March 31, 2008

Obama Advisor, "Iraq policy not working because of Jews in NYC and Miami"

II More Obama “Commitment” to the United States and Israel

Redacted from article by Ron Kampeas

The Jewish Press March 28, 2008

The freshest Obama/Israel controversy may be tougher to douse. The American Spectator, a conservative magazine, uncovered a 2003 interview with U.S. Army Gen. Merrill “Tony” McPeak, currently a co-chairman of the Obama campaign and — like Obama — an early and consistent critic of the Iraq war.

In the interview with The Oregonian, McPeak faulted the Bush administration Iraq policy in part for not being part of a broader Middle East strategy Asked who is at fault — the White House or the State - McPeak answered: “New York City. Miami. We have a large vote — vote there in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.”

The reporters pressed McPeak to assign responsibility to a faction within the Bush administration but he insisted on returning, to Israel and its U.S. support. “I think that ‘everybody’ understands that a settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem would require the Israelis to stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements they’ve already put there. (Huh!). And, nobody wants to take on that problem. It’s just too tough politically. So that means we can’t. . You can’t develop a Middle East strategy. It’s impossible”

The Republican-Jewish Coalition called on Obama to sack McPeak, who has proven an important asset to the campaign in terms of (supposedly –jsk) furnishing military credibility. “Rather than putting the blame where it belongs — on the Palestinean leadership and their continued reliance on terror, General McPeek finds it more convenient to blame Armenian Jewry and their perceived influence,”

In an e-mail to the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA), Obama’s campaign distanced the candidate from the interview “Senator Obama’s long-standing commitment to Israel is clear to anyone (?), that has reviewed his voting record, read his speeches or looked at his policy papers,” the statement said.

II More Obama “Committment” to Israel

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Tuesday, 25 March, 2008

In an article published in The American Thinker, the man who secured the release of self-described Muslim Zionist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury said Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was "the only member of the US Congress or Senate who passed on helping the imprisoned and tortured journalist."

Dr. Richard L. Benkin of Chicago said that he approached about 15 percent of
the US House and "a handful of Senators." Everyone took some action, he
wrote, except Obama. Although The American Thinker is an influential
journal of conservative thought in the US, Benkin makes it clear that this
is not a liberal-conservative issue. In the article and elsewhere, he sites
liberal and conservative members of Congress who went on record to protest
Choudhury's persecution.

"Since I'm from Illinois, I naturally approached both of my Senators for
help. Dick Durbin came through. He recognized the matter as "an important
human rights issue" and wrote a letter of protest to the Bangladeshi

Obama, however, was another story. I spoke with him personally
on two occasions, met with his people in Washington, and sent them a ton of
information on the case. I never even got a form letter. If everyone did
the same thing as Obama did, Shoaib Choudhury still would be in jail-or

Benkin also notes that when he brought the matter before his Congressman,
Mark Kirk, he took immediate and powerful action, calling the Bangladeshi in
his office where the three of them had an hours-long meeting. Three weeks later, Shoaib Choudhury was released.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:42 PM | Comments (0)

March 30, 2008

Please find something British not to buy!

All I can think of is British Petroleum (BP) gas and British cars – MG. Triumph, Austin-Healy, Jaguar, Lotus, British Motorcycles, Rolls Royce, Bentley...

Unrelenting Mindless British Anti-Semitism

The British government’s ban on Moshe Feiglin from entering the UK is symptomatic of a deep and institutional prejudice against Israel. Feiglin, a Jewish Press columnist, is best known for running second to Benjamin Netanyahu in the last Likud Party leadership primary.

The ban is remarkable for a number of reasons. First, it was preemptive. Feiglin had not applied for a visa, nor did he have any plans to enter the UK. Second, it came to light in the week that Hizbullah spokesman Ibrahim Mousawi — already banned in the U.S. and Ireland — was allowed free entry to lecture students in British universities.

Mousawi’s visa had been approved despite strong media protests and within weeks of bitter parliamentary exchanges over a repeat visit by London Mayor Livingtone’s favourite Islamic cleric, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, whom Hamas leader Khaled Mesh’al praised for his support of suicide bombers.

