April 30, 2014

The ominous feeling of danger - Avi

May 1, 2014 - Diaspora

Update from the Galut.

1)   Anti-Semitism is on the rise...everywhere
2)   Muslims are taking over Europe...baby by baby and immigrant by immigrant as you read this!
3)   The so called "Flotilla" to provide aid to the so called "Palestinians"
4)   Obama is the POTUS and is clearly anti-Israel
5)   The economy in the US is grinding to a slow methodical halt.
6)   The Government of Israel remains feckless and secular.
7)   Assimilation seems to be increasing...
8)   Muslims are using Western and Democratic laws to gain a foothold in the US. The birthrate concept, could threaten this Democracy.
9)   The divisions in Judaism are clearly helping Assimilation.
10) The issue in the Galut of the US - "American Jew" or "Jewish American" seems to be based solely on the belief in HaShem. Whether or not I follow the statutes 100%...has personal consequences. As a Jewish American I care about Israel and want a non secular Government ...even if it will affect me if (when)  I make Aliyah...by setting rules that may require me to be more Observant! I welcome the LAWS!
11) Iran remains the largest threat to the entire World and Israel is clearly it's first target.
12) The Anti-Semitism that is here is beneath the surface...not to far beneath. There are probably more people who are not racist...but there are so many more people in general...that there are more racists as well.
13) The black community in the US are not only driving while Black...they are (fill in the blank ) while Black.
Generally speaking even though Black people in the US do not consider Jews to be White...we are certainly not their friend or ally.
14) Xtians want us gathered to Israel for the Rapture, Hezbollah wants us gathered to make the targeting easier, Baptists want us Baptist , Presbo's want us gone, Employers still want us as Lawyers, Accountants and Dr's, Jewish Americans want Moshiach to come, Amercan Jews want us all to get along, PEACE at all costs (including Israel) and so on.

15) The more I look at the Map in the US the more I see where we live..and I know why. The Southern Jews are mostly in Fl, becasue we all know that Fl is not part of the south...the rest are nuts.
16) The more we try to hold our culture in the US...the more we will be accused of...of...of.... not Assimilating and have our loyalty questioned!

 So it is a lose, lose....If we Assimilate...we become extinct and if we don't Assimilate there will be many who want to make us extinct.

The World is clearly against Israel.
Based on belief in Hashem and the Redemption....this is the way it is supposed to be before Moshiach comes.

So what will happen in the Galut? Will it start here first?

I am ready for the worm hole unless I make Aliyah soon!

Baruch Hashem
Payback will be a B*tch


"Why Israel is Retreating" - Paul Eidelberg

 Israel is constantly retreating.

Why?  Is it U.S. pressure?  What prevents Israel from standing up to pressure?  There may be several answers to this question, but I dare say the decisive answer is this:

Israel's policy-makers and opinion-makers—politicians and political analystshave removed God and the Sinai Covenant from the domain of statecraft. Israel's ruling elites have therefore emasculated themselves and eroded the Jewish people's confidence in the justice of Israel's cause.  This is not the case of Arab rulers, and that's why they are advancing.

Stated another way: Whereas Israeli politicians and political analysts view the conflict between Jews and Arabs in political terms, Israel's enemies view the conflict in religious or theological terms.  As a consequence, Israel's elites—soft, secular, liberal democrats—believe that the conflict between Jews and Arabs can be resolved by negotiations and mutual concessions. In contrast, the Arabs—hard rock religious autocrats—may agree to engage in negotiations, but their Quran precludes them from reaching any lasting agreement with "infidels" based on compromise or "reciprocity."

Now, you don't have to be religious to understand that compromising with an uncompromising foe is self-defeating.  But if you lack religious convictions and the courage of such convictions —the case of Israeli elites— you're likely to succumb to a smug political "realism" even though such realism is demonstrably unrealistic in the Arab-Israel conflict.

Furthermore, once politicians and political analysts have pursued and construed the Arab-Israel conflict in secular or political terms—and have done so year after year—it would be extremely difficult for them to change their language of discourse and adopt a religious or meta-political approach to the conflict. It needs to be stressed, however, that their failure to change their secular "peace process" rhetoric has pernicious consequences.

First of all, their pliant political language encourages Arabs to persist in their religious objective, to destroy Israel.  Second, their merely political approach induces the people of Israel to believe that by making territorial concessions to the enemy, "reciprocity" will follow and thus lead, eventually, to an end of the conflict. 

Gulled by their political and intellectual leaders, Israelis do not understand that reciprocity is impossible!  It's impossible because the Arabs can offer no equivalent to Jewish territory—nothing more than words on a piece of paper.  But while Israeli politicians and political analysts persist in omitting God from public discourse—omitting, therefore, Israel's God-given right to the Land of Israel—they render the people of this country more inclined to support territorial concessions to the enemy, thus risking their survival.

Now, in contrast to Israel's secular elites, who minimize the all-important religious dimension of the Arab-Israeli conflict, consider their Arab counterparts.  Thus, even before the Six-Day War, one Arab commentator declared:  "The propagandists of secularism, who leave out of account the religious factor in the Palestine problem, ignore the fact that this is the only bone of contention in the world which has persisted for thirty centuries ..." Another Arab spokesman avowed: "... apart from the political conflict, there is a basic philosophical and spiritual incompatibility between the two contending nationalism's.  Even if all political disputes were to be resolved, the two movements, Zionism and Arab Nationalism, would remain, spiritually and ideologically, worlds apart--living in separate 'universes of discourse' which are incapable of communication or meaningful dialogue." 

These Arabs are serious—something that cannot be said of Israel's secular elites who, even if they recognize Islam's genocidal objectives, fail to adjust their policies and analysis to the theological reality of the Middle East.  

They fail to see that Israel's only realistic approach is to sanctify God's Name, that is, to go on the offensive by emphasizing the Sinai Covenant, which alone that can inspire and solidify the Jewish people on the one hand, and justify as well as perpetuate Jewish possession of Eretz Israel on the other.

'Religion more expedient than history' - Obadiah Shoher

       The Jewish state is not treated equally to other states. She is lambasted for
minor or imagined transgressions while normal states wage wars for dubious
reasons, grossly violate human rights, and slaughter masses of enemy

        With 80% of the UN’s Human Rights Commission’s resolutions
devoted to Israel, there is no doubt she is singled out for prosecution.

       The modern view of Jews as less than normal people is rooted in the Holocaust.
Having been slaughtered like sheep, Jews are viewed as little more than a herd.
Add to that the contempt state officials felt for a stateless people, and the
contempt they later felt for citizens of a town-sized state perpetually in
danger of annihilation. Consider also the biting moral dilemma: human and
Christian sensitivities suggest supporting the Jews, but realism calls for
siding with their numerous and oil-rich Muslim adversaries.

       Jews, accordingly, are viewed as pets, in need of international protection,
counseling, and guardianship. That attitude solves the moral dilemma: under the
guise of guiding Jews to observe their best interests, Israel is pushed toward
capitulation to the Arabs. It is sort of like wicked relatives scattering the
insane rich man’s property while professing to manage it for him. The moral
dilemma also fosters hatred: no one likes to act immorally, and so everyone
demonizes the object of his immorality instead. For Europeans, declaring
Israelis to be evil assuages their Holocaust guilt, slight as it is.

       From the beginning, other nations did not view the Israeli state as something
Jews were entitled to like other people. To be sure, in a world of nation-states
(rather than city-states), most ethnic groups lack a state, but presumably Jews
are sufficiently distinct to be left alone in their own state. During the UNSCOP
deliberations (October 17, 1947), only the Norwegian delegate defended the
Jewish right to a state based on our connection to this land. All the others,
more or less explicitly, saw the partition as an affirmative action to rectify
the wrongs done to Jews and eliminate the need for such wrongs in future by
transferring them to the Middle East. Recipients of affirmative action benefits
cannot be too choosy or demanding. Everything they gain is seen as a concession.
Arabs have rights; Israelis are accorded benefits. International tolerance of
the “excessive” affirmative action offered to Jews is less than what
Americans accord to their blacks. The difference is this: Afro-Americans are
basically integrated into their society while Jews remain different in the
world's society. More benefits are due to one’s own than to an odd crowd.

