August 31, 2014

Muslim "Extremists" ......

1. In 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. In 1979 the US Embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1983 the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davey Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. In 1998 the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. On 9/11/01 four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers, and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon, and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 the United States began fighting a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

14. And now we can add: In 2009, 31 people were wounded and 13 American Soldiers murdered on base at Fort Hood by a Major that was known as...
a. You guessed it! - A Muslim male extremist between the age of 17 and 40.

Muslims are Terrorists...



Why I'm Unsubscribing to the New York Times

Why I'm Unsubscribing to the New York Times
Leading Reform rabbi cites newspaper's one-sided coverage of Gaza war
By Richard A. Block|August 28, 2014 4:25 PM

I am a lifelong Democrat, a political liberal, a Reform rabbi, and for four
decades, until last week, a New York Times subscriber. What drove me away
was the paper's incessant denigration of Israel, a torrent of articles,
photographs, and op-ed columns that consistently present the Jewish State in
the worst possible light.
This phenomenon is not new. Knowledgeable observers have long assailed the
Times lack of objectivity and absence of journalistic integrity in reporting
on Israel. My chronic irritation finally morphed into alienation and then to
visceral disgust this summer, after Hamas renewed its terrorist assaults
upon Israel and the Times launched what can only be described as a campaign
to delegitimize the Jewish State.
The Middle East conflict is complex, but the root cause of Israel's
confrontation with Hamas is not. Committed by its charter to "obliterate"
Israel and kill all Jews everywhere, Hamas is recognized as a terrorist
organization by the U.S., Britain, and the European Union, a designation
substantiated by its raining rockets down on Israel's civilians and
tunneling under its border to kill and kidnap, indisputable war crimes.
Renowned Israeli novelist, leftist, and self-declared "Israeli peacenik"
Amos Oz captured the essence of the conflict in two questions he posed to a
German radio audience. "What would you do if your neighbor across the street
sits down on the balcony, puts his little boy on his lap and starts shooting
machine gun fire into your nursery? What would you do if your neighbor
across the street digs a tunnel from his nursery to your nursery in order to
blow up your home or in order to kidnap your family?"
The answers are self-evident to everyone except the New York Times. Its
obsessive focus is on Palestinian civilian casualties, especially children,
publishing photos of their corpses and little else, as if they tell the
whole story. The deaths of innocents in wartime are tragic and
heartbreaking; they diminish us all. But a newspaper committed to balance
and fairness would provide context and perspective. It would show
traumatized Israeli children running to shelters, cowering, wetting their
beds, and suffering nightmares. It would publish photos and accounts of
militants launching rockets from the roofs of mosques, a church, and a media
hotel, alongside schools, refugee shelters, clinics and hospitals, and of
weapons concealed by Hamas in UN facilities. It would substantiate casualty
figures from Hamas, which is known to have falsified them in the past,
before reporting them as fact. It would highlight Hamas' use of civilians as
human shields, its urging civilians to ignore Israel's advance warnings to
depart, so that Gazans would be killed and inflict PR damage on Israel. Such
a paper would cover the threats of death that inhibited reporters and
photojournalists from telling the true, full story. But the Times did not.
What it did instead is revealed by a sample of headlines: "As Israel Hits
Mosque and Clinic, Air Campaign's Risks Come Home;" "Israelis Watch Bombs
Drop on Gaza From Front-Row Seats;" "Questions About Tactics and Targets as
Civilian Toll Climbs in Israeli Strikes;" "Foreign Correspondents in Israel
Complain of Intimidation;" "Israeli Shells are Said to Hit UN School;"
"Military Censorship in Israel;" "A Boy at Play in Gaza, a Renewal of War, A
Family in Mourning;" "Israel's Supporters Try to Come to Terms with the
Killing of Children in Gaza;" "Israel Braces for War Crimes Inquiries on
Gaza;" "Resisting Nazis, He Saw Need for Israel. Now He Is Its Critic."
Then there are the op-eds: "Israel's Puppy, Tony Blair;" "Israel's Bloody
Status Quo;" "How the West Chose War in Gaza;" "Darkness Falls on Gaza;"
"Israeli Self-Defense Does Not Permit Killing Civilians;" "Israel Has
Overreacted to the Threats it Provoked;" "Zionism and Its Discontents;"
"U.S. Should Stop Funding Israel, or Let Others Broker Peace;" "Israel's
Colonialism Must End;" "Unwavering Support of Israel Harms U.S. Interests,
Encourages Extremism;" "Eight Days in Gaza: A Wartime Diary: Life and Death
in the Gaza Strip." The last column consumed nearly the entire op-ed page.
The straw that broke my subscription's back came on Aug. 19, when Hamas
violated yet another truce, sending a fusillade of rockets into Israel. The
Wall Street Journal's headline read, "Gaza Rocket Strikes End Cease Fire." A
U.S. State Department spokesperson condemned the renewed rocket fire,
holding Hamas responsible for causing the ceasefire to break down. The Times
headline: "Rockets From Gaza and Israeli Response Break Cease-Fire."
Seriously? A newspaper that cannot distinguish between starting a fight and
defending oneself is intellectually deficient, morally obtuse, and
profoundly unworthy of its readers.
I know the Times won't miss me. The feeling is mutual.
Rabbi Richard A. Block is president of the Central Conference of American

August 29, 2014

(Must Read) - How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War

How Taqiyya Alters Islam's Rules of War

by Raymond Ibrahim -  Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2010  -

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-√°-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]

Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism

M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," 
Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967)

". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth. 

"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. 

So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so. "Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land.

The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them. 

"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.

"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfillment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land.
This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.

"And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.

"The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!

"My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate antisemitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled--as others have been--into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I share. 

Let my words echo in the depths of your soul:
When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."

Afraid of Freedom - Moshe Feiglin

11 Tishrei, 5771
Sept. 19, '10

Translated from the NRG website.

Nobody has to worry about the allegiance of the religious officers and soldiers who are crowding the ranks of the IDF today. IDF documents made public after the expulsion from Gush Katif show that statistically, it was actually the soldiers who were not connected to a religious framework who refused to obey orders - and that phenomenon was negligible.

There is a different phenomenon though, that should be worrying those people who view freedom of thought, freedom of choice and freedom of conscience as a threat to their hegemony.

Polls and in-depth studies unequivocally prove that Israeli society is rediscovering its Judaism. The fascinating aspect of this phenomenon is that the younger generation of Israelis is actually closer to traditional Judaism than their parents. This Yom Kippur, more young people fasted than their adult counterparts. In the past, the opposite was true. The synagogues and community leaders were relegated to the "old generation," while the youngsters wanted nothing to do with "religion". But now, Israeli society is becoming more and more faith-based, with the younger generation blazing the trail.