Compared to such rabid preachers of Jihad, Moshe Feiglin comes across more like Mother Teresa. It’s therefore remarkable that the Home Office took the opposite view and considered this man such a danger to public order that it didn’t even risk his turning up at its consulate in Tel Aviv. Instead, it located his modest address on a Samarian hilltop and mailed him that personal and preemptive ban.

The truth is that Feiglin is just the latest victim of a British boycott movement that leads the free world in the barring of Israeli personalities, academics and products. In April 2005, the Association of British University Teachers voted to boycott Haifa and Bar-llan Universities. In April 2006, the National Union of Journalists presumed to censure Israel’s “savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon” and called for a boycott of Israeli goods and sanctions by the British government and the UN. Then the University Lecturers Union condemned Israel’s “40-year occupation of Palestinian land and the complicity of Israeli academics.” It voted for a “comprehensive and consistent boycott” of all Israeli academic institutions.

Thanks to pressure from Jewish advocacy groups and sympathetic parliamentarians, those votes were ultimately overturned. However, in a country replete with unions and NGOs infiltrated by leftists and antiwar campaigners, it is only a question of time before the next visceral attack on Israel.

Take, as just one example, War on Want, one of Britain’s best-known relief charities. Its charter states that it was set up “to relieve poverty, distress and suffering in any part of the world.” Its website devotes an obscenely disproportionate amount of space, campaigning and film footage devoted to Israel. I searched the site for the word “Israel” and came up with 323 entries. The word “Darfur” returned not one single entry.

Furthermore, it is not just Israeli academics and products that are singled out for British discrimination. IDF soldiers are also at risk. In September 2005, retired Maj. Gen. Doron Almog came to London to support a handicapped children’s association. He was tipped off that a London magistrate had issued an arrest warrant on trumped up war crime charges brought by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (the best oxymoron I’ve heard this year). Almog had to sit tight in the El Al plane until it returned to Tel Aviv.

It is one of life’s ironies that Doron Almog was trapped in a plane on a Heathrow runway simply for being an Israeli soldier. If the British police had looked further than the bogus Palestinian charges, they would have found that Almog was a hero of the 1976 Entebbe rescue mission where he was the first to land and secure the airstrip and control tower.

In his formal reply to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Moshe Feiglin writes that the order for his exclusion issued by Her Majesty’s Government only confers legitimacy on the British boycott movement and virtually gives it a Royal Warrant.

Natan Sharansky defines this kind of behavior as the “new anti-Semitism.” Whereas classical anti-Semitism is aimed at the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, “new anti-Semitism” is aimed at the Jewish state. He diagnoses this malaise by what he calls his “3D” test to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism.

The first “D” is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel’s actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz — this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

The second “D” is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of genuine abusers, such as China, Iran, Syria and Sudan are ignored — this is anti-Semitism.

The third “D” is the test of de-legitimization - when Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied, alone among all peoples of the world – this is certainly anti-Semitism. Britain seems to have passed Sharansky’s test with flying colors.

Zalmi Unsdorfer is chairman of the Likud – Herut Party in the United Kingdom

Reader Comment:

I don't see the British Government and these British Universities
boycotting China for the Occupation of Tibet since 1950 or for
poisoning and killing people and pets with their lead and date-rape
drug tainted products! However, like I said on the message board, I
guess in order to qualify for a boycott, a country has to be a Jewish


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:39 AM | Comments (0)

March 28, 2008

Thank you Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd

The Jewish Press, March 21, 2008

CANBERRA, Australia — Despite dissent from a member of his ruling Labor Party and two unions, as well as a coalition of leftists who accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing,” Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last week led a bipartisan motion to celebrate Israel’s 60th anniversary.

As Rudd rose in parliament to laud “Israel’s robust parliamentary democracy,” a female heckler had to be escorted from the visitors’ gallery for yelling: “What about the UN resolution?” Rudd, who has twice visited Israel, said that Australia’s parliament was a poor comparison to the Knesset, - “where you see the definition of ‘robust’ at work.” ‘By contrast, we are a bunch of pussycats,” he quipped.

Opposition leader Brendan Nelson seconded the motion, initiated by Israeli ambassador Yuval Rotem. He said that no Australian who believed in democratic principles “should ever allow Israel to be a stranger.” “To do so would be to diminish ourselves and our own true security,” he said.