       Israelis had the bad sense to exacerbate the no-right-to-a-state attitude by
avoiding religious rhetoric. The Jewish right to Jerusalem and Judea is
indisputable on religious grounds, but extremely weak on historical ones, as
many peoples have been displaced from their original homeland. Israeli leaders
did even worse when arguing for territorial acquisitions based on security
concerns: obviously, Palestinians today cannot wipe out Israel. The
international community counters Israeli security concerns easily, and pushes
her to make concessions.

       The Israeli state had a hard time coming into being because neither Jews nor
foreigners believed Jews have a right to this land. Uncertain of their right,
Jews didn't press for a nationally homogenous state within defensible borders
like other independence-seeking nations did, but accepted a ghetto-sized state
which, naturally for a ghetto, offered only temporary safety.

Eve of Destruction (Song - Updated version)

Middle Eastern world, it is exploding,
Persian Nukes and Homicide Bombers explodin'
You're old enough to kill, but not for votin'
You don't believe in war, but what's that gun you're totin'
And even the Mediterranean has bodies floatin'

But you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don't believe
We're on the eve
of Moshiach.

Don't you understand what I'm tryin' to say
Can't you feel the fears I'm feelin' today?
If the button is pushed, there's no runnin' away
There'll be no one to save, with the world in a grave
[Take a look around ya boy, it's bound to scare ya boy]

And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don't believe
We're on the eve
 of Moshiach.

Yeah, my blood's so mad feels like coagulatin'
I'm sitting here just contemplatin'
I can't twist  the truth, it knows no regulation.
Handful of MK's don't pass legislation
And marches alone couldn't stop the expulsion
When human respect is disintegratin'
This upside-down world is just too frustratin'

And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don't believe
We're on the eve 
of Moshiach.

Think of all the hate there is in Islam
Then take a look around at US Mosques
You may leave Israel for a trip to the US
But when you return, it's the same old place
The rockets a firing, the hostages and kidnapping
You can defend your house, but don't leave a trace
Hate your next-door terrorist, but don't forget to say peace!
And… tell me over and over and over and over again, my friend
You don't believe
We're on the eve
Of Moshiach
Mm, no no, you don't believe
We're on the eve
of Moshiach.
Then how do you explain the way it is. 


 Dry Bones cartoon, kirschen, israel, kerry, palestine, west bank, jews, arabs, peace, talks, negotiations,

April 25, 2014

Kerry's Folly - PA & Hamas

The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity ( Abba Eban) was stated years ago and remains the same.

There is no question that the US and Kerry were applying pressure to Bibi and Israel.
Perhaps the only pressure for them is how to maintain the relationship with the US  without simply booting Kerry and jeopardizing relations.

But we thank the PA / Hamas, they provided the the final nail in the coffin of the peace scam and Oslo.

The "peace" talks are off and now is the time for the Israel to begin to start the annexation of Judea and Samaria and expulsion of the Arab / Muslim / Nazi'.

The fraudulent Two state (Final) solution is dead.


April 16, 2014

Taqiyya - Islams Rule of WAR

by Raymond Ibrahim -  Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2010  -  http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war
Islam must seem a paradoxical religion to non-Muslims. On the one hand, it is constantly being portrayed as the religion of peace; on the other, its adherents are responsible for the majority of terror attacks around the world. Apologists for Islam emphasize that it is a faith built upon high ethical standards; others stress that it is a religion of the law. Islam's dual notions of truth and falsehood further reveal its paradoxical nature: While the Qur'an is against believers deceiving other believers—for "surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a liar"[1]—deception directed at non-Muslims, generally known in Arabic as taqiyya, also has Qur'anic support and falls within the legal category of things that are permissible for Muslims.

Taqiyya offers two basic uses. The better known revolves around dissembling over one's religious identity when in fear of persecution. Such has been the historical usage of taqiyya among Shi'i communities whenever and wherever their Sunni rivals have outnumbered and thus threatened them. Conversely, Sunni Muslims, far from suffering persecution have, whenever capability allowed, waged jihad against the realm of unbelief; and it is here that they have deployed taqiyya—not as dissimulation but as active deceit. In fact, deceit, which is doctrinally grounded in Islam, is often depicted as being equal—sometimes superior—to other universal military virtues, such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice. Yet if Muslims are exhorted to be truthful, how can deceit not only be prevalent but have divine sanction? What exactly is taqiyya? How is it justified by scholars and those who make use of it? How does it fit into a broader conception of Islam's code of ethics, especially in relation to the non-Muslim? More to the point, what ramifications does the doctrine of taqiyya have for all interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims?

The Doctrine of Taqiyya

According to Shari'a—the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances—deception is not only permitted in certain situations but may be deemed obligatory in others. Contrary to early Christian tradition, for instance, Muslims who were forced to choose between recanting Islam or suffering persecution were permitted to lie and feign apostasy. Other jurists have decreed that Muslims are obligated to lie in order to preserve themselves,[2] based on Qur'anic verses forbidding Muslims from being instrumental in their own deaths.[3]
This is the classic definition of the doctrine of taqiyya. Based on an Arabic word denoting fear, taqiyya has long been understood, especially by Western academics, as something to resort to in times of religious persecution and, for the most part, used in this sense by minority Shi'i groups living among hostile Sunni majorities.[4] Taqiyya allowed the Shi'a to dissemble their religious affiliation in front of the Sunnis on a regular basis, not merely by keeping clandestine about their own beliefs but by actively praying and behaving as if they were Sunnis.
However, one of the few books devoted to the subject, At-Taqiyya fi'l-Islam (Dissimulation in Islam) makes it clear that taqiyya is not limited to Shi'a dissimulating in fear of persecution. Written by Sami Mukaram, a former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut and author of some twenty-five books on Islam, the book clearly demonstrates the ubiquity and broad applicability of taqiyya:
Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[5]
Taqiyya is, therefore, not, as is often supposed, an exclusively Shi'i phenomenon. Of course, as a minority group interspersed among their Sunni enemies, the Shi'a have historically had more reason to dissemble. Conversely, Sunni Islam rapidly dominated vast empires from Spain to China. As a result, its followers were beholden to no one, had nothing to apologize for, and had no need to hide from the infidel nonbeliever (rare exceptions include Spain and Portugal during the Reconquista when Sunnis did dissimulate over their religious identity[6]). Ironically, however, Sunnis living in the West today find themselves in the place of the Shi'a: Now they are the minority surrounded by their traditional enemies—Christian infidels—even if the latter, as opposed to their Reconquista predecessors, rarely act on, let alone acknowledge, this historic enmity. In short, Sunnis are currently experiencing the general circumstances that made taqiyya integral to Shi'ism although without the physical threat that had so necessitated it.