Israeli society is becoming more faith-based - not more "religious." The phenomenon that we are experiencing is much broader than the "repentance movement" in its strictly religious parameters.

In the days of entertainer-turned-rabbi Uri Zohar, to "repent" meant to turn from a "secular Jew" into a "religious" or "haredi" Jew. But these definitions do not reflect reality. The question that actually defines the status of a given Jew on the faith continuum is: Is G-d present in your life or not? There are Jews who observe the commandments, but have left G-d out of the picture. There are even "progressive" movements that excel at that. On the other hand, there are Jews who still have not connected to Jewish law in its entirety, but experience G-d as very much present in their lives.

On this fundamental level, all of us are returning to G-d all the time. This ongoing experience is not a move from one end of the social spectrum to the other, but a gradual cohesion of the two extremes- together with G-d.

Only a person who fears G-d benefits from true liberty:
"And the midwives feared G-d and did not do what the king of Egypt told them, and they let the children live." (Exodus 1)

Two Hebrew women whose lives were worth no more than dust in the Egyptian gulag refuse to obey the orders of the greatest king in the ancient world - the Egyptian Pharaoh - and don't throw the Jewish baby boys into the Nile River. Their fear of G-d preserved their liberty.

As part of my sentence for "sedition" against the Oslo Accords government, I did community service in a state nursing home. One of the old gentlemen there told me his own story about a different gulag:

"When I went to first grade in the Stalin-era public school in Russia, I made sure never to ask permission from my teacher to let me use the bathroom. It was very important to me to be sure that when I would need to ask permission to go to the bathroom, she would believe me and let me leave the classroom. I knew that I would need to use this escape route when the state nurse would come to check the personal hygiene of the students. If she would find the tzitzit (ritual fringes) that I had under my shirt, she would report me to the authorities and my father would be sent to his death in Siberia."

My friend in the nursing home told this story very matter-of-factly. But it gave me the goose bumps. I was in awe of the father who would risk his life for his faith and the little boy whose fear of Heaven made him truly free at the ripe old age of six.

The wave of return to G-d that Israeli society is now experiencing will necessarily lead to liberty for our Land as well. That is what the people in the ivory towers have to watch out for - not for the religious soldiers.

Bibi Lost the Battle - But Israel can Win the War

As yesterday's "open-ended ceasefire" between Israel and Gazan terrorist groups finally took effect, it was clear that the Islamists, led by Hamas, had suffered a serious humiliation.

From the rubble of Gaza, all the false and painfully predictable bravado could not disguise the fact that Hamas had gone from brazenly rejecting a return to the terms of the 2012 ceasefire which followed Operation Pillar of Defense, to running back to the negotiating table with its tail between its legs to accept an identical proposal just weeks later.

Those familiar with the comical propensity of Arab leaders to miraculously convert military defeat into glorious success know that even if he had been the only man left standing in Gaza, Mahmoud al-Zahar would have given the very same victory speech - and his boss, Khaled Meshaal, would still have maintained his stubborn insistence that Hamas keep on fighting, sitting far from the battlefield in the comfort of Qatar.

50 days of fighting cost the lives of 2,144 Gazans (according to Hamas's own estimates), roughly half of them terrorists, and in a ground operation which lasted just two weeks the IDF succeeded in destroying more than 30 "terror tunnels" into Israel which had taken Hamas two years, and a huge price in both blood and treasure, to construct. Not to mention the massive damage wrought to the military and civilian infrastructure in Gaza - which were often one and the same thing thanks to Hamas and Islamic Jihad's cynical use of human shields - by a blistering campaign of airstrikes.

The extent of Operation Protective Edge - which surpassed both Pillar of Defense and Cast Lead in its scope and severity - took both groups by surprise, as did the effectiveness of the Iron Dome missile defense system, which was nothing short of miraculous. But what shook them the most was Israel's ability to assassinate some of their top leaders (that is, those who weren't cowering under Shifa Hospital in Gaza). 

Just how shaken they were could be seen in the aftermath of Israel's strike, late last week, which eliminated three senior leaders of Hamas's military wing, the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades. The assassination triggered a hysterical response, with Gaza's Islamist rulers summarily executing more than 25 suspected informants and arresting at least 150 others in a desperate bid to discover how on earth Israel had managed to locate and kill them as they met in a top secret bunker some 30 meters underground. And yet, just days later, Hamas's top financial official was eliminated as well.

READ the rest

August 22, 2014

ETAN (Expel The Arabs Now)

The National Camp naturally numbers more than the Left. The majority of Israeli society identifies itself first as Jewish and is inclined to tradition and nationalism. Why then, does the Right seem to be shrinking?
Conventional political wisdom dictates that to win elections, the Right must get votes from Israel's illusive 'Center.' The political wisdom pundits urge the Right to win over Centrist voters by touting itself as Left-lite.

Reality, though, shows that just the opposite is true. In elections in which the Right remained true to its values, it won more mandates than the Left. But when it edged left-ward, it lost. Let us look at the facts:

In 1981 the Likud won 48 mandates. But then Likud PM Begin went to Camp David and implemented the policies of the Left. The destruction of the Sinai settlements brought the Likud down to 41 mandates in 1984. The Labor party won those elections with 44 mandates.

In 1988 the Likud returned to power with 40 mandates. But after focused pressure by the Left, Likud PM Shamir went to the Madrid Conference and opened the way for indirect talks with the PLO. The left turn did not help the Likud at the polling places. On the contrary - in the 1992 elections, Shamir lost to Labor candidate Yitzchak Rabin 32:44.

1n 1996 the Likud's Binyamin Netanyahu triumphed over Labor's Shimon Peres. Israel held its breath, anticipating that Netanyahu would nullify the Oslo Accords. But just the opposite occurred. Netanyahu shook Arafat's hand, signed the Wye Accords and Oslo marched on. In the following elections in 1999 the Likud crashed to 19 mandates and Labor's Ehud Barak became prime minister.

Support for the Labor shrank as a result of the Arab uprising in 2000. In the elections of 2003 Ariel Sharon brought the Likud to a massive victory against Labor, winning 38 mandates as opposed to Labor's 19. Sharon was elected to defeat the Arab enemy. But he veered sharply left and destroyed Gush Katif. Israel despaired of a nationalist alternative to the Left and in the 2006 elections, the Likud shrank to an all time low of just 12 mandates.

Conclusion: The Likud represents the right-leaning Jewish majority in Israel. The way for the Likud to win elections is to remain loyal to the values of Israel's Jewish majority. These are the values that Manhigut Yehudit promotes!