The motion saluted Australia’s role in the establishment of Israel and commended her “commitment to democracy, the rule of law and pluralism,” while reiterating Australia’s support for Israel’s right to exist and to a two-state solution to the Palestinian conflict. It was passed unanimously and received a standing ovation from the visitors’ gallery, where dozens of Jewish community leaders sat.

Just days before the vote, in a March 8 column, one of the country’s veteran political commentators, Alan Ramsey, accused the federal parliament of kowtowing to the Jews. Ramsey wrote in his column in the Sydney Morning Herald that parliamentarians were “ever mindful of Jewish financial support of party coffers.”

In response, Robert Goot, the president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, blasted Ramsey’s “hate-filled rhetoric,” accusing him of reverting to the “classic anti-Semitic canards about Jews and money.” One member of Rudd’s Labor Party, Julia Irwin, a staunch critic of Israel, objected to Labor’s support of the motion.

On the day of the vote, a coalition of anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian, leftist and unionist organizations took out a large advertisement in the Australian, the country’s national newspaper, declaring that they “choose to disassociate from a celebration of the triumph of racism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians” since 1948. Among the organizations listed were Australian Independent Jewish Voices (ugh – naturally, the age-old need of the Jews to self-destruct – Jsk) an off-shoot of the British group, as well as two powerful trade union groups and numerous Palestinian and Arab groups.

A small pro-Palestinian demonstration was held outside Parliament House in the capital. Later in the day, Sussan Ley, a Liberal backbencher told Australia’s House of Representatives that she supports the Palestinian cause. Ley, a former chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, said: “Theirs is not a popular cause but it’s one I support in part out of the knowledge that the victors in World War II, including Australia, wrote a homeland check to cover the sins of the Holocaust and centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe. But it was the Palestinians who had to cash it.’

Rudd showed no signs of backing away from the pro-Israel resolution. After the vote, he took part in a reception co-hosted by the Israeli Embassy and the Zionist Federation of Australia in parliament’s Mural Hall. Rudd told the crowd of about 300 senators, diplomats, Australian lawmakers and Jewish community leaders that “We are proud of this relationship we have fashioned with Israel.”


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:07 PM | Comments (0)

March 26, 2008

French President Nicolas Sarkozy – Friend to the Jews and the State of Israel

Just lately, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared: "I won't shake hands with people who refuse to recognize Israel," a snub directed at Muslim leaders. On the same day he warned that France may join the U.S. and Canada in boycotting the UN's anti-Israel hate-fest (known officially as an "anti-racism conference") in Durban, South Africa: " France will not allow a repetition of the excesses and abuses of 2001."

He has pledged to attend Israel's 60th anniversary celebrations in May, and after the recent suicide bombing in Dimona, sent a condolence letter to Shimon Peres in which he went out of his way to declare that he will always stand with Israel against terrorism. His rhetoric on Iran of late has surpassed President Bush's in its spirit of determination: "Proliferation is a grave threat to international security. We cannot sit by and do nothing while Iran develops technologies which are in violation of international law."

Sarkozy made some of the above comments at the annual dinner of the CRIF, the umbrella organization of the French Jewish community. It was the first time a French president had ever attended. And, there's more. The opening paragraph of a New York Times story reads: President Nicolas Sarkozy dropped an intellectual bombshell this week. He surprised the nation and touching off waves of protest with his revision of the school curriculum: beginning next fall, he said, every fifth grader will have to learn the life story of one of the 11,000 French children killed by the Nazis in the Holocaust.

All of this is the opposite of his predecessor's approach, which involved a meticulous attention to detail when it came to denigrating and insulting the Jewish state. It was only a couple of years ago, two days into Israel's war with Hezbollah, that Jacques Chirac sat in a garden in Paris and announced to the press that Israel's opening salvos were "completely disproportionate" and added that "One could ask if today there is not a sort of will to destroy Lebanon?" Three days later, he sent Dominique de Villepin on a solidarity mission to Beirut.

Chirac, though, was simply following tradition. French leaders have always
held Israel in public contempt, such acts being viewed as necessary to earning an advantageous relationship with the Arab world (relations, it's worth adding, that never worked out very well for France. What did Chirac and his predecessors ever get from their courtships of Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, and Ayatollah Khomeini?