The Articulation of Taqiyya

Qur'anic verse 3:28 is often seen as the primary verse that sanctions deception towards non-Muslims: "Let believers [Muslims] not take infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and allies instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions."[7]
Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of a standard and authoritative Qur'an commentary, explains verse 3:28 as follows:
If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.[8]
Regarding Qur'an 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), another prime authority on the Qur'an, writes, "Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show." As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad's close companion Abu Darda, who said, "Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them." Another companion, simply known as Al-Hasan, said, "Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity]."[9]
Other prominent scholars, such as Abu 'Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73) and Muhyi 'd-Din ibn al-Arabi (1165-1240), have extended taqiyya to cover deeds. In other words, Muslims can behave like infidels and worse—for example, by bowing down and worshiping idols and crosses, offering false testimony, and even exposing the weaknesses of their fellow Muslims to the infidel enemy—anything short of actually killing a Muslim: "Taqiyya, even if committed without duress, does not lead to a state of infidelity—even if it leads to sin deserving of hellfire."[10]

Deceit in Muhammad's Military Exploits

Muhammad—whose example as the "most perfect human" is to be followed in every detail—took an expedient view on lying. It is well known, for instance, that he permitted lying in three situations: to reconcile two or more quarreling parties, to placate one's wife, and in war.[11] According to one Arabic legal manual devoted to jihad as defined by the four schools of law, "The ulema agree that deception during warfare is legitimate … deception is a form of art in war."[12] Moreover, according to Mukaram, this deception is classified as taqiyya: "Taqiyya in order to dupe the enemy is permissible."[13]
Several ulema believe deceit is integral to the waging of war: Ibn al-'Arabi declares that "in the Hadith [sayings and actions of Muhammad], practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than the need for courage." Ibn al-Munir (d. 1333) writes, "War is deceit, i.e., the most complete and perfect war waged by a holy warrior is a war of deception, not confrontation, due to the latter's inherent danger, and the fact that one can attain victory through treachery without harm [to oneself]." And Ibn Hajar (d. 1448) counsels Muslims "to take great caution in war, while [publicly] lamenting and mourning in order to dupe the infidels."[14]
This Muslim notion that war is deceit goes back to the Battle of the Trench (627), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against several non-Muslim tribes known as Al-Ahzab. One of the Ahzab, Na'im ibn Mas'ud, went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam. When Muhammad discovered that the Ahzab were unaware of their co-tribalist's conversion, he counseled Mas'ud to return and try to get the pagan forces to abandon the siege. It was then that Muhammad memorably declared, "For war is deceit." Mas'ud returned to the Ahzab without their knowing that he had switched sides and intentionally began to give his former kin and allies bad advice. He also went to great lengths to instigate quarrels between the various tribes until, thoroughly distrusting each other, they disbanded, lifted the siege from the Muslims, and saved Islam from destruction in an embryonic period.[15] Most recently, 9/11 accomplices, such as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, rationalized their conspiratorial role in their defendant response by evoking their prophet's assertion that "war is deceit."
A more compelling expression of the legitimacy of deceiving infidels is the following anecdote. A poet, Ka'b ibn Ashraf, offended Muhammad, prompting the latter to exclaim, "Who will kill this man who has hurt God and his prophet?" A young Muslim named Muhammad ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that in order to get close enough to Ka'b to assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet. Muhammad agreed. Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka'b and began to denigrate Islam and Muhammad. He carried on in this way till his disaffection became so convincing that Ka'b took him into his confidence. Soon thereafter, Ibn Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Ka'b's guard was down, killed him.[16]
Muhammad said other things that cast deception in a positive light, such as "God has commanded me to equivocate among the people just as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations"; and "I have been sent with obfuscation"; and "whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr."[17]
In short, the earliest historical records of Islam clearly attest to the prevalence of taqiyya as a form of Islamic warfare. Furthermore, early Muslims are often depicted as lying their way out of binds—usually by denying or insulting Islam or Muhammad—often to the approval of the latter, his only criterion being that their intentions (niya) be pure.[18] During wars with Christians, whenever the latter were in authority, the practice of taqiyya became even more integral. Mukaram states, "Taqiyya was used as a way to fend off danger from the Muslims, especially in critical times and when their borders were exposed to wars with the Byzantines and, afterwards, to the raids [crusades] of the Franks and others."[19]

Taqiyya in Qur'anic Revelation

The Qur'an itself is further testimony to taqiyya. Since God is believed to be the revealer of these verses, he is by default seen as the ultimate perpetrator of deceit—which is not surprising since he is described in the Qur'an as the best makar, that is, the best deceiver or schemer (e.g., 3:54, 8:30, 10:21).
While other scriptures contain contradictions, the Qur'an is the only holy book whose commentators have evolved a doctrine to account for the very visible shifts which occur from one injunction to another. No careful reader will remain unaware of the many contradictory verses in the Qur'an, most specifically the way in which peaceful and tolerant verses lie almost side by side with violent and intolerant ones. The ulema were initially baffled as to which verses to codify into the Shari'a worldview—the one that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims till they either convert, or at least submit, to Islam (8:39, 9:5, 9:29). To get out of this quandary, the commentators developed the doctrine of abrogation, which essentially maintains that verses revealed later in Muhammad's career take precedence over earlier ones whenever there is a discrepancy. In order to document which verses abrogated which, a religious science devoted to the chronology of the Qur'an's verses evolved (known as an-Nasikh wa'l Mansukh, the abrogater and the abrogated).
But why the contradiction in the first place? The standard view is that in the early years of Islam, since Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by their infidel competitors while living next to them in Mecca, a message of peace and coexistence was in order. However, after the Muslims migrated to Medina in 622 and grew in military strength, verses inciting them to go on the offensive were slowly "revealed"—in principle, sent down from God—always commensurate with Islam's growing capabilities. In juridical texts, these are categorized in stages: passivity vis-á-vis aggression; permission to fight back against aggressors; commands to fight aggressors; commands to fight all non-Muslims, whether the latter begin aggressions or not.[20] Growing Muslim might is the only variable that explains this progressive change in policy.
Other scholars put a gloss on this by arguing that over a twenty-two year period, the Qur'an was revealed piecemeal, from passive and spiritual verses to legal prescriptions and injunctions to spread the faith through jihad and conquest, simply to acclimate early Muslim converts to the duties of Islam, lest they be discouraged at the outset by the dramatic obligations that would appear in later verses.[21] Verses revealed towards the end of Muhammad's career—such as, "Warfare is prescribed for you though you hate it"[22]—would have been out of place when warfare was actually out of the question.
However interpreted, the standard view on Qur'anic abrogation concerning war and peace verses is that when Muslims are weak and in a minority position, they should preach and behave according to the ethos of the Meccan verses (peace and tolerance); when strong, however, they should go on the offensive on the basis of what is commanded in the Medinan verses (war and conquest). The vicissitudes of Islamic history are a testimony to this dichotomy, best captured by the popular Muslim notion, based on a hadith, that, if possible, jihad should be performed by the hand (force), if not, then by the tongue (through preaching); and, if that is not possible, then with the heart or one's intentions.[23]

Read more by clicking on the title link!

Myth of the Two State Solution - Glick


Nonie Darwish - Now they Call Me Infidel....

A. Introduction

Nonie Darwish was born in Cairo.  Before immigrating to America in 1978, she worked as a journalist in Egypt.  She left Islam and became a Christian.  She now leads a group called “Arabs for Israel” and lectures around the country.  She pointedly remarked, “I chose the culture of life and not the culture of death.  I chose the culture of freedom and not the culture of tyranny.  I chose America.”  

Nonie Darwish is a brave and insightful woman.  She is familiar with the classic techniques of tyranny, and she tells us Islam poses the greatest danger to the United States—indeed to civilization.  Hence I want to convey some of the most salient points of her book, Now They Call Me Infidel, which was published in 2003.  And I wonder why Israeli prime ministers lack her courage and wisdom?

B.  Islamic Culture in Egypt

1. “Throughout my childhood,” she writes, “we were bombarded with calls to war and songs praising President Nasser.  Arab leaders were treated as gods and they acted as gods.  Fear of Allah was transferred to fear of the dictator” (33).
2. “Everyone around me was so fatalistic… Social classes in Egypt were very stratified. We never mingled as equals. Furthermore, it was very hard if not impossible to move from the class you were born in” (35).
3. “…when Elizabeth Taylor converted from Christianity to Judaism, her films were prohibited in the Arab world.  So Egyptians never saw her film Cleopatra.  Few Westerners can comprehend the degree to which hatred of Jews permeates every aspect of Arab culture” (p. 39).

Here let me interject an observation of Bernard Lewis.  Lewis observed that hated of Jews increased after the March 1979 signing of the Israel-Egyptian peace treaty.  If so, there is a great deal of nonsense broadcast by Israeli and American opinion-makers and policy-makers about promoting peace in the Middle East.  It seems to me they simply lack the courage to tell the truth about the murderous ethos of Arab-Islamic culture.

4. Returning to Darwish, she boldly declares: “I could not accept a culture that was willing to orphan its own children in its obsessive hatred of Jews, that was ready to sacrifice lives and the health of the family structure over a few miles of land.  Egyptians acted as though the West Bank and Gaza were taken from them, even though they were never Egyptian land” (41).