US Aid: When does Israel Get it? By Moshe Feiglin

Israel’s The Marker magazine (the Ha’aretz economic publication) published an important report on Sunday, August 17, ’14  on US ‘aid’ to Israel. If you read the small print, you will find exactly the same things that I have been writing for the last two decades: “Today it is clear,” says the report, “despite the fact that no prime minister or Finance Minister will say so – that Israel can live without the grant.”


Please note the graph attached to the The Marker article (above). Until the Six Day War, in the days of shortages and tent camps- an era when Israel real did need all help possible, American aid was approximately 2% of Israel’s GNP. Instead of sending aid, the US reneged on its support of the Partition Plan, opposed the establishment of the State of Israel and declared an arms embargo on fledgling Israel, which was being threatened with destruction by all the Arab armies surrounding it. Only in 1962 did the Americans throw Israel a few bones: left-over Patton tanks from World War II.
When did the trend do a complete turnabout?  When did the US begin to sell Israel weapons in strategic quantity and quality? When did Israel begin to receive US military and civilian aid, which increased until it grew to 15% of our GNP?
When we left the ‘occupied territories’?
When we ended the ‘occupation’?
When we destroyed the settlements?
Not exactly…Actually, just the opposite is true. In 1967, Israel captured the Golan Heights (and expelled 60,000 Syrians, established Israeli towns and villages and annexed the Heights) Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem – and the Sinai desert. Suddenly it became America’s favored ally.
But that is not the end of the story. Look at the graph again; the numbers do not lie.
When did US aid to Israel begin to decrease?
The greatest amount of US aid, in grants and loans, was afforded to Israel in one year, 1979, in which the peace accords between Egypt and Israel were signed. According to The Marker, US aid to Israel in that one year was 15.7 billion dollars.
And since then?
If we take the US rhetoric literally, then when Israel made peace and surrendered the entire Sinai to Egypt, we should have received more aid. But for some reason, the ‘occupation’ increased the aid, while ‘peace’ brought about its decline.

Today, US ‘aid’ to Israel, entirely military, is at its lowest level ever. Even the leftist Ha’aretz admits that Israel does not really need it. We take this ‘aid’ for psychological reasons (if we have an allowance, that means we have a father) and pay for it dearly; much more than its economic, security and diplomatic benefit.
One thing must be clear. Israel and America do share some common values. It is important to strengthen them on a mutual basis. But we do not receive any aid for being ‘nice guys’. Israel receives US ‘aid’ regardless of how many Gazans were killed. We receive the ‘aid’ because it is in the economic, security and diplomatic interest of the US. When Israel is strong (1967) it is worth America’s while to invest in us. When we retreat (since 1979), the US invests in us less and less.

August 13, 2014

The White House Stabs Israel in the Back —- Again

The White House Stabs Israel in the Back —- Again
July 14, 2014 by Ari Lieberman

Below is an interesting article.
I also find it interesting that the Palestinian Unity Government is being financed by the US to the tune of over $400 million annually
Hamas, part of this unity government, has been declared by the US as a Terrorist Organization
Is there any other conclusion that the US is financing terrorism?

An interview where Ben Shapiro concludes the Obama administration is “anti-Israel and basically a “jew hating Administration”.......strong words   

Ari Lieberman is an attorney and former prosecutor.

Barack Obama Let us engage in a brief thought experiment. Imagine if a top American official during World War II, say Eisenhower or perhaps Bradly, publically blasted Britain while British troops were slugging it out with German panzers at Caen, while British blood was being used to secure the Allies’ left flank and the roads to Paris. It is an inconceivable thought, but had it occurred, evidence of a fissure among allies would have served to embolden Hitler and would have had a devastating demoralizing effect on our British partners.

Of course, the Allies had their differences (Montgomery and Patton were notorious critics of one another) but generally kept them hush and within the family. It would be unfathomable for members of the Allied powers to publically censure one another, for such action would be deemed counterproductive. On the rare occasion where a ranking member of the Allied forces veered from accepted protocol and issued public criticism, he was scolded and quickly forced to issue a retraction or apology.

Fast forward to July 2014. Israel is currently in the midst of a vicious asymmetrical war with Hamas, an Islamist organization rooted in fascism whose charter would likely make the most ardent Nazi blush. Rockets of all shapes and sizes are deliberately being fired by the terrorist group from civilian areas into civilian areas. While Israel is in crisis and in need of political allies, a ranking member of the Obama administration has chosen this among all times to blast Israel.

On July 8, at a conference organized by Israel’s premiere leftist daily Ha’aretz, Phillip Gordon, President Obama’s special assistant and White House coordinator for the Middle East, issued harsh condemnation of Israel claiming that Israeli policies were a source of regional instability and showered praise on the Palestinian Authority’s unelected strongman, Mahmoud Abbas.  Ironically, the conference was interrupted by rocket fire from Israel’s Palestinian “peace partners,” forcing attendees to disperse and seek safety in more secure rooms.

Gordon is merely echoing the views of his boss, who expressed similar sentiment in an opinion piece written exclusively for Ha’aretz. It is ironic that the President chose Ha’aretz out of all forums to express his views. Ha’aretz maintains a daily circulation that barely hovers at five percent and is near financial ruin for lack of readership. It is a marginal, radical leftist daily that caters to the views of Israel’s most extreme fanatics and on more than one occasion, Ha’aretz was forced to retract featured stories that were proven to be defamatory and false. These facts mattered not to Obama for the radical views espoused by the Ha’aretz editorial board are in line with his own.

As for Gordon’s claim that Israel’s policies contribute to regional instability, the indefatigable David Horovitz said it best when he noted that it’s as though a clueless Gordon had just arrived from the “Planet Zog” and had “mistaken the Middle East for Finland.” That is an accurate summation. With 200,000-plus dead in Syria, Iraq unraveling, Egypt teetering, Iran on the verge of nuclear breakout and the rest of the Arab world imploding, Gordon chooses Israel as the source of the region’s troubles and does so while some 40% of the country is under rocket fire from the very people he expects Israel to do business with. Now if that doesn’t represent the zenith of chutzpah, I don’t know what does.

The praise heaped upon Abbas by Gordon and his boss is equally puzzling and quite disturbing. Abbas is an unelected autocrat whose term of office expired in 2009. He is also an unqualified Holocaust denier who referred to the death of 6,000,000 Jews as a “fantastic lie,” denied the existence of gas chambers and alleged, somewhat contradictorily, that, “The Zionist movement led a broad campaign of incitement against the Jews living under Nazi rule, in order to arouse the government’s hatred of them, to fuel vengeance against them, and to expand the mass extermination.” In other words, the Jews are to blame for their own mass extermination, which incidentally, never actually occurred. Lastly, Abbas has partnered with Hamas, the very group that seeks Israel’s destruction, the very group responsible for the recent kidnapping-murder of three Israel teens and the very group that’s currently trying to inflict maximum civilian casualties by targeting Israeli cities with deadly rockets. These inconvenient truths are seemingly ignored by the Ostrich-like White House.

