Gaza War 2014

February 28th, 2017 by Gail Winston | Archived in: Gaza War 2014


Gaza War Diary 8 Tue-Fri. Feb. 28-Mar. 3, 2017 Day 1269-1272 Shabbat Shalom 8 4:30pm

Dear Family & Friends,

Back to cool, cloudy, some rainy weather – warmer with sun tomorrow.

A QUICK CLOSE. Candle lighting is coming in soon.

All the very best, Gail/Geula/Savta/Savta Raba x 2/Mom

2.’Protect our Nation from Radical Islamic Terrorism’ by Robert Spencer

3.Trump’s speech & our infantile Left By Patricia McCarthy

4. Perez, Ellison & The Meaning Of Anti-Semitism By Caroline B. Glick

5.No Holds Barred: Donald Trump & Smear Of Anti-Semitism by Shmuley Boteach

6.Myth: American Ties to Israel Harm US Interests in Muslim Mid East By Hillel Frisch, BESA

7.US Ambassador Nikki Haley’s First Hurrah By Ruthie Blum,

8.Watch “Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks: Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) campaign”

9.Entire Administration turns down J Street anti-Israel group By Daniel Greenfield

10.Are We Refugeed Out Yet? By Daniel Greenfield

11.Palestinians: Why a “Regional Peace Process” Will Fail by Khaled Abu Toameh 12.Dry Bones by Ya’acov Kirschen “Hillary’s Oscar Dream”

1.President Donald Trump Speech to Joint Session Of Congress 2/28/2017 FULL SPEECH:

2.‘Protect our Nation from Radical Islamic Terrorism’ by Robert Spencer

March 1, 2017 Author(s): Robert Spencer Source:

During his speech before the US Congress President Trump stated: “We are also taking strong measures to protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism”

It is astonishing that the President of the United States vowing to protect & defend the American people would be remotely controversial & meet with stony silence & angry stares from one of the nation’s two major political parties (& probably inwardly from a good many establishment Republicans as well), but that is the degenerated state of affairs today.

In any case, one significant aspect of this address was that President Trump reiterated his determination to combat “radical Islamic terrorism” — a formulation is new national security adviser, H. R. McMaster, has explicitly rejected. Questions about whether Trump was retreating from his previously stated determination to discuss honestly the motivating ideology of the enemy, which is an indispensable prerequisite to defeating that enemy, were put to rest for the moment.

Our obligation is to serve, protect & defend the citizens of the United States. We are also taking strong measures to protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism.


According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism & terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country. We have seen the attacks at home, from Boston to San Bernardino to the Pentagon & yes, even the World Trade Center. We have seen the attacks in France, in Belgium, in Germany & all over the world.

It is not compassionate, but reckless to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur.


Those given the high honor of admission to the United States should support this country & love its people & its values. We cannot allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America & we cannot allow our nation to become a sanctuary for extremists.


That is why my administration has been working on improved vetting procedures & we will shortly take new steps to keep our nation safe & to keep those out who will do us harm.


As promised, I directed the Department of Defense to develop a plan to demolish & destroy ISIS, a network of lawless savages that have slaughtered Muslims & Christians, & men, women & children of all faiths & all beliefs. We will work with our allies, including our friends & allies in the Muslim world, to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet.


I have also imposed new sanctions on entities & individuals who support Iran’s ballistic missile program & reaffirmed our unbreakable alliance with the state of Israel.

Share this:

abbi Sacks on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign

‘Protect our Nation from Radical Islamic Terrorism’

IsraPundit by Ted Belman March 1, 2017

3.Trump’s speech & our infantile Left By Patricia McCarthy, American Thinker

T. Belman. Not a word about the peace process. That’s a good thing.

Tuesday’s address to a joint session of Congress was without a doubt the best speech President Donald Trump has ever given, perhaps the best speech to a joint session of Congress since the great Ronald Reagan. But who could watch it & not be embarrassed by our infantile, bitter Left?

It was uplifting, optimistic, full of unifying words & obvious to everyone. The pathetic exception was the Democrats in Congress. Those were the ones who did not boycott the event.

Like spoiled children, who had not gotten their way, they refused to applaud at the most obvious good-for-the-country lines. In fact, they were like a clique of mean girls in middle school who have decided to target one of their own.
They knew what they were hearing was monumental & good for the nation. But consumed in schoolyard jealousy, they got angry, not glad. In doing so, they showed no intention of working “with” President Trump. They are still scrambling for & planning to sabotage him any way they can.

They proved one thing: They do not have America’s best interests at heart.

Is there any member of Congress more horrid than Nancy Pelosi? Her “we’re all wearing white & purple to protest Trump” nonsense means … what? She rolled her eyes, snickered to her seatmates like an ill-mannered child &, of course, refused to stand & applaud, no matter how positive Trump’s words. The Democrats would not applaud or stand when he spoke of government ignorance of the criminal decimation of Chicago, Baltimore & Detroit. They would not applaud when he spoke of protecting American citizens by securing our borders. They would not applaud when he spoke about the companies who have promised to invest billions in U.S. manufacturing which will provide thousands of new jobs, or when he spoke about de-regulating business to unleash the economy. They do not want the economy unleashed; it would expose the dismal failure of the 8 year Obama administration.

The Democrats also refused to approve of his call to enforce our immigration laws. These Leftists favor illegal immigrants over American citizens which is why they institute sanctuary cities. They do not distinguish between the criminals among them and those who commit no crimes. To the left, they are all the same. Yet to normal Americans, they are not.

Nor do our elected Democrats aim to protect & defend the citizens of the United States. They oppose the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” despite the graphic, barbaric actions of ISIS. They do not approve of “extreme vetting” to keep potential terrorists out of America. They would not even applaud Trump’s stated allegiance to & alliance with Israel! Who are these people? By 2/3rds of the way through the speech, it began to seem as though they were enemies of America. Schumer stared into his lap. Steny Hoyer was stone-faced. None of them could applaud Scalia or his proposed replacement, Neil Gorsuch.

Perhaps the deplorable behavior of the Democrats throughout the speech was shame. There are 94 million people out of work, 43 million living in poverty & 43 million on food stamps. This is Obama’s legacy. He transformed American into something it was never meant to be. Iran is building its nukes. Cuba is still a Communist nightmare. The Middle East is a seventh circle of hell. They should be embarrassed by these facts. Poverty has increased. Crime has increased. Maybe that is why they stare at their laps & do not clap. They all know Obama-care is collapsing but can’t cheer Trump’s plan to repeal & replace it with something affordable & that actually provides health care.

The Democrats booed Trump’s new agency, VOICE, Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. God forbid the public should be informed about the tragedies inflicted on innocent Americans by criminal illegals.