5. Hatred of Israel, she says, was “fueled by that arrogance of power and petrol dollars of the Arabs. [Israel] could do nothing to please this culture, other than cease to exist” (42).

6. Darwish asks: “What was wrong in allowing a few million Jews to live among us in peace?  Arab land was plenty.  They had only a small sliver of land, in some places only thirty kilometers wide…. But the hatred of Jews and anti-Semitism was frighteningly prevalent in our society.   At the same time I did not know—and no one in the Arab world did—that Israel had a history on that small strip of land going back thousands of years.  Nor did we know that Jerusalem was the point of origin for two great religions, Judaism and Christianity, religions that existed before Islam even began. … We were taught that ‘Zionists’ were foreign infidel invaders bent on taking Muslim land and our destruction, and that they must be destroyed” (49).

7. At this point Darwish makes a profound remark about Muslim culture that should be taught in Israeli schools.  She notes that Egyptians have been indoctrinated with the belief that Egypt’s problems are “a result of the evil of the outside world. Egyptians [are] never told that it was their responsibility to solve their own problems. The villain was always an outside force.  The scapegoating [especially of Jews] was true on the national front and it was true on the personal level as well.  The concept of taking responsibility for oneself [is] completely foreign… in Muslim culture …” (50).

8. Darwish then draws an important conclusion worthy of political scientists that have studied Aristotle.  She says: “An outside enemy was necessary to foster Arab cohesion and keep the Arab public preoccupied with news of dangers and threats.  Thus, the press kept up a constant bombardment of stories that blames Israel for all the troubles within the Arab world.  The effect was to decrease the pressure and deflect criticism of Arab governments” (95).

9. Especially significant is her point that “In Arab culture, being truthful is not only considered to be naïve and stupid, but is also considered—believe it or not—rude” (119). Of course, this “was very different from American culture, where people talk freely about their shortcomings and pain without shame” (121). 

10. “Western-style soul searching or examination of beliefs is almost unheard of in Arab culture.  And no subject is more sacred and protected from analysis or criticism than the Koran or Islam.  Muslims can get violently angry if that is done.  To a lesser extent, if a family member, tribe, nation, or culture is perceived to be under attack, then excuses … misrepresentations, and outright lies are the only honorable thing to do.  Remember, this is a culture based on pride and shame” (122).  Now let’s consider some of Darwish’s observations about Islam in America.

B. Islam in America

1. She writes: “My escape from radical Islam to the open arms of America did not last long.  As we moved deeper into the 1980s …, I began to see gradual change among the Muslims around me. To my surprise, the radical aspects of Islamic culture from which I had escaped were starting to grow in power right here in America” (131).  “Most Muslims,” she says, “have little education in Islam.  Why?  Such education would end Muslim leadership’s total control over the minds and behavior of the masses…. Muslims are safe as long as they are loyal followers and obedient to the national goal of jihad against the non-Muslim infidels, especially the Jews next door.” (135).

2.  Darwish then points out that “In the Muslim world there are no real distinctions between moderate or radical Muslims.  Some practice, some don’t, and the ones who don’t may have views as radical as those who do practice” (135).

3. She contends that “The values of Muslim society as it is constituted at the present, cannot survive in a democracy where individuals would have right to question, debate, change religions, or choose to have no religion at all” (136).

4. However, she adds a word of caution.  She cites a Muslim leader who said, “Thanks to your democratic laws we shall invade you; thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you” (144).

This Islamization is happening in England and in Europe. Darwish fears that this could happen in America.  She said this some five years before Barak Obama entered the Oval Office.  Darwish surely knows that Obama is a Muslim by Islamic law.  Perhaps former UN Ambassador John Bolton had this in mind when he spoke of Obama as having the first post-American foreign policy.  It seems that the Obama administration is the first post-America government. 

C. Israel’s Ruling Elites

1. Now let me shift to Israel.  Ever since Yitzhak Rabin became Israel’s first Israeli-born prime minister, Israel has drifted into a post-Zionist dispensation.  With Rabin’s Oslo Accords, Israel drifted into a post-Jewish dispensation.  I see this in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s endorsement of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. I am not at all impressed by his qualification that the new state be demilitarized and it recognize Israel as a Jewish state.  The mere fact that he would give Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the Jewish people, to the Arabs, marks him, in my eyes, as a post-Jewish prime minister.

2. But inasmuch his predecessors, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert were also committed to this truncation of Israel, they too may be deemed post-Jewish prime ministers.  Indeed, I dare say that Israel’s government has always been post-Jewish by the mere fact that, like Herzl, its founding father, Israel’s ruling elites relegated the Torah to the home and the synagogue and thus separated the Torah from public law and statecraft—following the footsteps of Christianity.

3. Now recall Darwish’s Muslim leader who said “thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you.”  Israel’s leaders could say: “Thanks to our secular laws we will dominate you.” This is why the Jewish philosopher Yitzhak Breuer said that secular Zionism poses the greatest threat to Judaism in history.

4. But Israel’s secular elites will not succeed, because it is not in their power to achieve the hidden goal of Israel’s government—to relegate the Torah to the dust heap of history. 

All In Our Heads - Feiglin

It is all in our heads. Deep down, in our perception of ourselves. A person who thinks of himself as successful is also perceived that way by those who surround him. A person who considers himself a failure projects that image to his surroundings, even if he may look outwardly successful.

Now for a bit of mathematics. When the Jews made their break from Egypt, they numbered at least 3 million - and that is a modest estimate based on the fact that there were 600,000 males accounted for between the ages of 20 and 60. How many Egyptians chased them? At the very most - 1800. (Based on the 600 chariots that were reasonably carrying no more than 3 Egyptians per chariot). In other words, there were approximately 1600 Jews against every Egyptian. So what was the problem? Why did the Jews at the edge of the Red Sea wail? Why didn't they fight?

Stories from the Holocaust reveal the same phenomenon. How could small numbers of Nazi soldiers force tens of thousands of Jews to their deaths with total compliance?

It is all in our heads. On the day that the faith-based public will understand and integrate its real power, it will lead Israel. We at Manhigut Yehudit can explain, we can create the necessary political tools and we can work on public awareness. But the real reason that we have not yet merited a faith-based leader has nothing to do with technicalities or politics. We are big enough, we are talented enough and we are strong enough to lead the nation - if we really want to.

That is where the trouble lies. We don't really want to lead yet. The faith-based public still does not believe in itself.

During the previous primaries, the struggle between Netanyahu and me was justifiably perceived as the struggle of the faith-based public to enter the leadership arena. When I was elected to a realistic slot on the Likud Knesset roster, it seemed that the dam on the faith-based public's self-image had been burst wide open. A surge of enthusiasm engulfed the entire sector. Many were psychologically prepared to leave their sectorial way of thinking, to register for the Likud and to prepare the ground for leadership.

If that scenario would have played itself out, most of the Likud MKs today would have been ideological people. The Likud would have won 40 mandates, most of them MKs loyal to the Land and People of Israel. Even those less-than-loyal Likud MKs would have understood which way the wind was blowing inside their party. Strapped with a party with tens of thousands of faith-based members, Netanyahu would not have been able to make the political moves that he is making today. Even more important - in the next primaries a faith-based candidate would have been elected.

Sadly, though, the change in perception that we experienced was short-lived and immature. When I was demoted to the 36th place on the Likud roster, the faith-based public's comfortable, servile self-perception prevailed - and the rest is history.

Nevertheless, it is all in our heads. The wonderful dream that was shattered in the previous primaries could have held up just as well even if I were not in the Knesset. On the contrary - it is specifically when I am not in the Knesset that it is even more important to register, to increase our numbers in the Likud and to empower us for the next round!

When Netanyahu pushed me down to an unrealistic slot, the faith-based voter once again perceived himself as a second class citizen - a sector that does not deserve to be on the leadership arena. The faith-based votes returned to the comfortable but irrelevant sectorial parties.