But to get a true sense of how insidious Abbas is one need look no further than comments he recently made in connection with Israel’s recent counter-insurgency efforts. He alleged that Israel is committing genocide and compared Israel’s defensive measures to atrocities carried out by the Nazis at Auschwitz concentration camp, where at least 1,080,000 people, the majority of them Jews, were murdered.

President Obama and his minions have noted on different occasions that the bonds between Israel and the United States are iron clad and when the chips are down, the administration has Israel’s back. Well Mr. President, you have indeed lived up to expectations. The chips are down and the knife you’re sticking in Israel’s back today has nearly come out the other side.otify me immediately by return electronic mail and delete the original message from your system immediately.

The Jew in You. How real is your Jewish identity?

by Rabbi Jack Cohen

For the past 10 years, psychologist Carol Dweck at Columbia (now Stanford) has studied the effect of praise on children. Her seminal study on 400 fifth-graders sheds light on the stuff that people are made of. Students were administered a series of IQ tests. After the first test, one group of students was praised for their intelligence, while the other group was praised for their efforts.
The second group – those praised for their efforts not talents – consistently proved to be more ambitious when offered a choice between an easy test and a more difficult test. They took responsibility for their failings when unbeknownst to them were given a test beyond their abilities. And, fascinatingly, they did 30% better on follow-up tests than their original test. In contrast, those praised for being smart alone, ironically did 20% worse on follow-up tests than the initial control test they took.
Why is this the case?
The stuff a person is made of is the stuff of truth. If we're praised for being smart, attractive, charming, etc., part of us would like to feel good about it, but in our heart of hearts, we know that we deserve zero credit for any of those qualities. Almost as surely as if we were praised for being tall when we knew we were short.
We received our gifts either through nature or nurture, and therefore the praise is misplaced. It may be true that we're all those things, but the praise as praise is just not true.
We truly live at the battlefront where we make choices. My self, in the truest sense, can be found only at the point at which I am exerting effort.
You don't choose to be gifted, but you do choose what you do with those gifts. In fact, the only thing we choose is how hard we try. If we get recognized for our efforts, that rightfully fortifies our self-esteem, and motivates us to keep trying. On the other hand, the seeming "nicety" of praise for being smart, if detached from the effort we made to work hard, has the opposite effect. It causes us to rest on our laurels and simultaneously feel bad for not making the full use of the gifts we've been given – resulting, counterintuitively, in decreased self-esteem.
Self-esteem must be real. It can't be faked. So how we perceive ourselves must be an accurate reflection of the stuff of what we're made of – which is the fruit of our efforts.

Jewish Identity under Attack

The dichotomy between real and false esteem comes to play with our Jewish identity as well.
As someone who works with 20-something college students, I see upfront that Jewish identity is vanishing. Less and less young Jews identify as Jewish. And the reason is simple: identity must be real. It cannot be based on superficial factors alone. Camp songs, Seinfeld reruns, and mother's guilt just won't cut it anymore. A previous generation’s nostalgic connection has no real bearing on our inner core.
Most young people are content to leave their Jewish identity undefined, nebulous. Until they encounter the reality of anti-Semitism, a cosmic force programmed into the fabric of human history that serves as the crucible for our identity through its applied heat. Anti-Semitism forces us to confront our Jewish identity.
If our response when attacked for being Jewish is, "Maybe it's something we did wrong," our self-doubt compels us to run and try to fix the flaw, like the bullied teenager who changes his wardrobe to avoid the bully's criticism.
But the proud Jew who understands the meaning of Jewish has a different response. When he sees the protests, the riots, the arson of a major kosher super market, threats of attacks on civilians, outcries that remain unheard to massacres many times larger, he is emboldened to take a stand to be unapologetically Jewish. The response is a galvanizing of Jews together.
In the face of raw, unadulterated hatred, we are challenged to stand taller and prouder. It cuts away the superficiality that comprises our Jewish identity and compels us to discover something much more real within.
To be a Jew means to choose to be a Jew. It means thousands of decisions every day in how to think, how to feel, how to treat others, what not to eat, what to strive for. It means being the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of survivors sons or survivors sons of survivors – all of whom chose – actively in those thousands of daily decisions – to survive as Jews.
We are living in difficult times. Platitudes, propaganda, and politics are showing their true colors. May we use these forces to deepen our Jewishness and unify, to show our true colors as well.