We all know the Left hates the military, so of course they sat on their hands as Trump spoke of increasing defense spending. Rebuilding our military after Obama’s evisceration of it is anathema to the Democrats in Congress. They seem to loathe any & all methods of self-defense, be it national or individual. Such has been the State of the Nation for the last 8 years.

For those who initially thought Trump to be comic relief, those who were stunned by his candidacy & his victory, this speech must be a systemic shock; the man is Presidential after all. Let us hope they admit it & readjust their antipathy to something nearing acceptance. Democrats, let the man do his job & get behind him. One more thing, Democrats, grow up! You’re all too old to behave as you did tonight.

Trump’s speech & our infantile Left By Patricia McCarthy

4. Perez, Ellison & The Meaning Of Anti-Semitism By Caroline B. Glick Jerusalem Post/ Opinion 2/27/17 22:55

The Democrats are in a dangerous place for themselves, for the US & for the American Jewish community.

Former US labor secretary Tom Perez.. (Photo credit:Reuters) Was former secretary of labor and assistant attorney-general Tom Perez’s victory over Congressman Keith Ellison over the weekend in the race to serve as the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee a victory of centrist Democrats over radical leftists in the party? That is how the mainstream media is portraying Perez’s victory.
Along these lines, Prof. Allen Dershowitz, a lifelong Democrat who promised to quit the party if Ellison was elected due to his documented history of anti-Semitism & hostility toward Israel, hailed Perez’s election. Speaking to Fox News, Dershowitz said that Perez’s election over Ellison “is a victory in the war against bigotry, anti-Semitism, the anti-Israel push of the hard Left within the Democratic Party.”

There are two problems with Dershowitz’s view. First, Perez barely won. Ellison received nearly half the votes in two rounds of voting.
Tipping his hat to Ellison’s massive popularity among the party’s leadership & grassroots, Perez appointed the former Nation of Islam spokesman to serve as deputy DNC chairman as soon as his own victory was announced.
There is a good reason that Perez is so willing to cooperate with Ellison in running the DNC. And this points to the second problem with the claim that Perez’s election signals a move toward the center by Democratic leaders.
Perez is ready to cooperate with Ellison because the two men have the same ideological worldview & the same vision for the Democratic Party. As Mother Jones explained, “There’s truly not much ideological distance between the two.”
Far from being a victory for the centrist forces in the party, Perez’s win marks the solidification of the far Left’s control over the party of Harry Truman. Only hard Leftists participated in a meaningful way in the race for leadership of the second largest party in America – a party that less than a decade ago controlled the White House & both houses of Congress.
The implications of this state of affairs are disastrous for the US generally. It is inherently destabilizing for a nation when one of the parties in a two-party political system is taken over by people who have a negative view of the country.
While America as a whole will suffer from the radicalization of the Democratic Party, perhaps no group will suffer more from the far Left’s takeover of the party than the American Jewish community. The vast majority of American Jews give their partisan allegiance to the Democratic Party & their ideological allegiance to the Left.
While Perez made a name for himself by fighting the enforcement of US immigration & naturalization laws against illegal immigrants & Ellison rose to prominence for his activism in radical African American & Islamic circles, thanks to the so-called intersectionality of the far Left, that makes the cause of one faction the cause of all factions, today Perez is as much an apologist for Israel bashers as Ellison.
Perhaps in response to the danger that the far Left’s takeover of the Democratic Party represents, Malcolm Hoenlein, the long-serving professional head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations called on Sunday for the convening of a “Global Conference on Anti-Semitism”. In a meeting with The Jerusalem Post’s editorial board, Hoenlein said one of the goals of the proposed conference would be to reach a universally accepted definition of anti-Semitism.
At the same meeting at the Post, Hoenlein insisted that “we can’t afford a split” on Israel among the Republicans & the Democrats.
On the surface, Hoenlein’s position makes sense. Israel & the Jewish community in the US are both endangered by the partisan split. If a broad consensus can be reached on the definition of anti-Semitism, in theory, such a move could force the radical Left, which now controls the Democratic Party, to eschew Jew hatred.
The problem with Hoenlein’s view is that to get everyone on board, it is necessary to pretend that even anti-Semites oppose anti-Semitism.
This sad state of affairs has been on prominent display in the wake of the recent spate of anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish cemeteries in the US. Muslim Americans with records of anti-Semitism have been quick to condemn the attacks.
On the face of it, statements by Ellison, Hamas supporter Linda Sarsour & others condemning the attacks on Jewish cemeteries are welcome. Sarsour’s support for Palestinian mass murderers of Jews & open calls for Israel’s destruction have been ongoing for more than a decade. It’s nice that she is suddenly raising money to repair broken Jewish graves in St. Louis.
The problem is if Sarsour & her Jew hating comrades are viewed as legitimate partners in fighting anti-Semitism, when they themselves are abetting & popularizing anti-Semitism, then the notion of fighting anti-Semitism is destroyed.
If Sarsour, who wrote in 2012 that “nothing is creepier than Zionism,” is a legitimate voice in the fight against anti-Jewish discrimination & violence, then the fight against anti-Jewish discrimination & violence is reduced to farce.
Sarsour, like Ellison, is no fringe figure on the Left. She has become a major mover & shaker in the second party of America. Sarsour was one of the organizers of the anti-Trump women’s protests the day after the president was inaugurated.
Sarsour’s rising prominence in progressive & Democratic circles despite her open support for Hamas shows why it is important today to draw a line in the sand & reject the notion that anti-Semites can suddenly become defenders of Jews.
With each passing day, the Left becomes more open in its embrace of anti-Jewish voices. If Sarsour’s leadership role last month in the anti-Trump women’s protests constituted a new low in progressive politics, a month later the bar has dropped even lower. At the next round of women’s protests, Ramsea Odeh is one of the announced organizers.
Whereas Sarsour simply supports the terrorist murder of Jews, Odeh is an actual terrorist murderer of Jews. Odeh participated in a PLO terrorist attack at a Jerusalem supermarket in 1970 in which two Jews were murdered.
According to Politico, the radical Left’s takeover of the Democratic Party apparatus through Perez & Ellison isn’t enough to satisfy the party’s young activists. They also want for long-serving Democratic lawmakers in Congress to retire & clear the path for their takeover of the Democratic congressional roster.
Following my column last week, where I harshly criticized Senator Robert Menendez for questioning the loyalty of David Friedman, Trump’s ambassador designate to Israel, a number of prominent American Jews insisted that in asking the question Menendez was not embracing the anti-Semitic dual loyalty slur. He was trying to protect Friedman from his more radical Democratic colleagues.
There is good reason to accept their argument. Menendez has a long record of standing up for Israel & he has paid a political price for that support.
The problem is that such justifications of Menendez’s actions indicate that American Jews have already lowered the bar on what constitutes anti-Semitism too far & made defending their own interests all but impossible.
The Democrats are in a dangerous place for themselves, for the US & for the American Jewish community. They will not move back to the center if standards for judging what it means to be anti-Semitic are lowered. The only chance that they will return to their senses is if they are made to choose between the Sarsours of the world & the Dershowitzes. This cannot happen by looking for a consensus on what anti-Semitism means. It can only be done – if it can be done at all – by drawing a line & demanding that it be respected.