Thank G-d, current events have opened the eyes of many faith-based people and registration for the Likud through Manhigut Yehudit is rapidly increasing. We will continue to develop our public's leadership consciousness as we prepare for the next round of voting.

Shabbat Shalom

Without Evacuation and Without Compensation - Feiglin

More and more, it looks like we are headed for an Abandonment Plan.

In an article titled "Without Evacuation and Without Compensation," (Ha'aretz, Jan. 1 '10) Dr. Alexander Jacobson proposes setting a date upon which Israel will retreat from Judea and Samaria, abandoning the Jewish residents of those areas to the mercies of the new sovereign. Jacobson correctly understands that the expulsion of approximately ten thousand residents of Gush Katif will not work for the hundreds of thousands of Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria. Even if all the state's mechanisms would fully cooperate with the criminal idea of expulsion, Israel simply does not have the money to implement it. So with a mischievous wink of the eye, the friendly doctor falls back on the murderousness of our neighbors. "They will make the Jews' lives there impossible," Jacobson explains in laundered terminology, "but for that, the Law of Return exists."

It is reasonable to assume that we will see the old Yesha Council leadership - Wallerstein and Zambish - rise up again, over the heads of all the naive people who were called upon to be a part of the "new leadership"; in other words, to cover up the fiascos of the past and to pave the way for their return to positions of power. This leadership will then proceed to fight the previous battle or more specifically, the grandmother of the previous battle.

Yesha Council leaders like Zambish and Wallerstein cannot comprehend that the Zionist "mutant gene" of Peres, Alon and Galili, that allowed for the establishment of Elon Moreh, Beit El and Ofra has since been deleted from the establishment's genetic code. The open door of the Revisionist movement, through which the settlements of the early days of the Likud government were built, has also been shut tight. They continue to fight - not for settlement - but for public opinion, as if the Zionist spirit from which Gush Emunim drew its legitimacy still exists.

And so, with declarations of love, cherry tomatoes, door-to-door visits and heartrending cries in the face of the IDF robots, Gush Katif was destroyed. Now, as the Abandonment Plan takes form, the Yesha Council will pay millions to public relations experts and with the comfortable logic of the olden days of Gush Emunim they will explain how Yesha is crucial for security, how nice the settlers are and how uncivil it is to abandon them. They will project an image of the settlers as beggars - objects of pity and scorn. They will reinforce the demonization campaign that is already being waged against them, cement their second-class citizen status and ensure that nobody will give them a shekel in compensation.

There is only one thing that nobody from the Yesha Council will say. The truth.

The main obligation - and according to some, the only obligation - of a state toward its citizen is to provide them with security. If the State of Israel is incapable of upholding its basic contract with its citizens in Judea and Samaria, that is fine. But just as when a couple decides to divorce, their decision comes with a price tag, so too, when a state chooses to opt out of its basic contract with its citizens, there is a price tag attached. The state cannot leave with all of their shared assets. The settlers, who lawfully built their homes and paid with their taxes and lives so that they could get security from their state, deserve to get their investment back.

You want to leave? No problem. Just return everything that you have taken from us to help you provide us with your basic commitment. Give the settlers the weapons that were bought with their tax money so that they will be able to defend themselves.
This type of demand by the settler leadership will reveal the real motivation behind the Abandonment Plan; to use terrorists to force the Jews to flee. This demand will ensure that the public debate that will ensue when the plan is announced will focus on rights and not on pleas for mercy.

I have no illusions that somebody will really give the settlers who choose to remain in their homes their share of Israel's arsenal. It is reasonable to assume that ultimately, this type of debate will not help either and that if this evil plan reaches a practical stage, it will be implemented. The Yesha and Hesder yeshiva leadership will then get what they wanted: the government will have left the IDF out of the political debate and will not have pitted them against the citizens. Not one soldier will refuse orders and not one soldier will wave a sign. Everything will be simply wonderful.

Now that we know what to expect from the current government and what to expect from the Yesha leadership, we have only one small question: What can we do to prevent this madness? The simple answer is that anybody who thought that we can prevent Israeli retreats with convincing and love - or with demonstrations and a determined struggle, has to understand that those methods will not work. There is one way to prevent retreat and to change direction and that is - to rule. It is time to understand that he who rules makes the rules.

The faith-based public now has a golden opportunity to lead the country. Binyamin Netanyahu has initiated a new membership drive for the Likud. His goal is to strengthen his position against the ideological members of the Likud. He could not care less about the small, rightist parties. Netanyahu understands that at the end of the day, the only obstacle to his Abandonment Plan is inside the ruling party - the Likud.

"You have no idea how much influence you have," explained Chairman of the Knesset Committee, MK Yariv Levin in his speech at last week's Manhigut Yehudit dinner. "I do not want to think about to what lows we would descend without your large ideological faction inside the ruling party."

Everybody who holds the State and the settlement enterprise dear must register for the Likud now. Mass registration of the loyal public will ensure that the Likud will oppose the Abandonment Plan. But the registration will also accomplish something much more important. Netanyahu's chair is shaking. His wife's embroilment in scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. Registration now for the Likud will ensure that Bibi's successor will not continue with his evil plan.

Why Does the World Hate Israel? Prof. Eidelberg

Ask almost any Jew, “Why Does the World Hate Israel?” and he will say:  “Because Israel is a Jewish state.”  Wrong!  The world hates Israel precisely because Israel is NOT a Jewish state!  This is what we learn from the Sages.

Israel-bashing is God’s way of reminding Jews they are Jews.  It’s His way of admonishing Jews when they have strayed from the Torah, cluing them that they need to get their house in order—in this case, making their state Jewish.

Let’s face some seldom-faced facts.  Without impugning the religious sentiments of one or two Israeli prime ministers—I have especially Menachem Begin in mind—every government of Israel, despite the participation of religious parties, has been dominated by agnostics or practical atheists.  No government of Israel has pursued, as its paramount objective, the goal of making Israel a Torah-oriented state (which would require interfacing Torah with science).   

We live in an age of science, but nothing is less rational and less Jewish than the way Israel forms its government.  With the Book of Books in mind, take a glance at Israel’s governing institutions.  Does the Torah prescribe a plural executive consisting of rival political parties?  “There can be but one leader for a [people] and not two” (Deut. 31:7; and see Sanhedrin 8a).  Does the Torah prescribe a legislature or a judiciary whose membership is based on whim and includes non-Jews?  “Select for yourselves men who are wise, understanding, and known to your tribes and I will confirm them as your leaders” (Deut. 1:13).

Institutions aside, who ever heard of a Torah-oriented government yielding Jewish land to a foreign entity, indeed, to a gang of terrorists?   That’s Oslo, concocted by a government diametrically opposed to a Jewish state.  And who ever heard of deporting Jews from their homes as proposed by the government of Ariel Sharon?  And you call this a Jewish state?!

Do you know that the government of this so-called Jewish state has deliberately pursued a policy that allows Arab terrorists to murder an “acceptable” number of Jews?   It’s called the policy of “self-restraint” [embraced by Netanyahu in 1996 and by the same Netanyahu today]. 

To simplify matters, let us say that this policy was initiated by the government when the Oslo War erupted on September 29, 2000.  But Oslo and the Oslo war and the resulting worldwide explosion of Jew-hatred would not have occurred if Israel were a Jewish state!

Let’s stay with Oslo for a moment.  The explosion of anti-Semitism would not have occurred had the government immediately eliminated Arafat’s Palestinian Authority (PA) and its terrorist network in one swift and devastating blow as it could and should have done once Oslo was violated.  Do you know when Oslo was violated?  How about September 14, 1993, the day after Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser shook hands on the White House lawn?  Yes, and virtually every day since then! 

By not abrogating Oslo and destroying the PA, Israel’s government enabled that terrorist organization to accumulate more and deadlier weapons, which obviously prolonged the war.  Had the PA been utterly uprooted, there would have been no weekly video displays [abroad] of the government’s intermittent retaliations against terrorist attacks, with the inevitable “collateral damage” that has inflamed worldwide anti-Semitism.  There would have been no CNN and BBC coverage of “Operation Defensive Shield” in Jenin, for the PA would not have had the opportunity to develop bomb factories in that city.  There would have been no incitement of Arabs via the Palestinian media because such media would have been shut down.  All these (and other) violations of the Oslo Accords would not have occurred, and a generation of Arabs children would not have been brainwashed to emulate suicide bombers if Israel were in reality a Jewish state.  Therein is the unknown but underlying cause of worldwide Israel-bashing.