The Anti-Zionism Lie

The war in Gaza has exposed many myths.
We now know the extent to which Hamas duped the world as it pleaded poverty and used the world’s aid for munitions and missiles – even as it turned its leaders in absentia into multimillionaires.
We now know how cement allowed into Gaza on the pretext that it would be used for the construction of schools and basic infrastructure was misdirected to building the most sophisticated tunnels meant for terror activities on an unimaginable and unprecedented scale.
We now know how those who speak in pious platitudes on CNN about how much they want only to ensure a good life for their children readily use them as shields and praise death and martyrdom as their noblest ideals.
But there’s one more myth which for all too long had many supporters around the world that can now no longer be sustained. The argument about the real meaning of anti-Zionism can finally be put to rest.
Many years ago there were those who already perceived the truth. When they expressed it they were or often mocked, if not vilified. One would have to be blind though, today, not to agree.
Martin Luther King was prescient in recognizing this during his lifetime. He was fearless in speaking truth to power. His words resonate all the more forcefully now in the aftermath of the world’s response to Israel’s long overdue reaction to missiles indiscriminately fired on its inhabitants:
“When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!”
As Stephen Harper, the first Canadian Prime Minister to address the Knesset, said bluntly and clearly in January of this past year: “Anti-Zionism is the new face of anti-Semitism.”
And Harper was criticized. The pundits repeated their mantra: Opposition to Israel isn’t opposition to Jews. Hating Israel isn’t the same as hating Jews. Just because people take issue with Israeli policies doesn’t mean that they have anything against Jewish people all over the world.
Open your eyes now and see what is happening in the supposedly civilized capitals of Europe. In France, demonstrators physically assault Jews in synagogues. Not Israelis. Not the Israeli embassy. Jews. Jews at prayer, Jews who may lean left or right with regard to their views on settlements or may disagree with Israeli policies. As long as they are Jews, they remain the enemy.
Murderous slogans dating back to the days of Hitler have been chanted at pro-Palestinian rallies in Germany. Jewish-owned shops were attacked and burned. The Israeli ambassador to Germany, Yakov Hadas-Handelsman, said: “They pursue the Jews in the streets of Berlin… as if we were in 1938.” There have been reports of protesters chanting “Jews to the gas chambers.”
Dieter Graumann, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, said the rise in attacks was a terrifying reminder of an era that was thought to be in the distant past. “We are currently experiencing in this country an explosion of evil and violent hatred of Jews, which shocks and dismays all of us. We would never in our lives have thought it possible any more that anti-Semitic views of the nastiest and most primitive kind can be chanted on German streets.”
Roger Cukierman, of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France, said Jews were living in fear. “They are not shouting ‘Death to the Israelis’ on the streets of Paris,” he said. “They are screaming ‘Death to the Jews.’”
In Belgium, a sign at a cafe in Saint-Nicolas, a town located just east of the southern city of Liege reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Jews are not under any circumstances.” In major cities there are reports of Jewish stores being boycotted, of businesses refusing to sell to Jews.
Let us grant for a moment that there may be those who feel Arabs have legitimate grievances. Should we not wonder though why invariably disagreement with Israeli policies legitimizes calls for genocide and a renewal of Hitler’s efforts to wipe out the Jews wherever they may be?
In 2008 a State Department report already cautioned that "New forms of anti-Semitism often incorporate elements of traditional anti-Semitism. However, the distinguishing feature of the new anti-Semitism is criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that – whether intentionally or unintentionally – has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews by demonizing Israel and Israelis and attributing Israel’s perceived faults to its Jewish character. This new anti-Semitism is common throughout the Middle East and in Muslim communities in Europe, but it is not confined to these populations...”
The best way to recognize the current anti-Israel hysteria for its anti-Semitic roots is by making use of Seymour Martin Lipset’s brilliant warning sometime back against “the dangerous confluence between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism” and his recipe for recognizing the difference between them. I would urge everyone to carefully note them and then consider contemporary criticism of Israeli actions in Gaza:
  • "Consider the source. Is the speaker someone with a history of anti-Jewish attitudes? His anti-Zionism is but a cover for anti-Semitism. "
  • "Critics who habitually single out Israel for condemnation while ignoring far worse actions by other countries (especially other Middle Eastern countries) are anti-Semitic."
  • "Likening Israel to Nazi Germany, or to traditional anti-Jewish stereotypical behavior is another sure sign of Jew-baiting and anti-Semitism."
  • "Attacks on the merits of Israel's existence rather than individual government policies are anti-Semitic." 
By all these standards we can finally bury the myth under which Jew haters have so cleverly camouflaged their racism. When Israel is attacked by its critics simply because it refuses to commit suicide we know with certainty that they are no better than a long string of historic figures who sought nothing less than death to the Jews – and that they will most assuredly meet the same fate as all of our enemies.

What Israel Can Expect After the Cease Fire: By Moshe Feiglin

What Israel Can Expect After the Cease Fire: By Moshe Feiglin

Two things have become clear with the cease fire in Gaza.

One: Israel is incapable of defeating its enemies from within the Oslo mentality.

Two: Israelis are still not able to shake free of this mentality. Not yet.

For these reasons, the PM’s decision is a given.

The essence of war is territory. They want the territory on which the Jews are living. They do not want sovereignty alongside Israel; they want sovereignty instead of Israel. To win a war, the opposite result must be achieved: they must lose their territory.

Over the past twenty years, the Oslo mentality has severely compromised the belief of the Israelis in the justice of their bond to the Land of Israel. The handshake of Israel’s leaders – from both Right and Left – with the chairman of the Organization for the Liberation of the Land of Israel from its Jews (Arafat) has turned Israelis into colonialists in Tel Aviv. It has fostered an apologetic mentality, a mentality in which Israelis are guests in their own land.

The Prime Minister cannot change this mentality and thus cannot direct the IDF to conquer Gaza.
Demography is not the  problem. With thought and pre-planning, we can deal with the demographic problem. Israel’s demographic situation is good and a very large wave of aliyah to Israel is about to take place. The Hamas is not the problem, either. The IDF can easily defeat it – if instead of being directed to get entangled in tunnels and alleys, it will be directed to win.

All the tactical problems have solutions. But the real problem is not with the enemy; it is with ourselves. Are we willing now – after all the blows that we have received – to negate the Oslo mentality and internalize that this is our Land?

The answer that the PM gave tonight is ‘Not yet.’
We can anticipate the results of this decision on three fronts:
Terror: All the tentacles of the octopus that threatens us – from Iran to Gaza, from the ISIS to Hizballah, from the Arabs of Judea and Samaria to the extremist Arabs who are Israeli citizens – now understand that Israel is not capable of winning. They have all received a strong tail wind to continue their attack against us. From now, life in Israel will be much less safe, until the next significant round of fighting – which will be much worse.

The diplomatic front: A weak Israel has always beckoned diplomatic pressure. Our lack of faith in the justice of our sovereignty in our Land has not only led to hesitation on the battlefield. It has also caused the West to adopt a new approach according to which Israel is a mistake. And mistakes, of course, must be mended.

Judea and Samaria: The non-defeat of the Hamas will necessarily bring about Israeli submission and unilateral withdrawals in Judea and Samaria (after all, we must find a solution). As our experience with previous withdrawals has proven time and again – the newest round of pullbacks will feed and accelerate the same process of de-legitimization, terror and additional withdrawals.
This is the sorry state of affairs that we face this evening, the eve of Tisha B’Av, 5774.
I am filled with faith in the strength of our Nation of Israel and the State that we have established after 2000 years of exile. These energies will galvanize us to rise, shake off the Oslo mentality, change direction and save ourselves from the strategic danger hovering over our heads. They will motivate us to bequeath to our children a future of both physical and spiritual security and prosperity.

At this point, however, we have not yet crossed the threshold that will engender the necessary revolution of consciousness.

For now, we have to fearlessly tell the public the truth and consistently present the faith-based alternative for leadership of Israel. I will continue to do both. And I know that the Nation of Israel will win.

Let us all rise to this challenge.

ANDREW BOLT: Australian journalist who has no pity for Gaza

Video says it all!

Truly a rare voice of informed reporting in a sea of leftist media terrorist apologists.

10 Myths and Facts about the Gaza War

(1) Israel started this war, using the murder of three Israeli teens as a pretext.



In the first half of 2014 – prior to the outbreak of fighting – Hamas launched nearly 200 rockets at Israeli civilians. When the three Israeli teens were brutally kidnapped, Israel went looking for them in the West Bank; they were later found murdered. To divert attention from Hamas accountability, the terror group launched hundreds of rockets at the length and breadth of Israel, sending 80 percent of the Israeli population racing into bomb shelters.
Israel responded by rooting out the rocket sites in Gaza – in the process fortuitously discovering a vast network of terror tunnels that Hamas reportedly planned to used to stage a single day of mass kidnappings and murder of Jews.