Perez, Ellison & The Meaning Of Anti-Semitism By Caroline B. Glick

5.No Holds Barred: Donald Trump & The Smear Of Anti-Semitism By Shmuley Boteach Jerusalem Post Opinion 2/27/17 22:06

When accusing a man of being an anti-Semite, let’s be a bit factual lest we falsely libel friends & label allies as foes.

US President Donald Trump speaks at a press conference. (photo credit:Reuters)

Let’s cut through all the clutter & get straight to the main issues surrounding US President Donald Trump & allegations of anti-Semitism.
Firstly, to suggest that President Trump dislikes Jews would have us believe that he despises his own daughter & grandchildren when precisely the opposite seems to be true. Ivanka seems to be the apple of his eye. Indeed, when his daughter was dating Jared Kushner, an Orthodox Jew from a famously observant family, her father could have easily dissuaded her from converting but instead publicly supported her & threw a kosher wedding. It would also suggest that his strong support for Israel is inauthentic when it’s something he has worn on his sleeve for his entire adult life.

Trump as anti-Semite is not implausible but absurd & libelous.
OK, so Trump is definitely not an anti-Semite. One would even suggest that he’s a philo-Semite. He has surrounded himself with Jews who are his business colleagues, employees & friends. I know Orthodox Jews who have long worked for Trump & say that his respect for the Jewish faith has been exemplary.
But is Trump sending dog whistles to white supremacist supporters who dislike Jews? Was his failure until last week to publicly decry anti-Semitism a result of fear of alienating racist backers?
To answer that we have to identify 2 different varieties of modern anti-Semitism. The first is hatred of Israel & a spoken desire to annihilate the Jewish state. Think of Iran, Hamas & Hezb’Allah who openly call for Holocausts of the Jews. On these threats Trump has thus far been far better than Barack Obama, who legitimized Iran & gave it $150 billion, even while Obama surrogates like Susan Rice admitted that some of that money would go toward murdering innocent people. While Trump was campaigning against the Iran deal, President Obama was literally sending hundreds of millions of dollars in cash by plane to the mullahs, even while they openly referred to Israel as a cancer that must be completely obliterated.
So Trump is definitely not sending any hidden signals to the Israel haters. To the contrary, his strong & vocal support for Israel is a vast improvement on the administration that preceded him.
Indeed, Trump has condemned the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) movement that is infesting Western universities & which Obama was reluctant to openly confront.
Let’s move then to the second kind of anti-Semitism, the much more traditional, good old “I hate Jews” variety that preceded the creation of the State of Israel & is the world’s oldest hatred (& is also the source of hatred for the Jewish state). Is Trump sending signals to its carriers, like white supremacists?
Well, what are those signals? That the Jews control finance & media? In that case, Trump is sending a pretty bad signal by choosing Steve Mnuchin to be Secretary of the Treasury & his son-in-law Jared Kushner as senior adviser. After all, how can you say that Trump is using dog whistles to promote traditional anti-Semitic tropes if he is the one actually perpetuating alleged Jewish control of finance & the reins of power by appointing Jewish individuals to the highest offices in the land?
So clearly, it’s ridiculous to say that Trump is sending any kind of hidden signal, other than “I really respect Jewish people, consider them colleagues & rely on them for some pretty important stuff.”
Take for example the radical & ridiculous attack on Trump by Steven Goldstein of the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect, who said, “Make no mistake: The anti-Semitism coming out of this administration is the worst we have ever seen from any administration. The White House repeatedly refused to mention Jews in its Holocaust remembrance & had the audacity to take offense when the world pointed out the ramifications of Holocaust denial.”
Anti-Semitism coming out of this administration is the worst ever? Who, pray tell, is it coming from? The president’s son-in-law who is an Orthodox Jew & comes from a family famous for its support for Jewish causes? Is it coming perhaps from Jason Greenblatt, another senior adviser to the president who is likewise an Orthodox Jew who is completely involved in Jewish life? Is anti-Semitism coming from David Friedman, Trump’s choice as US ambassador to Israel, who is also Orthodox & huge supporter of Jewish causes?
What we’re left with is this: the Trump administration was late to condemn the rising tide of anti-Semitism in America & the president’s strong condemnation that came last Tuesday at the National Museum of African-American History should have come earlier. That is a legitimate criticism & it is good that the president has now stepped up. Likewise, it was absurd not to focus on the Jewish nature of the Holocaust in the White House statement for Holocaust Remembrance Day. These are valid concerns which the administration must address. Beyond strong statements, the administration should, as Alan Dershowitz recommended, immediately establish a Justice Department task force to investigate the growing threats against Jewish institutions & the vandalism against Jewish cemeteries. These serious matters must be addressed with actions & not just words.
But amid these genuine concerns, people like Goldstein who are throwing hysterics & making the most vile accusations against Trump would do well to ponder that in the previous administration, President Obama never once criticized Iran’s threats of annihilation against the Jewish people. Even while he brought Iran out of decades-old diplomatic isolation & gave the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism $150B. in unfrozen assets, Obama never once demanded that as a precondition to any deal Iran must stop threatening six million Jews in Israel with extermination.

Furthermore, while Obama was abstaining from defending Israel at the UN Security Council against a blatantly anti-Semitic & anti-Israel resolution in the last weeks of his presidency, President-elect Trump was publicly condemning those same resolutions & defending the Jewish state. President Trump has been extremely forceful in warning Iran on their ballistic missile violations, missiles which the Iranians proudly proclaim are aimed at Israel.
So when accusing a man of being an anti-Semite, let’s be a bit factual lest we falsely libel friends & label allies as foes.
The author, “America’s rabbi,” whom The Washington Post calls “the most famous rabbi in America,” is the international bestselling author of 30 books including his most recent “The Israel Warrior”. Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

IsraPundit by Ted Belman March 1, 2017

6.Myth: American Ties to Israel Harm US Interests in Muslim Middle East By Prof. Hillel Frisch, BESA


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Many believe that US financial and military support for Israel harms the interests of the US, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. One way to test this assumption is to explore whether US support for Israel has a negative effect on exports of the US to the countries of the region. It doesn’t. US exports to the region have grown. Fluctuations within that overall growth trend are easily explained by oil prices, the chief source of income of many of the consumer states – not by Israel’s “offenses” against Hezbollah and Hamas.
Modern advanced states and their citizens pride themselves on being scientific and rational, with opinions and convictions that are tested against facts. One widespread conviction among many State Department officials, academics, think tank professionals, and members of the informed public is that US financial and military support for Israel at the UN harms American interests, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. In this region, the majority of states take a dim if not openly hostile view towards Israel.