And this Israel-bashing is not going to stop so long as Israel is not a Jewish state.  It’s not going to stop so long as Israel has prime ministers who do not think and act like Torah-oriented Jews.  I’m not talking about being “religious.”   The illustrious Rabbi Raphael Samson Hirsch has said that the word “religion” is the greatest obstacle to an understanding of Judaism.  The great Maimonides and other Medieval Jewish philosophers did not regard Judaism as a “religion” but as an all-comprehensive truth-system, else they could not prefer Judaism over its “competitors” on rational grounds.   Maimonides makes it clear in The Guide of the Perplexed that science is the only path to the knowledge of God.

A Jewish state will of course have certain aspects that may be called “religious.”  But a truly Jewish state will manifest, above all, the convergence of Torah and science.  When this convergence becomes a reality—when the Torah shines forth from Zion—then and then only will the world cease to hate Israel and turn with reverence toward Jerusalem.

Post Script February 10, 2010

According to the Gaon (the genius) of Vilna, “To the extent that one lacks knowledge of the properties of the natural forces [hence of natural science], he will lack one hundred-fold in the wisdom of the Torah.” (To understand even this sentence requires deep knowledge.) It has been said by one of his disciples that the Gaon mastered the “Seven Wisdoms” of science that included mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, engineering, pharmacology and medicine, musicology, parapsychology, and the brain sciences. With the rebirth of Israel, we are approaching this confluence of knowledge. It is in this light that we are to understand the current storm of Jew-hatred and the frantic maledictions from Iran about wiping Israel off the map. Israel was created to relate God’s praise (Isaiah 43:21)—His infinite wisdom, power, and graciousness in every domain of existence.  But lo and behold: Israel, far from being a light unto the nations has become a black hole.  No wonder we’re hated by the nations. One Israeli government after another has been betraying God!

Divine Sovereignty over the Land of Israel?

"And six years you shall sow your land and you will gather its produce. And the seventh let it rest and lie fallow. Six days you shall do your work and on the seventh day you shall rest." (From this week's Torah portion, Mishpatim, Exodus 23: 10-12)

The Land of Israel was given to us so that we could establish a 'kingdom of priests and a holy nation' that would crown the Creator over His world. That is the purpose of the Land of Israel, of Jerusalem and of the royal palace, the Temple on the Temple Mount. Those who renounce their connection to the Temple and to the Mount renounce the foundation on which the entire Jewish home is built. Without the Mount, there is no home. Without the Temple Mount, we are losing the Land of Israel. Without the destiny for which the Nation of Israel exists and for which we received the Land, there is no meaning, reason or validity for Jewish sovereignty. And as we see with our very own eyes, the State of Israel continues its free fall.

When we let the Land rest during the seventh, Shmittah year, we remember that this is our Land, but that there are definitely conditions that we must meet. First and foremost, we must remember the true Master of the Land. We have received His authority to plant and to reap. But during the Shmittah year, this authority is revoked. A Jew who continues to work the Chosen Land during the Shmittah year somehow does not accept the Divine sovereignty of the Master of the World.

The Divine Sovereignty principle in space is parallel to the Divine Sovereignty principle in time. Just as we accept G-d's sovereignty over the Land by allowing it to rest during the Shmittah year, so, when we refrain from work on the Holy Shabbat, we declare that we accept Divine Sovereignty over time. It is our acknowledgement that all the work that we do during the other six days of the week is only with G-d's authority.


This week we met with a large group of ultra-Orthodox Jews in Beitar Ilit. Rabbi Yitzchak Brand honored us by opening the evening and amazed the audience with the following fact:

The cursed Oslo Accords - the agreement by which the Land of Israel was handed over to foreigners and on which all the plans to abandon the Land are based - were signed on the White House lawn by Israeli prime minister Yitzchak Rabin, the head of the Organization to Liberate the Land of Israel from the Jews (PLO) Arafat, may his name be blotted out, and US president Bill Clinton. The date: September 13, 1993 - 27 Elul 5753.

It was just a few days before Rosh Hashanah, the new Jewish year 5754, which was also a Shmittah year. On the very day that Israel's Chief Rabbinate - it's rabbinical leadership - signed a contract to sell the Land to a non-Jew, absolving us from fulfilling the mitzvah of Shmittah, Israel's political leadership signed a contract selling the Land of Israel to foreigners, in an attempt to absolve us from fulfilling our destiny in the Land of Israel.

If we don't accept Divine Sovereignty over the Land of Israel, we certainly cannot expect to enjoy Jewish sovereignty, either.

Shabbat Shalom,
Moshe Feiglin

April 15, 2014

Putin = K.G.B. = Death of Ukrainian Activist?

"For more than 20 years, Oleksandr Muzychko battled and somehow survived Russian power, taking up arms against Moscow-backed rebels in Georgia and Moldova, against Russia’s army in Chechnya and finally against Ukraine’s pro-Russia president, Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Late last month, however, his luck ran out in a grove of oak trees just a few hundred yards from his parents’ house in this placid, dirt-tracked village. Shot in the heart, Mr. Muzychko — a militant activist in the nationalist group Right Sector — died fleeing the reach of a Ukrainian government he had helped bring to power just a month earlier.
Who fired the bullets is unclear and a matter of bitter controversy. The mystery reflects the deep rifts in Ukraine over a February revolution that toppled Mr. Yanukovych but left rival camps sharply and sometimes violently divided over its purpose."

So it would seem to be possible within this conflict that Putin would be a person of interest.....

Circumcision - adopted by Gentiles for Health Reasons...

The recent spat of Eurabian Countries that wish to ban Circumcision only have on reason - Anti-Semitism.

It has long been known to be a large Health benefit.:

"The authors conclude that the benefits — among them reduced risks of urinary tract infection, prostate cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and, in female partners, cervical cancer — outweigh the risks of local infection or bleeding. Several studies, including two randomized clinical trials, found no long-term adverse effects of circumcision on sexual performance or pleasure.
One cost-benefit analysis that considered infant urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases found that if circumcision rates were decreased to the 10 percent typical in European countries, the additional direct medical costs over 10 years of births would be more than $4.4 billion."


There is no other reason, but the interesting part of the article says that Eurabian Countries only use circumcision at a rate of 10%...hmmmm.

So they really just want to start restricting Jews...

Justice Salim Joubran, a Christian Arab - Treasonous?

Justice Joubran the only Arab Justice would not sing Hatikva.

The act is indicative of the reason that Michael Ben-Ari's new bill be passed:

"Michael Ben-Ari, a Parliament member from the far right National Union Party, introduced a bill last week to limit the Supreme Court to those who have performed military or national service, which would exclude a vast majority of Arabs. He called it the “Joubran bill.” 

First remove the non Jews from Government....

Then from Israel

Kahane Tzadak!

