – repairing the world – progressives forget that tikkun olam invokes old fashioned biblical values. The world is to be repaired through principled behavior and morality. Narrow leftwing proclivities are not the same as Judaic principles. Progressive Jews ought to be told that before their allies bend them like a reed into hating regular Jews in the big tent.
The writer is a prolific author of novels and non-fiction, essayist, travel writer and commentator on ‘Enemies of Zion’ which happens also to be the title of his latest book. His works are The Paymaster, 1998; Hadrian’s Echo, 2012; Contributor to ‘War by other means: Israel and its detractors’, 2012; Enemies of Zion, (for publication 2017); and Balaam’s curse ( a novel in progress)
14.Trump calls for investigation into possible wiretapping by Obama
White House calls on Congress to investigate possible spying activities by Obama administration on Trump campaign. By David Rosenberg, Arutz Sheva 05/03/17 22:28
Trump addresses crowd at inauguration concert at the Lincoln Memorial – Reuters
The Trump administration called upon Congress on Sunday to investigate possible interference by the Obama White House of the 2016 US presidential election.
Last week, President Trump accused the Obama administration of spying on his campaign in 2016.
“How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
“Terrible! Just found out Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
“Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!”
An Obama spokesperson denied the charges, but on Sunday, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the Trump administration would seek congressional action in the matter.
“Reports concerning potentially politically motivated investigations immediately ahead of the 2016 election are very troubling,” said Spicer.
“President Donald J. Trump is requesting that as part of their investigation into Russian activity, congressional intelligence committees exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016.”
The congressional investigation, begun in the wake of the 2016 election and claims by US intelligence agencies of Russian attempts to influence the election, has brought increased scrutiny to bear in recent weeks on Trump administration officials’ alleged ties to the Russian government.
In February, National Security Adviser Mike Flynn was forced to resign after his contacts with Russian officials following the November election were revealed. Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself after it was publicized that he had met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice in 2016.
Congressional Democrats contend that Sessions’ omission of the meetings during his hearing confirmation constitutes grounds for dismissal.
But Trump administration officials note that Sessions was serving at the time as a member of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee & regularly met with foreign dignitaries, particularly ambassadors, as part of his committee work.