This is a hypothesis that can be tested. One avenue among many is to see if US support for Israel, which is certainly powerful at the UN and in other international fora, has a negative effect on exports of the US to the countries of the region.

This is a good test, because most states demand that imported goods identify their country of origin on the packaging. This means the purchaser – be it a government or a public or private consumer – has a clear choice whether or not to buy the product. The degree of choice involved is amplified by the fact that there are similar products available for almost all goods exported from the US to the Middle East. These alternative products are produced by other states, some of which vote the same way predominantly Muslim states do at the UN.

One would expect that US exports to the region would be adversely affected in the long run, and especially so during eras of conflagration between Israel and its enemies. These eras are easy to identify. They include the height of the second intifada (2001-04); the month-long Israel-Hezbollah confrontation in June 2006, better known as the second Lebanese War; and the three rounds of hostilities between Israel and Hamas: in December 2008-09, in October 2012, and in July-August 2014 (the longest “war” in the history of Israeli-Arab wars). All these rounds of conflict were extensively reported by the media, the last four by new media as well. Since most exports from the US to MENA are relatively sophisticated, one can safely assume that the buyers of these products from the media-attentive public in their respective countries. In other words, their purchasing choices cannot be said to have reflected their ignorance during and after these bouts of violence.

Surprisingly, it is not easy to chalk up the data. This is because, contrary to popular perception, the Middle East and North Africa is a small consumer market for products made in the US or indeed the rest of the world. Only 5% of total US exports are purchased by this vast region of 21 states. The leading regional importers of US products are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Israel.

Only 1% of investments in the US economy are made by Middle East investors (mostly the sovereign funds of the oil- and gas-producing Arab states). Investors in the US are not particularly keen on investing in the Middle East, which attracts only 1% of their investments. The two leading beneficiaries are Egypt and Israel, the former because it is a relatively large, albeit poor, consumer market; the latter because it is attractive as a high-tech nation.

To investigate whether or not the US suffers by supporting Israel, let us look at the data for exports to OPEC (which includes a minority of non-Muslim countries) and for Saudi Arabia. In neither case is there any indication that US support for Israel has had any effect on Muslim and Arab consumers.

For starters, growth in US exports to the region has characterized the last sixteen years for which there are data. Exports to Saudi Arabia between 1999 and 2015 more than doubled, from US$8.3 billion to US$19.6 billion, and for all OPEC countries, it more than tripled (from US$20.6 billion to US$72.3 billion). The growth rate for both was greater than in other regions except for East Asia (mainly China), where exponential economic growth took place that brought with it a growing ability to buy American products (and of course imports from other countries).

Perhaps the Saudi public reduced its demand for US goods during Israel’s bouts with the Palestinians during the second intifada, or during its clashes with Hezbollah and Hamas? Again, there is little evidence that this occurred. In 2001, US exports slightly increased after a sharp fall in 2000, slightly decreased in 2009 after the first round between Israel and Hamas, increased greatly during the 2012 bout, and decreased again in 2014. The same lack of a political pattern holds true for the OPEC countries as a whole.

It is not politics but world oil prices that explain these yearly fluctuations. When oil prices dropped, so did demand for American products. In 2000, the world economic crisis and low oil prices brought about the drop. An increase in US exports took place the following year, when the world economy and oil prices made a comeback. In 2009, it was the world recession – not the Israel-Hamas standoff – that influenced energy prices and demand for US products. The sharp drop in oil prices from US$110 a barrel to half that in 2014 saw the purchase of American goods tumble by a hefty 25% in Saudi Arabia. The similarity in trends between Saudi Arabia and the OPEC countries, albeit of different magnitude, demonstrates that it was the wiles of the world economy and subsequent fluctuations in oil income that explain the demand for American goods, not politics, and certainly not the Israeli-US relationship.

The widely held conviction that the US’s relationship to Israel harms its interests is a myth. Its persistence relies on premises that no rational educated person should harbor.

Prof. Hillel Frisch is a professor of political studies and Middle East studies at Bar-Ilan University and a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

Myth: American Ties to Israel Harm US Interests in Muslim Middle East By Prof. Hillel Frisch, BESA

7.US Ambassador Nikki Haley’s First Hurrah By Ruthie Blum,

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley (File photo)

“Last Thursday, after her first encounter with the UN Security Council, Ambassador Haley told reporters that she had asked its members to help her understand why, ‘when we have so much going on in the world, why is it that every single month we’re going to sit down & have a hearing where all they do is obsess over Israel?’
Haley went on to describe the meeting, which she called ‘a bit strange,’ as exactly what it was: a forum for bashing the Jewish state…
She pointed to the fact that, ‘incredibly, the UN Department of Political Affairs has an entire division devoted to Palestinian affairs,’ while it has ‘no division devoted to illegal missile launches from North Korea… no division devoted to the world’s number one state-sponsor of terror, Iran.’
The double standards, she said, ‘are breathtaking,’ especially as ‘Israel exists in a region where others call for its complete destruction, and in a world where anti-Semitism is on the rise.’ This ongoing stance at the UN ‘is long overdue for change,’ she said. ‘The United States will not hesitate to speak out against these biases in defense of our friend & ally, Israel.’
“If this was Haley’s first hurrah, it won’t take long for her to take her rightful place alongside, if not surpass the achievements of, a handful of predecessors whose mark was indelible.”

Amb. Nikki Haley’s First Hurrah By Ruthie Blum


Rabbi Sacks on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign

8.Watch “Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks on the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) campaign” on YouTube

March 1, 2017

9.Entire Administration turns down J Street anti-Israel group By Daniel Greenfield, FPM

Anti-Israel hate group J Street tried to get someone, anyone, from the current administration to come to its Israel-bashing fest. While in the past the Soros-funded hate group had been able to count on a star roster of Obama people, this time they’ve been turned down by everyone at the White House.

Even the janitor.

Instead the star of the hatefest will be Bernie Sanders, who backed Jesse Jackson despite his anti-Semitic slurs, and who lied and claimed that Israel had killed 10,000 people.

Joining the senile Socialist will be fresh blood like Nancy Pelosi and Jan Schakowsky. Also assorted representatives of the PLO terror state.

J Street won’t be getting anyone from the Israeli government either. It appears. But they can always invite back some JVP BDS bigots to discuss how they plan to destroy the Jewish State.