An Open Letter to Wolf Blitzer Re: Blood Libels

Dear Wolf, My Fellow Jew,

You looked distraught in your recent CNN interview with Hamas spokesman Osama Hamdan. You had been “very disturbed” by a video from Al-Quds TV in which Hamdan, in Arabic (translation verified by CNN), stated: “We all remember how the Jews used to slaughter Christians in order to mix their blood with their holy matzot. This is not a figment of the imagination or something taken from a film; it is a fact acknowledged by their own books and historical evidence.”
Incredulous that your interviewee would promulgate such medieval slander, you respectfully asked, “You believe that Jews would kill Christians to mix their blood to bake the holy matzot on Passover? Is that your belief, Mr. Hamdan?”

You let him sidestep the question and rant for a couple minutes about Israeli politicians who, he said, were advocating genocide in Gaza. After he referred to Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government as “the new Nazis of this century,” you finally interrupted him with a plaintive: “I understand that, and I just want you to be specific and answer the question. Maybe I’ll remind you of what you said.” Then you played the clip for all your CNN viewers to see it for themselves, and you repeated your question: “So do you believe that Jews used to slaughter Christians to use their blood to bake matzahs?”

 ( Video -

Wolf, what is more incredible – that Hamdan, an intelligent man in the 21st century, could believe the old medieval blood libel, or that you, after witnessing him say it, could believe – could desperately want to believe – that he didn’t really mean it?

After Hamdan ranted on for almost another two minutes, you looked so dismayed when you admitted: ““I was hoping to get a flat denial from you that you would utter such ridiculous words, that Jews would kill Christians to use their blood to make matzah.”

Wolf, how could he deny the words that millions of viewers had seen him utter? And would you, astute as you are, have been satisfied if he had denied it? Would you have slept soundly that night, satisfied that we Jews are not really hated by the people who demonize us?

Although I’m sure you are a faithful reader of, you must have missed my last week’s article about anti-Semitism, in which I mention that blood libels “have persisted from the Middle Ages well into the age of computers.” You might have been edified, as well as horrified, to learn that, as I wrote, “In 1986, Mustafa Tlass, the Defense Minister of Syria, wrote a book called, The Matzah of Zion, accusing Jews of ritual murder. By October, 2002, the book was enjoying its 8th printing and was being translated into English, French, and Italian.”

I know, Wolf, that you work hard to ferret out the truth of what’s happening in the world. We Jews are inveterate truth-seekers. But in one area, we, the ever-rational Jews, are, and historically have always been, in denial: about rabidly irrational anti-Semitism.

For example: When the Nazi juggernaut was taking over all of Europe, Jews figured out that only Jewish men were in danger, because the Germany army could use them in their labor battalions. After all, what use could the Germans make of women, children, and the elderly? Therefore, many young men, at the behest of their mothers and wives, fled eastward, leaving their families behind to the unthinkable fate that only the Jew-hating mind could devise.

Even as late as 1944, when the vast majority of the Jews of Poland had already been exterminated and reports of death factories were being whispered throughout Europe, the Jews in Hungary could not bring themselves to believe that the civilized, cultured Germans would actually murder innocent men, women, and children. Eli Wiesel relates in his autobiography how his family rejected the offer of their Christian housemaid to hide them in her village. After all, even if the Germans deported them, how bad could it be?

Naiveté has proven lethal to the Jewish People again and again.

Surely, Wolf, you are bothered by the violent, anti-Semitic demonstrations that have broken out throughout Europe. And I’m sure you saw the cover of this week’s Newsweek: Exodus: Why Europe’s Jews are Fleeing Once Again. Strangely, though, they’re not.

Newsweek quotes a November 2013 survey by the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union: “Jews across Europe, the survey noted, ‘face insults, discrimination and physical violence.’” The same survey found that 29% of Europe’s Jews had considered emigrating, as they did not feel safe. Just 29%? What are the other 71% thinking? Are they hoping, as you do, Wolf, that the people calling “Death to the Jews!” don’t really mean it?

Even in France, the country hardest hit by anti-Semitic violence, including the murder of seven Jews in Toulouse in 2012, the “Exodus” documented by Newsweek is a mere trickle:
In 2013, the year after the Toulouse attack, 3,289 left. In the first quarter of this year 1,778 Jews emigrated. “This year I expect 5-6,000 Jews to leave,” says Cukierman [president of the Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions].
The Jewish population of France is 480,000. The “exodus” expected this year, even after synagogues were violently attacked, is a mere 1.25% of France’s Jews. Apparently, myopia is a “Jewish disease.”

Natan Sharansky, the head of the Jewish Agency for Israel, is not so sanguine. In a recent Jewish Chronicle article, he declared, “I believe we are seeing the beginning of the end of Jewish history in Europe.”

And Robert Wistrich, professor of European and Jewish history at the Hebrew University and a leading expert on anti-Semitism, said in a recent interview by The Times of Israel: “Since 2000, we are on a very steady rising curve of explosive anti-Semitism and anything could set it aflame in a massive way. All the elements are in place and have been since the beginning of this century… The proposition that it will go back to some low level is completely delusional.”
Wistrich adds portentously: “Having spoken in many parts of the world, I can tell you that Jewish audiences are among the most resistant of all in coming to terms with anti-Semitism – until it reaches an explosive point. … The Jews should get out now when they can… Which rational person who cares about their Jewish identity and what will happen to their children, will want to continue in the same way?”

Wistrich concludes the interview by advising Jews around the world, including the United States, to “wake up to it – not that I expect people will.”

Wolf, I’m not trying to scare you. But as Benyamin Netanyahu declared: “From the Holocaust we should learn that when people say they want to kill you, believe them.” When Arabs say that Jews murder Christians to use their blood for matzah, believe that they believe it.
I have one more question for you as one of CNN’s foremost anchors: Since you know that the blood libel the Hamas spokesman stated is blatantly false, why do you believe anything else he says?
Sara Yoheved Rigler

This Is What REAL US Leaders Do.

Embedded image permalink

Historic first: IDF operates unmanned APC in Gaza

IDF modifies old M113 APC, giving it ability to carry four tons of supplies to soldiers in the field without endangering lives • Vehicle is operated remotely, can travel up to 50 kilometers per hour • IDF officer: We really broke ground with this.
Lilach Shoval

The unmanned APC
Photo credit: IDF Spokesperson's Unit

Mayim Bialik helps send bulletproof vests to IDF

“The Big Bang Theory” star Mayim Bialik explained Wednesday why she is helping send bulletproof vests to the Israel Defense Forces.
The Jewish actress and outspoken supporter of Israel wrote a brief blog post Wednesday afternoon, titled “Why I Donated Money to Send Bulletproof Vests to the IDF.”