April 11, 2014

The ninth plague-darkness – has struck Egypt with a vengeance... (Kahane)

“And Pharaoh called to Moses, saying:  Go and worship the L-rd.  Only your sheep and cattle will remain – your children will also go with you.  And Moses said:  You will also give us offerings and sacrifices for the L-rd our G-d, and our flocks will go with us…” (Shmot 10:24-26)
        The ninth plague-darkness – has struck Egypt with a vengeance and Pharaoh breaks.  Step by step he has retreated and after the eighth plague – locusts – he was prepared to allow the Jews to leave except for their children.  Now he surrenders almost entirely as he agrees that all the Jews can leave.  He only asks one thing, one compromise, one small victory for himself, that the Jewish cattle remain behind.
            Consider; the Jews have been slaves for 210 years.  They have lived in misery and persecution.  They suffered decrees such as the one casting their male children into the sea.  They cried out unto the L-rd for freedom and salvation.  Now, apparently the great moment has arrived!  Pharaoh agrees that they shall go free!  What does it matter that he asks for their cattle?  Give it to him!  The main thing is peace and salvation and we are willing to give up cattle for peace!
            But Moses knows that this is not the purpose of the freedom of the Jewish people and of the story of the slavery and exodus.  He is not prepared to compromise one inch because he knows what the purpose of G-d is.  When Moses first entered the presence of Pharaoh and said: “The L-rd, G-d of the Hebrews, has said: Let my people go!”  Pharaoh contemptuously answered:  “Who is the L-rd?  I know not the L-rd and will not let Israel go!”   Here is where the battle was joined.  Here is the purpose and aim of creation – to have the world recognize the dominion and kingship of the L-rd being challenged.  Pharaoh must be made to recognize and totally acknowledge the sovereignty of the L-rd over him and his people.  He cannot make compromises; he cannot strike bargains.  He must submit totally!
            “And I shall be glorified through (the defeat of ) Pharaoh and his army and Egypt shall know that I am the L-rd.”  Only the total defeat of the wicked can raise and honor the name of the L-rd, says the Biblical commentator Rashi.  This is why there will be no compromise with Pharaoh.  He must totally submit, he must totally surrender.
            And even when he apparently does this, after the plague of the first born, when he runs to Moses and says: “Get out, take your flocks with you, just leave and ask the L-rd to bless me!” Moses refuses and in the words of the Mechilta; “And he called unto Moses and Aaron in the middle of the night and said: get up and leave!  Said Moses unto him:  No, we have been ordered not to leave our houses until morning.  What are we, thieves that we should slink out in the night?  No, we will leave only in the morning with an upraised arm before the eyes of all the Egyptians!”

            Not one inch of retreat here.  The lesson of the L-rd being the Omnipotent, king of the universe must be seen and acknowledged.
            The lesson is an eternal one and must be learned in our time, too.  The question of peace in the Middle East is a question of the Arabs and the world acknowledging the total sovereignty of the All Mighty.  There can be no compromise on this.  It is only a peace that comes with Arabs submitting to the yoke of the heavenly kingdom that will be a permanent one and the Jew who gives up part of his land as a compromise, violates the entire purpose of the rise of the Jewish state and the demand of the All Mighty that the nations acknowledge Him as King.  There can be no retreat from land because that is in essence a retreat also from the Kingship of the L-rd.  

Meir Kahane

Israel’s Worst Enemy: Lies and Myths

The Washington Post reports that some members of Secretary of State John Kerry’s senior staff think it’s time to say “enough” of Kerry’s futile and delusional attempts to broker peace between the Israelis and Arabs and implement the “two-state solution.” That’s a revelation one would think the chief diplomat of the greatest power in history would have experienced decades ago. Since the failed 1993 Oslo Accords, it has been obvious to all except the duplicitous, the ignorant, and the Jew-hater that the Arabs do not want a “Palestinian state living in peace side-by-side with Israel,” something they could have had many times in the past. On the contrary, as they serially prove in word and deed, they want Israel destroyed.


April 9, 2014

Talk of Freeing a Spy for Israel Stirs Old Unease for U.S. Jews


WASHINGTON — Each year, just before Passover, Malcolm Hoenlein writes a letter to President Obama requesting that he grant clemency to Jonathan J. Pollard, the American sentenced to life in prison in 1987 for passing suitcases stuffed with classified documents to Israel.

This week, with his goal suddenly within reach, Mr. Hoenlein, the leader of an umbrella group of American Jewish organizations, has held off sending the letter. He is waiting to see whether Mr. Obama will release Mr. Pollard as part of a quid pro quo with Israel that would keep peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians on track.

Even now, nearly three decades later, Mr. Pollard’s case bedevils American Jews. While more and more of them believe the time to release him is long past — he spied for an ally, not an enemy, they say, and has expressed remorse — they are deeply divided over whether he should be used as a chit in a diplomatic transaction.
For an older generation, the potential release of this Cold War-era spy has roused another unwelcome ghost from the past: the suggestion that American Jews, like Mr. Pollard, inevitably hold divided loyalties and cannot be trusted in sensitive posts.

If Mr. Pollard, once freed, is given a hero’s welcome in Israel — a likely outcome, given the Israeli government’s long campaign on his behalf — there is worry that it will cause a backlash in the United States, where Mr. Pollard is still viewed by many, especially in the national security establishment, as a traitor who sold his country’s secrets for cash.

“Pollard represents the ultimate betrayal,” said Aaron David Miller, a longtime Middle East peace negotiator who is one of a circle of American Jewish diplomats who came of age at the time of Mr. Pollard’s arrest. “He is also a poster child for one of the darker tropes in American society: that Jews simply cannot have a single loyalty.”

Born in Galveston, Tex., to a Jewish family shadowed by the Holocaust, Mr. Pollard grew up with Zionist ideals and a fascination with the world of spying. With a degree in political science from Stanford, he was hired as a Navy intelligence analyst and soon started selling classified information to an Israeli handler, who paid him $1,500 a month, bought his wife a diamond-and-sapphire ring and sent the couple on expensive trips to Europe.

In 1985, facing arrest, Mr. Pollard sought asylum in the Israeli Embassy in Washington, but he was disavowed by the Israelis. Two year later, after reading an assessment of the damage he had done from the defense secretary at the time, Caspar W. Weinberger, a judge sentenced him to a life term. Since 1993, he has been in a federal prison in North Carolina.

Mr. Hoenlein, who has visited Mr. Pollard in jail, said he should be released purely on humanitarian grounds. But he said he was resigned to the possibility that the decision would be driven by diplomatic calculations, particularly since Mr. Pollard is eligible for release in November 2015, which makes him a diminishing asset as a bargaining chip.
For some Jewish leaders, however, the idea that the United States would play this card now reflects the desperation of Secretary of State John Kerry to keep the peace talks alive. It also muddies the moral issue, since, in exchange, Israel would agree to release prisoners convicted of murder, including a small number of Arabs with Israeli citizenship.

“If everything the secretary of state has achieved hangs on the thread of exchanging Jonathan Pollard for Palestinian murderers of women and children, then there wasn’t much there to begin with,” said Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League.

At the time of Mr. Pollard’s arrest, American Jews were uniformly appalled by his crimes, Mr. Foxman said, and worried that it might have major repercussions. He recalled rejecting a request that the Anti-Defamation League declare Mr. Pollard’s treatment anti-Semitic.

Nowhere was the anxiety more acute than among Jews working in sensitive jobs involving the Middle East — jobs that had opened up to them during the Reagan administration.

Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former ambassador to Egypt and Israel, said that he knew of Jews who were removed from projects involving Israel after Mr. Pollard’s arrest. Even now, he wrote in an essay this week in the magazine The American Interest, Americans with relatives living in Israel are sometimes denied high-level security clearances.

Dennis B. Ross, who was a senior adviser on the Middle East to President Bill Clinton and President Obama and a Pentagon policy analyst in the years before Mr. Pollard was arrested, said it had perpetuated the stereotype that Jews could not be trusted to work on issues related to Israel.

“Initially, there was a kind of abhorrence,” he said. “But the longer he’s been in, the more people ask questions.”
By the time Mr. Ross was advising Mr. Clinton at a summit meeting with the Israelis and Palestinians at Wye Mills, Md., in 1998, he no longer believed that Mr. Pollard posed a national security risk. But he also did not believe that releasing him was necessary to persuade Benjamin Netanyahu, then as now Israel’s prime minister, to sign a deal.

Mr. Clinton ultimately decided against it because his C.I.A. director at the time, George J. Tenet, threatened to resign. And Mr. Ross’s hunch was right: Mr. Netanyahu signed anyway.

This time, however, Mr. Ross said he believed that averting a collapse in the talks was critical enough to justify Mr. Obama’s going ahead with his release — a position opposed by Mr. Kurtzer and Mr. Miller, his former colleagues.