Entire Administration turns down J Street anti-Israel group By Daniel Greenfield

10.Are We Refugeed Out Yet? By Daniel Greenfield

28 Feb 2017 12:20 PM PST

More Iraqis live in the US than there are in some major cities in Iraq. 156,000 Iraqi refugees have entered this country in just the last decade. 30,000 of those have ended up in California.
In Obama’s first year in office, the United States resettled three-quarters of Iraqi refugees.

71% of Iraqi refugees are receiving cash assistance. 82% are on Medicaid with 87% on food stamps. Compare those atrocious numbers to only 17% of Cubans on cash assistance & 16% on Medicaid.
It should be obvious why Obama shut the door on Cuban refugees while holding it wide open for Syrian Muslims (closing it tightly on Syrian Christians), Iraqis & Somalis (on 77.4% food stamps.)
President Trump’s migration pause was met with lectures about how much immigrants contribute to the economy. But the immigrants that the Left likes are a drain. If the Left finds immigrants who actually contribute to the economy, it fights tooth & nail to keep them out of the country. Notable Iraqi refugees include Waad Ramadan Alwan & Mohanad Shareef Hammadi.
Alwan & Hammadi were thoroughly vetted before they were resettled in Nevada & Kentucky. The only omission in their thorough vetting was an unfortunate failure to note that the refugees were terrorists who had spent years trying to kill American soldiers in Iraq.
Alwan had boasted that of how he had “f___d up” Hummers using IEDs & admitted to having taken part in an attack that killed Americans. He had even left his fingerprints on an IED in Iraq. But the “thorough” vetting had failed to turn that up.
Alwan & Hammadi tried to send grenade launchers, plastic explosives, missiles & machine guns to the branch of Al Qaeda that became ISIS. Meanwhile the Al Qaeda in Iraq plotter had quit his job, was living in public housing & collecting public assistance. Like so many other “refugees”.
Law enforcement was soon on the trail of dozens of terrorists who had arrived here as refugees.

The media has had a field day mocking Kellyanne Conway for referencing the fact that this Iraqi refugee terror plot resulted in a 6 month Iraqi immigration pause under Obama. No “Bowling Green Massacre” took place because the FBI was on to the 2 terrorists. Hammadi had been caught on tape discussing a domestic terror attack where “many things should take place & it should be huge.”
Mocking Conway for misspeaking helpfully distracts attention from the massacre that nearly was.
Alwan and Hammadi were far from the last Iraqi refugee terrorists.
Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan came here as a refugee. When the FBI searched his Houston apartment, agents found an ISIS flag. Hardan had been planning to leave bombs in the trash cans of 2 Houston malls. He had also been contemplating an attack on Grand Prairie military base in Texas.
Hardan had been chatting with Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, another Iraqi refugee, over in California. Al-Jayab had come as a refugee through Syria, then began plotting to join a terrorist group on his first month here. He headed back to spend some time fighting with Islamic terrorists who later were linked to ISIS. 2 of his brothers & a cousin were also arrested for smuggling stolen cell phones.
Al-Hamzah Mohammad Jawad, an Iraqi refugee from Michigan, was arrested while trying to join ISIS. Abdullatif Ali Aldosary set off a bomb outside a Social Security office in Arizona. The authorities found plenty of bomb-making materials in his home. He was also accused of a murder that had taken place a few days before the bombing & had previously been sent to jail for harassment. His case had been put on hold for “terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility”, but he still couldn’t be deported.
Then there are the Special Immigrant Visas for Iraqi nationals who provided services to American forces. During the recent controversy, they’ve been depicted as heroes who helped us fight terrorism.
The reality is a lot more complicated.
Bilal Abood was a translator who came here on an SIV visa. He even briefly joined the army. On the surface he was exactly the sort of refugee that the media likes to depict as the ideal immigrant.
But Abood was also a member of ISIS. America was the “enemy of Allah”, he insisted.
Even when the Iraqi SIVs weren’t joining ISIS, they were doing other terrible things. Jasim Mohammed Hasin Ramadon & Ali Mohammed Hasan Al Juboori came to America with SIV visas.
Ramadon had even been dubbed a hero.

Then Ramadon, Juboori & 3 other Iraqi refugees brutally assaulted a 53-year-old Colorado Springs night nurse. When the police arrived at the scene of the Iraqi refugee sexual assault, they found blood splattered on the walls.
The Iraqi refugee rapists lured in their victim by complaining about how hard it was living in America & being called terrorists. She took pity on them because they reminded her of her son.
By the time the Iraqi refugees were done, she had been violated & left near death.
Ahmed Bahjat came here as a refugee from Iraq. He tried to leave by taking a plane to Canada after he “viciously sexually assaulted” a woman in Connecticut. Salam Al Haideri also came here as a refugee. He raped a 4’11 teenager behind a “I Love NY” pizza place dumpster while slamming her head into the ground. The Iraqi refugee’s teenage 96-pound victim was left with broken ribs & a fractured nose.
Al Haideri was the third refugee to be convicted of a sex crime in the area.
Walid Nehma, another Iraqi refugee, also assaulted a woman in Albany County. After taking photos of women in local bars, he followed her, hit her in the face, tore off her clothes & tried to rape her.
Khalid Fathey had also received asylum after working with American authorities in Iraq. The Iraqi refugee molested a little girl & warned her not to tell anyone. He fled trial by taking a flight to Dubai.
Kassim Alhimidi, an Iraqi refugee, murdered his wife in California & tried to blame it on American “Islamophobes.”

Wisam Fadhil, an Iraqi refugee, stabbed his wife to death in Kentucky while their 8-year-old child slept in the room. He had previously assaulted a man at a gym. Do we need more of this?
Iraq is a failed state. Before we intervened, it was held together by torture, terror & genocide. Now the only things holding it together are torture, terror & genocide. We should take Christian refugees fleeing Muslim conflicts in Iraq, but we shouldn’t import its Islamic culture of violence.
America has done far more than its share. We have opened our doors to Iraqi refugees. In return, the people of this land were exposed to terror & horrific refugee crimes. Enough is enough.

There is a very rational solution to our immigration problem. Instead of taking in the refugees most likely to collect welfare or plant a bomb in a shopping mall, we should take those immigrants most likely to contribute to our economy & least likely to behead us while screaming, “Allah Akbar”.
Don’t call it a ban. Call it common sense immigration reform. Because that is exactly what it is.
We have the statistics. We know what works. All we need to do is start putting America first.

Are We Refugeed Out Yet? By Daniel Greenfield

11.Palestinians: Why a “Regional Peace Process” Will Fail by Khaled Abu Toameh 2/27/17 at 5:00 am

§ Many Palestinians sometimes refer to Arab leaders and regimes as the “real enemies” of the Palestinians. They would rather have France, Sweden, Norway & Belgium oversee a peace process with Israel than any of the Arab countries.