It's Anti-Semitism, Stupid

Let's admit it: Israel can never win the media war against Hamas. No matter what it does, no matter how hard it tries.

Not because the Islamist terror group that is raining missiles on its cities and villages and using its own hapless subjects as human shields is the underdog in this conflict, but because the sight of Arabs killing Jews (or other Arabs for that matter) is hardly news; while the sight of Jews killing Arabs is a man-bites-dog anomaly that cannot be tolerated.

Imagine the following scenario: Thousands of foaming-at-the-mouth Jews rampaging through the streets of London and Paris to protest the blitz bombing of their co-religionists by a murderous al-Qaida/ISIS clone. They carry banners urging the killing of all Muslims wherever they are, hurl rocks and petrol bombs at the police, set fire to mosques, destroy Muslim properties and establishments, and attack all Muslims and Arabs coming their way.

Sound incredible? No doubt. For Jews in western (and Muslim) societies are be expected to know their place: to act maturely, responsibly and compassionately, to never fight fire with fire, to always understand the "other," to ever be ready to please, appease, and whenever necessary – turn the other cheek.

Not so Israel's enemies. With a sickening unanimity that has become all too familiar over the past decades, whenever the Jewish state responded in strength to Palestinian terrorism – be it rocket attacks from Lebanon; West Bank-originated suicide bombing campaigns (euphemized as the Aqsa intifada); or rocket, missile and mortar attacks from the Gaza Strip – hordes of hateful, violent demonstrators flocked onto the streets of western cities throughout the world, not to call for peace or an end of violence on all sides but to demonize a sovereign democracy for daring to protect its citizens and to vilify and assault their own Jewish compatriots for no reason other than their different religious and/or ethnic identity.

"Today, non-Israeli Jews feel themselves once again exposed to criticism and vulnerable to attack for things they didn't do," the late New York University professor Tony Judt lamented amid the growing number of hate fests in the early 2000s. "The increased incidence of attacks on Jews in Europe and elsewhere is primarily attributable to misdirected efforts, often by young Muslims, to get back at Israel."

Anti-Semites, of course, have never been short of excuses for assaulting and killing Jews, and infinitely larger numbers of Jews were exterminated shortly before the founding of the State of Israel than in the 66 years of its existence, not to mention the millions massacred in Europe and the Middle East since antiquity.

Neither did European Jew-haters await Israel's establishment to unleash on the remnants of the Holocaust.

Anti-Semitic sentiments remained as pronounced as ever, especially in Eastern Europe, which witnessed a few vicious pogroms shortly after the end of World War II. Even in Germany, Jews found themselves attacked and abused in public with 60 percent of Germans condoning overt anti-Jewish acts of violence.

We are the Good Guys: By Moshe Feiglin

We are the Good Guys: By Moshe Feiglin

We are prattling ourselves to death; blabbing in the television studios and in the military briefings.
“When the Hamas terrorists emerge from underground and see all the destruction, they will understand that they lost.” Really? Does anybody in the Hamas really care about the destruction and the casualties?

What was the Hamas’ status before this war, and what is its status today both in the Arab world and the world at large? That is a determining factor.
Who requests a cease fire and who dictates its conditions? That is a determining factor.

We must understand: A war that does not have a clear, determined, unequivocal and decisive goal will always be lost. If you do not have a clear goal – don’t go to war.
Israel does not have a strategic perspective on why it is fighting. That is why we cannot manage to define a clear goal.

Worst of all – we are fighting unethically, endangering our courageous sons in battle.

What are we fighting for? Against whom?  In the beginning of this war, the stated purpose was to halt the rocket attacks on Israel. This morning, I heard that the goal is the destruction of most of the terror tunnels (at least the ones we know about).

But rockets are not enemies and I cannot remember ever being attacked by a tunnel. The enemy is fanatical Arab Islam, which seeks to destroy Israel. 

 You can call it Hamas, PLO, ISIS, Iran or the Moslem Brotherhood. You can call it the Islamic Movement of the North and you can call it Ahmad Tibi. All of them are different arms of the same octopus; of the same fanatical Arab Islamicideology, defined so well by Arab MK Ahmad Tibi: “We do not have rights in the Land – we have rights to the Land.

The only innocents in Gaza are the IDF soldiers. We are not in a police operation to capture a crime family. We are in a national war, fighting for the existence of the State of Israel.

They sanctify slavery and death. We sanctify liberty and life. They are the savages of the desert who came to Israel looking for work from the ‘Zionists’ – and we foolishly gave them parts of our Homeland. We armed them with the best weaponry and turned them into a sovereign entity that democratically elected the Hamas, by a vast majority, as its legitimate leadership. Therefore, as soon as the civilians have been given reasonable time to evacuate – any delay in the momentum of battle or any move that endangers the forces of light in their just war against the forces of darkness is patently unethical.

When we retreated from Gaza, we turned it into the southern arm of the Arab Islamic octopus that seeks our complete destruction. It is the arm of the octopus on the threshold of Ashkelon and Tel Aviv. Anything less than decisive victory in Gaza will bring upon us a much more difficult battle against all the other arms of the octopus.

Everyone is Israel is asking why we did not destroy the terror tunnels earlier even though we knew of their existence. Hizballah has one hundred thousand missiles aimed at us from the north. When those missiles start to fly, what will we say? After all, we knew…Why didn’t we destroy them?
The Gazan octopus arm is a test case: It is being closely watched by the rest of the arms. If it is not clear to the northern octopus arm, as well as the arms in Judea and Samaria and the Arabs who live in Israel and are now rising up – and to the ISIS and of course to Iran – to all of them – that an attack on Israel brings about the loss of territory from where the attack was staged and complete liquidation of the local leadership – you can expect a downpour of rockets from the north, nuclear weapons in Iranian hands, ISIS taking control of the Syrian missile arsenal and a horrific war in conditions much more difficult than those we face now.

That is why we have no choice but to conquer Gaza and destroy the Hamas. Not an ongoing operation, shackled in the chains of hypocritical and distorted Western morality – but clear definitions and effective and rapid conquest that will save much bloodshed –f or us and for them as well.

No more complicated battles in the alleyways and tunnels. Rather, rapid division of Gaza into lateral and horizontal axes, conquering of strategic locations and immediate elimination of all the Hamas headquarters, communications and control centers.  Once Israel is in control on the ground, we can allow the civilians to evacuate without threats from the Hamas and then erase any area suspect of  housing tunnels. If we had done this, the Gaza threat would have been behind us long ago – with less casualties and wounded.

This is what is going to happen at any rate. But if we do not plan it and determine our goals, let there be no mistake: We will reach the same point because they will drag us to it. They will be the initiators, however, and we will be the responders. And the cost will be, G-d forbid, much higher – for both sides.