Among those who have publicly called for Mr. Pollard’s release are two former secretaries of state, Henry A. Kissinger and George P. Shultz, and a former director of the C.I.A., R. James Woolsey. His cause is also championed by lawmakers like Senator Charles E. Schumer and Representative Eliot L. Engel, both New York Democrats.

While Mr. Pollard remains a reviled figure among many American Jews, who contend he was driven as much by greed as by patriotism, support for his release spans the political spectrum.
“This is someone whose politics I detest, and whose role in the public sphere will be to support reactionary Israeli policy,” said Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun, a progressive Jewish magazine in Berkeley, Calif. “Nevertheless, his continued imprisonment is unconscionable.”

Mr. Lerner said he believed that the issue of dual loyalties had faded for American Jews, along with the memory of Mr. Pollard’s case. If young Jews were asked about Mr. Pollard, he said, “The answer would be, ‘Pollard who?’ He’s not an issue. He’s not in people’s consciousness.”

Yet for the Israeli government, which granted Mr. Pollard citizenship in 1995 and finally admitted that he had been their agent in 1998, obtaining his release is an article of faith.

“When Israeli leaders do everything they can to bring this guy home, it’s because he touches a nerve,” said Michael B. Oren, an American-born historian who gave up his citizenship in 2009 to become Israel’s ambassador to Washington. “He is the embodiment of a national narrative of the Jew who sacrificed himself for his people.”

Op-Ed: The Israeli One-State Solution - An academic's review of Caroline Glick's new book, a review that has a message.

Caroline Glick’s latest book, "The Israeli Solution, a One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East", carefully explains the political, legal, demographic, and military position of Israel in the modern world.  She corrects many faulty notions that are prevalent about Israel.  The reader learns from her that Israel was not created as an emotional reaction by a world horrified by the Holocaust.  Its legitimacy and destiny as a State is grounded in historical and political realities that antedate the Holocaust, and in the prayerful longings of the Jewish people to be restored to and to rule their own homeland after dispossession by the vengeful Romans 20 centuries ago.
Although she does not place much emphasis on the visionary and incredibly determined work of Theodore Herzl and Chaim Weizman, their vision is foundational and cannot be separated from the existence of present-day Israel.   Rather, she derives Israel’s right to exist primarily from three sources: the continued presence of Jews in the territory now called Israel for 2000 years, the Palestine Mandate to the British, and from the British after World War I, and U.N. Resolution 181 which established the state of Israel (as a Jewish state).
With amazing logic and compelling detail, she depicts every phase and aspect of Israel’s struggle to come into existence and remain in existence from 1920 until the present.  The reader can see plainly that the Arab world accepted France’s mandate to create an independent Syria and Lebanon, and the legitimacy of the British prerogative to create Iraq and Jordan, but at the same time found the British mandate for a Jewish state to be illegal and untenable.
Self-determination became a by-word, a new, significant idea in international affairs after WWI and especially after Wilson’s Fourteen Points, but self-determination for the Jews who had remained as a continuous presence in Palestine for 2000 years – to this, the Arab world’s resounding answer was no.  Israel has had to struggle all these decades against a pathological and almost fiendish opposition by the Arab world to her claims.  "One State Solution" is utterly and properly offended by the racism and religious bigotry of the Arab world with respect to the Jews living in their midst.
She depicts with seeming effortless, elegant writing the hatred of the PLO towards Israel and towards Jews.  The book corrects many myths about the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab world.  One myth in particular stands out, namely that Yasser Arafat failed in his goals because the two-state reality of Israel and an Arab Palestine was never realized despite his engagement in the Oslo process.
She debunks the idea of his failure, but in beautiful detail demonstrates the extent of his success.  With the help of the USSR, he managed to create a worldwide diplomatic climate of opinion hostile to Israel where many countries now believe, falsely, that Israel is a colonialist power in the Middle East and racist to the core.
This portrayal fits the Marxist interpretation that the West needs to be “imperialistic” in order to perpetuate capitalism, but that, based on historical necessity, the West is thereby sowing the seeds of its own destruction.  In short, imperialism so-called is slated to self-destruct and will bring down the colonialists with it.
By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, this narrative with respect to Israel’s role in the Middle East whereby Israelis are colonialist exploiters of the Palestinian Arab people, was firmly entrenched.   It is a narrative that has been played thousands of times until, for many ears, it has the ring of truth.  But Caroline Glick argues forcefully on every page for the falsity of this vision.
Further, Arafat was bailed out time and time again by the U.S., lionized by a sycophantic world press for his “flexibility” and “moderation,” and excused for his masterminding of massacres and murders.  He was behind the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Olympic games in Munich, his Intifada killed hundreds of Israelis, and he repeatedly broke every signed agreement made under the Oslo Accords. Yet, he remained the teflon terrorist throughout.
After being kicked out of Jordan and Lebanon by his fellow Arabs, the U.S. found a place of sanctuary for him and his cohorts in Tunisia. Furthermore, the U.S. has financed the security forces of the Palestinian Authority, and thus increased significantly the dangers to Israeli life and limb, and the precariousness of Israel’s national existence.  Ms. Glick documents Arafat’s criminal intentions and actions with overwhelming detail, and yet, as she sadly reports, he remained supported and encouraged by a long list of U.S. Presidents.
It is hard for an American reader of this book not to come away believing that the American Executive Branch played the part of a prostitute in our relations with Arafat.  Not only were American values of liberty and democracy prostituted, but the United States was like a prostitute who actually paid the client to have his way with her.
Negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs, the book tells us, have stagnated into a failed prioritizing of the so-called “two state solution.”  Yet, Glick avers the two-state solution is the cause of the twenty year stalemate.  It is not a viable solution.  In fact, the Palestinian Arabs have rejected establishment of their own state on four different occasions.  The assumption that we have “just barely missed” working out a final solution is a wrong conclusion. Rather, she posits that the Palestinian leadership does not want a two-state solution, but wants the destruction of the State of Israel as a sovereign, Jewish entity in the Middle East.
Her solution to the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria (often improperly called “the West Bank”) is to follow actions taken by Prime Minister Begin who placed the Golan Heights and Jerusalem under Israeli law in the 1980’s.  Although technically those areas were not annexed to Israel, placing them under Israeli law was a de facto annexation.  They were no longer administered by the military.  
Palestinian Arabs, and many Western journalists seem to think that Israeli military presence means territories are “occupied,” but it does not.  The military is there to protect Israeli interests while the disputed territories are engaged in ‘dispute resolution’ with interested parties.  Once Israeli law is put into effect, Israel would be unilaterally affirming the end of ‘dispute’ and settling the question of control.
With passion and care, the author reviews the pros and cons of taking such a step.  She expresses a great deal of concern about the European reaction to such a move.  Also, there would certainly be fallout from increasing the number of Arab permanent residents and/or citizens as part of Israeli demographics.  Yet, this big step will give relief from the cul-de-sac Israel now finds itself in, where she endlessly negotiates for a two-state solution that the Palestinian Arabs do not want.
The endgame for Mahmoud Abbas is the destruction of Israel.
The Israeli Solution projects an alternative to the dangerous gamesmanship and perpetual war we have witnessed in the quest for a so-called two state solution.  Yet, is it really wise to try to absorb a fiendish population – people mired in rage, mental instability, and rigid ideology – into one’s country?  Their co-Arabs have kicked them out of three different countries (Jordan, Lebanon, and Kuwait), so it seems unlikely they can be absorbed, even on a gradual basis, into the legal structure and fabric of Israeli society.
The expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs from Judea and Samaria, although not suggested in Glick's book, would be much more effective in bringing peace to Israel.  Yet, before doing so, an aggressive public relations campaign against the Palestinian Arabs is needed to counteract Arab and Soviet-era propaganda about Israel.  This campaign would put the moral onus where it belongs – on the attitudes, beliefs, and behavior of the Arabs, who were and still remain, an implacable enemy.

 Dr. Jeffrey Ludwig
The writer is a Harvard University Master Teacher who has taught at Harvard, Penn State, Juniata, and Boston State College as well as written numerous articles and poems. He has recently published a memoir about his childhood in Philadelphia.