§ Hani al-Masri, a prominent Palestinian political analyst, echoed this skepticism. He, in fact, believes the Arabs want to help Israel “liquidate” the Palestinian cause.

§ The Jordanians are worried that a “regional solution” would promote the idea of replacing the Hashemite kingdom with a Palestinian state. Former Jordanian Minister of Information Saleh al-Qallab denounced the talk of a “regional conference” as a “poisonous gift & conspiracy” against Jordan & the Palestinians.

§ The Lebanese have for decades dreamed of the day they could rid themselves of the Palestinian refugee camps & their inhabitants, who have long been subjected to apartheid & discriminatory laws.

§ Israel as a Jewish state is anathema to Palestinian aspirations. Any Arab or Palestinian leader who promotes such compromise is taking his life in his hands. Palestinian history will record him as a “traitor” who sold out to the Jews & surrendered to American & Israeli pressure.

§ Abbas & his Ramallah cohorts are already up at night worrying about the talking between Israel & some Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia & other Gulf states. Such “normalization”, in the view of the PA, is to be reserved for after Israel submits to its demands.

§ Any “regional solution” involving Arab countries would be doomed to fail because the Palestinians & their Arab brethren hate each other. Any solution offered by the Arab governments will always be regarded as an “American-Zionist dictate.”

§ Here is what Palestinians really want: to use the Europeans to impose a “solution” on Israel.

Here is a fundamental misapprehension: Arab countries can help achieve peace in the Middle East by persuading, or rather pressuring, the Palestinians to make concessions to Israel.

This misapprehension is both misleading & baseless.

Recently, officials in Israel & Washington started talking about a “regional approach” to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this view, as many Arab countries as possible would be directly involved in the effort to achieve a lasting & comprehensive peace agreement between Israel & the Palestinians. Advocates of the “regional approach” believe that Arab countries such as Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Qatar & Saudi Arabia have enough leverage with the Palestinians to compel them accept a peace agreement with Israel.

The Palestinians, however, were quick to dismiss the idea as yet another American-Israeli-Arab “conspiracy to liquidate” their cause & force them to make unacceptable concessions. Chief among these “unacceptable concessions” are recognizing Israel as a Jewish state & giving up the demand for a “right of return” for millions of Palestinian refugees into Israel.

What the recent Washington-Israeli notion misses is that Palestinians simply do not trust their Arab brothers. The Palestinians consider most of the Arab leaders & regimes as “puppets” in the hands of the US & “Zionist” allies. Worse, Many Palestinians sometimes refer to Arab leaders & regimes as the “real enemies” of the Palestinians. They would rather have France, Sweden, Norway & Belgium oversee a peace process with Israel than any of the Arab countries.

Palestinian leaders would rather have France, Sweden, Norway & Belgium oversee a peace process with Israel than any of the Arab countries. Palestinians simply do not trust their Arab brothers. Pictured: French President François Hollande (L) hugs Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a press conference in Ramallah, on 11/18/13. (Source: Oren Ziv/Getty Images)

In general, Palestinians have more confidence in Western countries than in their Arab brothers. That’s why the Palestinian Authority (PA) headed by Mahmoud Abbas continues to insist on an international conference as its preferred method for achieving peace in the region & not a “regional approach” that would give Arab countries a major role in solving the conflict. Arab involvement in a peace process with Israel is, the last thing Abbas & other Palestinians want.

Hani al-Masri, a prominent Palestinian political analyst, echoed this skepticism concerning a potential role for Arab countries in the Middle East peace process. He, in fact, believes the Arabs want to help Israel “liquidate” the Palestinian cause.

He also predicted that the recent rapprochement between Israel & some Arab countries would embolden “all opposition & jihadist groups” that are fighting against the Arab regimes. According to al-Masri, it is not even clear that any Arab states, especially Israel’s neighbors, are keen on a “regional solution.” The Jordanians, for example, are worried that a “regional solution” would promote the idea of replacing the Hashemite kingdom with a Palestinian state.

Echoing this fear, former Jordanian Minister of Information Saleh al-Qallab denounced talk of a “regional conference” as a “poisonous gift & conspiracy” against Jordan & the Palestinians.

The Egyptians, for their part, are worried that a “regional approach” would mean giving up land from Sinai to the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip — a highly unpopular idea in Egypt. The Egyptians have good reason to be worried: some Arab leaders & countries have expressed interest in this idea.

Likewise, the Lebanese are worried that a “regional solution” would force their country to grant full citizenship & equal rights to hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees living in that country. The Lebanese have for decades dreamed of the day they could rid themselves of the Palestinian refugee camps & their inhabitants, who have long been subjected to apartheid & discriminatory laws.

Another adjacent state, Syria, is far too preoccupied with own implosion to think about peace between the Palestinians & Israel. Besides, when have the Syrians ever expressed concern for the Palestinians? Since the beginning of the civil war 5 years ago, more than 3,400 Palestinians have been killed & thousands injured. In addition, more than 150,000 Palestinians have been forced to flee Syria to neighboring Arab countries or Europe. The Syrian regime does not care about its own people, who are being massacred in large numbers daily. Why, then, might it be expected to care about Palestinians? It would be a Syrian nightmare to resettle Palestinians & grant them full rights & citizenship. Like most Arab countries, Syria just wants its Palestinians to disappear.

Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon & Syria are rather wary about a “regional solution”. No wonder: it poses a massive threat to their national security. So, which Arab countries would help to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Saudi Arabia? Qatar? Kuwait? Oman? Tunisia? Morocco? Really?

Israel as a Jewish state is anathema to Palestinian aspirations. No Arab leader in the world can persuade the Palestinians to give up the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees or accept a solution that allows Israel to retain control over certain parts of the West Bank & East Jerusalem. Any Arab or Palestinian leader who promotes such compromise is taking his life in his hands. Palestinian history will record him as a “traitor” who sold out to the Jews & surrendered to American & Israeli pressure.

Moreover, Abbas & the Palestinian Authority are far from interested in any Arab-Israeli rapprochement. Abbas & his Ramallah cohorts are already up at night worrying about the talking between Israel & some Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia & other Gulf states. This is “normalization” — plain & simple. Such “normalization”, in the view of the PA, is to be reserved for after Israel submits to its demands.

Abbas’s foreign minister, Riad al-Malki, made it clear this week that the Palestinians reject the idea of a “regional solution”– that would give Arabs a role in the peace process. Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu, he said, was mistaken to think rapprochement between Israel & some Arab countries would produce anything good. Al-Malki denounced Netanyahu’s “regional approach” as a “twisted” policy, adding: “Netanyahu thinks that by establishing ties with Arab governments he could force the Palestinians to enter negotiations with Israel.” According to him, the Palestinians wish to see the Europeans & not the Arabs, at their side when they “negotiate” with Israel.