And one more thought on the international hypocrisy and criticism: The world is going to blame us anyway; let us at least save the lives of our soldiers and the lives of others, as well. Reality has proven time and again that Israel’s indecision and ethical and operative confusion do not prevent international criticism and attack. On the contrary, they encourage them.
Operative determination that radiates moral fortitude, born of the deep understanding that this is our Land and that we are the good guy, is what we need to repel the international criticism.
Forward to victory!

Hollywood and Hamas, be careful what you wish for. Rabbi Benjamin Blech

Hollywood and Hamas   by
Be careful what you wish for.

Hollywood has gone gung ho for Hamas and the Palestinians.
Academy award winner Javier Bardem and his popular actress wife Penelope Cruz who cosigned a letter with over 100 other celebrities condemning Israel for committing acts of genocide (!?) are but a small segment of the movie industry’s elite proudly proclaiming their identification with the Palestinian cause.

It is a self-understood given in the Hollywood community that Israel is the villain in today’s world. Those who openly support it find themselves ostracized and, unless they are super A-listed stars, unemployed. Pity poor Simon Cowell, the English born producer of American Idol and The X Factor fame, who donated $150,000 to the Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces, an organization formed by Holocaust survivors that pays for the education and care of Israeli troops and supports families of slain soldiers, who wasn’t aware of Hollywood’s rules for how to be a liberal in good standing. For this transgression he continues to be vilified and the recipient of tweets such as this one which obviously comes from an extremely sensitive liberal profoundly pained by Cowell’s generosity to those despicable Israeli Jews: “Simon Cowell, I hope you burn in the pits of hell and your children and family suffer what Palestinians do under the hands of butchers.”

What strikes me as most remarkable of all is that Hollywood has taken sides with precisely those people who represent the greatest threat to its culture, its values, and its continued existence. There is a beautiful and profound Spanish proverb that warns us, “Be careful what you wish for, for you may get it.” Oscar Wilde put it this way: “When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.” So let’s help Hollywood write the script for what would happen if they indeed had their prayers answered and Hamas and its ideology prevailed.

First, let’s help Steven Spielberg and all the other Jewish producers, directors, writers, actors, agents, and anyone else connected with the movie industry immediately flee for their safety. Let’s remember that the charter of Hamas asks not just for the destruction of Israel and all of its inhabitants but for all Jews who by definition are infidels, to be slain for their faithlessness. And if you think that those are mere words in the charter that aren’t meant to be taken literally, please recall that’s exactly what people said about Adolph Hitler’s carefully outlined plans for the Jews in his masterwork Mein Kampf - before he scrupulously went to work to fulfill what he so clearly promised.

So try to picture a Hollywood without Jews. But of course it doesn’t end there. The Arab world knows the slogan well: First we take care of the Saturday people, next we’ll take care of the Sunday people. To be fair, we need to warn Christians as well.
Exaggerated? A long time ago, the Bible tells us that God sent the prophet Jonah to the city of Nineveh with the warning that it might soon be destroyed for the sins of its city. Thankfully then its inhabitants listened and repented, so they were spared. Today that city of Nineveh is known as Mosul, the second-largest city in Iraq. Just a few weeks ago the tomb of Jonah was violently desecrated and destroyed by members of ISIS, an extremist Islamic group.

Read the Rest:

August 7, 2014

Finding Comfort in the Middle of a War: By Shmuel Sackett


9 Av, 5774 / August 5, '14

Many years ago I heard an amazing story that I will never forget. It was about a Jew named Chaim Shapiro who lived in Europe with his wife and 6 children. Everything was fine until Hitler (may his name be erased) came to power. Shortly after that, the Holocaust began and tragedy struck Chaim and his family. By the time the hell was over, Chaim Shapiro had lost his beloved wife and 5 of his 6 children. He emigrated to Israel (called Palestine at the time) with his 19 year old son, Baruch, the only child left. Upon arriving in Israel, his son was immediately drafted into what became known as the IDF. Baruch Shapiro fought several battles with great bravery yet fell in combat in the Latrun area while fighting to open the road to Jerusalem. Chaim Shapiro had just lost his last son and was truly left with nothing.

Word quickly spread around Israel and thousands attended the funeral of Baruch Shapiro. And then, something incredible happened. As they lowered Baruch's body into the freshly dug grave, the father, Chaim Shapiro, started to sing "Am Yisrael Chai". People were in shock and everyone was silent. Not one person joined the singing yet the father continued his singing even as the grave was filled with dirt. It was then that Chaim addressed the crowd. "I'm sure you think I lost my mind, but nothing could be further from the truth. I know exactly what I am doing and I will explain my actions. Just a few years ago I lost my wife and 5 of my children. They were all murdered for nothing. They went like sheep to the slaughter. Their blood was shed like water for no reason at all. Yet this son, Baruch, fell as a hero. He fell in the battle for Jerusalem our holy city. He fell while fighting the enemy and even though his death is painful, it proves that our nation and people live. We have an army and are fighting for a country! What an honor and privilege to have a son die in that way. This is why I sang Am Yisrael Chai and I ask you all to join together with me!" At that point he continued singing and many of those present at the funeral joined together with him.

I must add a note to this story. I heard about Chaim Shapiro and his son Baruch z"l from Rabbi Stewart Weiss of Ra'anana. He wrote this story many years ago in the Jerusalem Post and it changed my life. A few years later, Rabbi Weiss' own son, Ari, was killed in battle while serving in the IDF and fighting terrorists in Shechem. At the funeral for his son Ari, he told this story and sang Am Yisrael Chai as well. Unbelievable...

Dearest friends; as tragic as this story is - it is the message of Shabbos Nachamu. It is about Jews being comforted, even though the tragedy is still fresh. It is about focusing on the "WHY" and not just the "WHAT" and as horrific as events sometimes are, a Yid must ALWAYS see the good and the inner message being given. Tisha B'av was just a few days ago and the kinnos we read are still ringing in our ears but now is the time for Nachamu, Nachamu Ami. Now is the time for comfort and strength. Now is the time to brush off the dirt and sing "Am Yisrael Chai", even though it is hard.

I write these words even as missiles are still flying in Israel and millions are in great danger. I write these words as our boys in Israel traded their bathing suits for IDF uniforms and their beach umbrellas for M-16s. Nevertheless, we take comfort knowing that Hashem is leading them in battle and the great Jewish nation is fighting in the Promised Land. The stories of King David, Joshua and Shimshon are not simply bedtime stories but are real and alive in these very days.

Be comforted my people and be happy because as Chaim Shapiro taught us: Am Yisrael Chai!!!

Shmuel Sackett is the International Director of Manhigut Yehudit