The Palestinian foreign minister is saying that the Palestinians would rather have the Europeans in their court than their Arab brothers when it comes to trying to squeeze the life out of Israel. The Palestinians think that this is a better bet.

In any event, any “regional solution” involving Arab countries would be doomed to fail because the Palestinians & their Arab brethren hate each other. Moreover, even if Abbas were to accept terms dictated to him by such an alliance, his own people would reject them. Any solution offered by the Arab governments will always be regarded as an “American-Zionist dictate.”

Here is what Palestinians really want: to use the Europeans to impose a “solution” on Israel. That is why Abbas sticks to the idea of an international conference like a dog that holds for dear life onto his bone.

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.

  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone.

Bottom of Form

Related Topics: Israel, Palestinian Authority & Recent Articles by Khaled Abu Toameh

Palestinians: Why a “Regional Peace Process” Will Fail by Khaled Abu Toameh

Dry Bones blog updates


12.Dry Bones by Ya’acov Kirschen “Hillary’s Oscar Dream”

As a cartoonist, sometimes it’s nice to just go for a laugh!


Israel Resource News Agency/Center for Near East Policy Research

+972-547-222-661 Twitter: @DavidBedein


Skype: david.bedein2

My book, GENESIS OF THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY hits Amazon this week. ​

300 of my carefully documented articles ​show that the PA maintains a singular purpose​:

Total war to wipe out the State of Israel – by all means ​possible.​

There are those who remember ‘yours truly’ from 40 years ago ​who ​​will recall that

I was ​active in ​the cause ​to form a Palestinian Arab state.

​​ What happened?

I went for an MSW in community organization social work & began to dialogue with the PLO ​…and opened an agency which covers the​”offspring​” of the PLO, the Palestinian Authority, which ​do​es not mince words in terms of its purpose.​

​​ To paraphrase a wonderful teacher, Dr. Mike Rosenak z”l, who coined the expression: “Never Make Ideological Assumptions Based on Someone Else’s Reality”


14.Trump Is Not An Anti-Semite, Says Hoenlein By Greer Fay Cashman In meeting with ‘Post’ editorial staff, Presidents’ Conference CEO calls on PM to reach out to Democrats. 2/27/17 00:55

PM Binyamin Netanyahu & Malcolm Hoenlein, CEO for Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations

Malcolm Hoenlein discusses anti-Semitism in the US Malcolm Hoenlein, CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, has dismissed as “ridiculous” allegations that US President Donald Trump is an anti-Semite.
Trump, the Jews & the political weaponization of anti-Semitism Donald Trump & American Jews: The first good week?
Hoenlein pointed to the number of Jews on the president’s staff as an indication of Trump’s objectivity where Jews are concerned.
Hoenlein, who came to Israel last week after visiting other countries in the region, called for a world conference on anti-Semitism for the purpose of mobilizing a global campaign against all forms of racism.

[Gail Sez: See Winston International Conference under the Winston Institute for the Study of Prejudice. To say that all groups are ‘prejudiced’ against & should therefore join to fight all prejudice – so that when your group is maligned ‘they’ will be there to ally with & help you & your group!! The Winston Institute for the Study of Prejudice was established at Bar Ilan University & ran for 5 years, holding 2 International Conferences in Jerusalem.]
He [Hoenlein] declined to attribute the wave of anti-Semitism currently rocking America to the Trump election campaign or certain members of Trump’s cabinet, underscoring this by stating that there are people in the cabinet with long records of being pro-Israel.
Anti-Semitism in America was on the rise long before Trump announced he was running for president, he said.
Hoenlein also emphasized that Trump was proceeding with his pledge to fight hatred & incitement, just as he promised when on the campaign trail. Moreover, the Palestinian incitement issue was getting more attention than before.
“The Palestinians have too often gotten away with it, and people are now saying that [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas has to be held to account,” Hoenlein said.
As for the proposed world conference on anti-Semitism, he said he wanted to hear world leaders say that anti-Semitism was not acceptable.
“If you fight anti-Semitism successfully, you can fight all forms of racism,” he explained.
One of the purposes of the conference would be to formulate a universal definition of anti-Semitism so that people will be held accountable when Jews come under attack.
The anti-Semitism of today cannot be treated as something we can live with, said Hoenlein, insisting that there be zero tolerance for it on university campuses, in the entertainment industry & elsewhere.
“It must be treated like all other forms of racism & bigotry,” he said, adding: “I want people in America to act before it becomes like Europe.”
Hoenlein also touched on changes in attitudes in the Middle East, saying Israel is widely seen as the region’s great hope against a common enemy, Iran. He also mentioned US-Israel relations, the anti-Israel bias at the United Nations, transformations in organized American Jewry & the future of Jonathan Pollard.
On the subject of US-Israel relations, Hoenlein thought Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting in Washington with Trump on February 15 conveyed an important message to the region about a “reset” in the relationship.
However, he cautioned Netanyahu to reach out to Democrats to ensure that the bi-partisan support of America for Israel remains intact.
“We can’t afford a split,” he said.
He also opined that “the United Nations has to be more honest and less biased if the organization is to be effective.”
As for organized American Jewry, he explained that prior to World War II the community had outstanding individual Jews as its leaders, whereas after the war, the leadership became more institutional & “collectivized” leadership.
The President’s Conference, he said, began with 6 organizations & now includes 56.

Malcolm Hoenlein discusses anti-Semitism in the US

15.US security guarantees & Constitutional limits by Amb. (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

Yoram will be in the US in March, May and August, 2017, available for speaking engagements.

15.US security guarantees & Constitutional limits, a 6 minute video
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
YouTube 6-minute-video on-line seminar on US-Israel and the Mideast

Video#36:; Entire mini-seminar:

1. US-Israel defense cooperation should be driven by the enhancement of the mutually-beneficial, win-win, two-way-street ties, not by the re-introduction of one-way-street relations, which would burden the US and increasing the dependency of Israel upon the US. The proposal to extend, to Israel, US security guarantees – including a defense pact and a peacekeeping force – in exchange for Israel’s retreat from the historically and militarily critical, dominant mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, ignores the inherently ineffective track record of such (open-ended) US guarantees, the provisions of the US Constitution, which enables US presidents to avoid full implementation of the guarantees, and the US public opposition – especially since the military involvement in Vietnam and then Iraq and Afghanistan – to the stationing of US troops abroad.

2. According to a November 15, 2001 Department of Justice memo to the White House National Security Council, irrespective of international law and consistent with the US Constitution, the President has the constitutional, discretionary authority to terminate, or suspend, unilaterally, fully or partly, the 1972 USA-USSR ABM Treaty – the limitation of anti-ballistic missile systems – without seeking coordination with Congress, and certainly not with the USSR, whenever the President determines that it is in the national interest to do so.

3. In 1979, President Carter unilaterally terminated/abrogated the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan, upon the establishment of diplomatic relations with China. Such a presidential prerogative was also asserted by Presidents Madison, McKinley, Wilson, Coolidge, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and recently by Carter and Reagan. Thus, in 1986, Reagan suspended the ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, US) Pact security obligations to New Zealand, and in 1985, he terminated the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with Nicaragua.

4. The London Economist wrote on March 9, 2015: “Article 5 [of the NATO Treaty] stipulates that the response [to aggression against a member state] may include armed force, but it does not mandate it. All that NATO actually promises is to take ‘such action as it deems necessary’ to restore and maintain security. That could be anything from nuclear war to a stiff diplomatic protest…. The Baltics argue that an attack on them would mean an all-out East-West confrontation…. But Article 5 does not specify such a response…. Many eastern NATO members worry, since it is hard to imagine a US president risking nuclear war to defend a tiny country half a world away…. What might count locally as an intolerable assault on the Baltic States’ sovereignty may not be seen in NATO headquarters as an ‘armed attack’…. All the strength of the world’s mightiest military alliance will not amount to much if its members cannot agree when an aggressor has actually stepped over the line….”

5. According to Hebrew University Prof. of international relations, Michla Pomerance: “A treaty can never entail more than a contingent and tentative promise to use force in the future; execution of the promise requires further specific authorization by Congress. Otherwise, the treaty-makers – the President and 2/3 of the Senate – would be unconstitutionally usurping the war-making powers of Congress (the 1973 War Powers Act, which passed over a presidential veto)…. Past American defense commitments… are generally characterized by vagueness, non-specificity and the explicit denial of any automatic obligation to use force… to keep the US options open and its absolute discretion intact in deciding whether, and how, to redeem its promise….

6. In 1967, President Johnson invoked constitutional and congressional non-compliance with the 1957 Eisenhower’s-Dulles’ assurances to Israel, in response to Egyptian violations of the ceasefire and demilitarization accords. Johnson said: “I’m a tall Texan, but without Congress, I’m a short president.”

7. “Any commitment must be interpreted and applied by the President. And, the line between interpretation and breach, evasion and non-execution may be thin indeed. What constitutes ‘interpretation’ for the promisor may well be seen as ‘breach’ by the promisee. Evasion by means of interpretation would not be a difficult task. Recent legislative restrictions on presidential war-making could readily be cited as additional justification for non-execution or evasion…. The violation of international law by the US president is not proscribed by the Constitution…. A president’s decision to execute – or not to execute – an international commitment depends on his own – not the promisee’s – assessment of the domestic and international political and military environment. Every US international commitment allows for future non-implementation, consistent with US interests and the US Constitution.”

8. Against the backdrop of the US Constitution and past US security guarantees and defense pacts, it is clear that US security guarantees, with or without troops on Israel’s borders – in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal from the dominant mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria – would create a short-term false sense of peace and security, while dramatically eroding Israel’s posture of deterrence in the Middle East, transforming Israel’s image in the US from a role-model of strategic ally to a feeble dependent, undermining US-Israel relations, injuring US reliability and power-projection, and therefore fueling Middle East turbulence, damaging US interests and causing another setback to the cause of peace.

9. The next video will highlight the systematic blunders of the Department of State, Foggy Bottom.

Yoram Ettinger, Jerusalem, Israel, “Second Thought: US-Israel Initiative,”

US security guarantees & Constitutional limits, a 6 minute video by Amb. (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

16.The West is exhausted. Islam is not By Giulio Meotti

We don’t live in nations, but in societies. Nothing is worth dying for. Arutz Sheva 03/03/17 08:10

Giulio Meotti, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a twice-weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book “A New Shoah”, that researched the personal stories of Israel’s terror victims, published by Encounter and of “J’Accuse: the Vatican Against Israel” published by Mantua Books.. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage and Commentary.

The best analysis of the state of Western weakness was published by an Arab newspaper recently. I am not joking. It is an article run by The National, an Arab Emirate newspaper, and it is authored by Sholton Byrnes. He writes about the Munich Security Conference which exposed European nerviness about the Trump administration’s fragile commitment to NATO. “Does the West deserve to survive?” asks Byrnes.

Militarily, Europe is weak and in retreat: while the US spends 3.6 per cent of GDP on defence, only five NATO countries meet the 2% of GDP threshold all member states are supposed to commit. Europe is an unreliable ally also when it comes to foreign policy. “They may have good reason to voice reservations, such as when France stood against the disastrous invasion of Iraq”, says Byrnes. “Still, many Americans clearly resented the lack of support, as the designation of the French as ‘cheese-eating surrender monkeys’ & of French fries as ‘freedom fries’ in the House of Representatives cafeteria showed.”

In short, Europe will have to start pulling its weight. “It will be objected that the definition of the West consists of far more than the security alliance that underpins it. Does it not also mean Shakespeare & Schopenhauer, liberal democracy, a progressive interpretation of human rights, all springing from the soil of centuries of Roman-Judaeo-Christian tradition? The West was once the inheritor of Christendom. Today, it is not entirely sure what it is, with many voices violently clashing over their views of what it should be. It lacks the certainty in its own civilisation that Russia & China, for instance, possess. If it is too tired or unwilling to defend itself, the US will survive for sure; but the concept of ‘the West’ will have dissolved through the apathy of societies who will have shown they have no courage –& not many convictions either.”

We hide under the banner of international law & of perpetual peace, two evanescent myths, the renunciation of the justification to fight and to kill when necessary.
Byrnes points at the deeper phenomenon with which we have been dealing: the West is tired. I am not talking about the gurus who have prophesied an economic decline. No, we are truly morally exhausted, we live off of technology & services. We are all potential retirees. The words that count for us are volunteering, solidarity, equality, hospitality, vacation, social protection, insurance, welfare, right to health.

Islamic extremists smile at us with words such as discipline, obedience, tradition, orthodoxy, valor, loyalty, honor. We are irritated by the very idea of ​​a common civilization. We cultivate the libertarian suggestion of living habits inspired by self-interest, to an individualism that dissolves only in the swarm.

We are exhausted, Islam is not. We hide under the banner of international law & perpetual peace, two evanescent myths, the renunciation of the justification to fight & to kill when necessary.

We don’t live in nations, but in societies. These are characterized by life as the supreme good. In this context, peace becomes the supreme goal, whatever it costs. Peace in the sense of “leave us in peace”.

It is still possible that the existential self-defense of the Jews of Israel & the combative reaction of the Americans will turn things around. But I would not count on Western Europe.

The West wants to be left alone.

The West is exhausted. Islam is not


Avast logo

About the Author

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

Leave a Reply