There was only one period in history when France treated Israel with anything approaching Sarkozy's benevolence, and that was during the ambassadorship
of Pierre-Etienne Gilbert from 1953 to 1959. Gilbert was the first French
diplomat who actually admired the Jewish state. During his time in Israel, he
learned Hebrew and lobbied vigorously for a collaborative relationship between the two countries. After the 1956 Suez War, Gilbert helped push through the nuclear deal that supplied Israel with its reactor in Dimona.

This brief window of good relations was slammed shut when De Gaulle returned from retirement in 1958 and quickly put French diplomacy back on its historic track, an official policy of obsequience to the Arab states.

In the run-up to the Six Day War, France embargoed arms sales to Israel and during the war, counting on an Israeli defeat, De Gaulle told British Prime Minister Harold Wilson that eventually the West would thank him, as from then on France would "be the only Western power t0 have any influence with the Arab governments" - a remark that perfectly captures the central ambition of 200 years of French Middle East policy. Until Nicolas Sarkozy, that is.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 11:03 PM | Comments (0)

March 24, 2008

Obama Hiding Anti-Israel Stance

By Gil Ronen

23 March 2008

( Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama is currently hiding his anti-Israel views in order to get elected, according to a well-known anti-Israel activist. The activist, Ali Abunimah, claimed to know Obama well and to have met him on numerous occasions at pro-Palestinian events in Chicago. In an article he penned for the anti-Israeli website Electronic Intifada, Abunimah wrote:

"The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. However, at that time polls showed him trailing.
"As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, 'Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.' He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy [and said:] 'Keep up the good work!'"

Abunimah's report included a photo of Obama with his wife Michelle seated at a table with virulently anti-Israeli Professor Edward Said and his wife Mariam, in what Abunimah said was a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Said gave the keynote speech.

In an interview earlier this year for the leftist radio show "Democracy Now!" a daily TV and radio news program hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Abunimah said he knew Obama for many years as his state senator "when he used to attend events in the Palestinian community in Chicago all the time."

"I remember personally introducing him onstage in 1999, when we had a major community fundraiser for the community center in Deheisha refugee camp in the occupied West Bank," he recounted. "And that's just one example of how Barack Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation."

The Arab-American activist went on to say: "In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict." "Obama's about-face is not surprising," Abunimah wrote. "He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power."

When Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, the Chicago Jewish News interviewed him on his stance regarding Israel's security fence. He accused the Bush administration of neglecting the "Israeli-Palestinian" situation and criticized the security fence built by Israel to prevent terror attacks: "The creation of a wall dividing the two nations is yet another example of the neglect of this Administration in brokering peace," Obama was quoted as saying.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:51 PM | Comments (0)

March 22, 2008

An American Muslim Speaks Out (to his own great peril!)

By M. Zuhdi Jasser
Chairman, American Islamic Forum for Democracy

The recent conviction of Hassan Abujihaad should serve as a warning sign to the lethality and danger to our security from political Islam (Islamism). Islamism is an ideological clear and present danger to our security. Until we figure this out and finally begin the debate within the Muslim community about how to separate religion and politics within the Islamic consciousness, there will be many more traitorous Abujihaads produced out of the political grievance mills which many American mosques and American Islamist organizations have become.

Sean Holstege reports in the Arizona Republic about the Navy sailor's quiet life and how it took a sinister turn. The Muslim American Society's Arizona Chapter and Freedom Foundation (MAS-AZ) director, Deedra Abboud, dismisses Mr. Abujihaad as part of the "victim mentality" combined with a "little delusion." I would imagine she harbors under the delusion that the MAS, CAIR (Council for American Islamic Relations) and other American Islamist organizations have nothing to do with that victimization mantra which she clearly acknowledges here as problematic – and yet remains the overwhelming central focus of the work of domestic Islamists like herself.

I believe the American people deserve an apology from Ms. Abboud (or from her previous employer, CAIR-Arizona) for defending a now-convicted traitor. Where is the outrage from any of the American Islamist organizations for how this traitor maligned the name of Muslims and the Islamic faith with his treason? In a calculated manner, they choose to rather be silent about the man who they claimed was a victim and is now a convicted traitor who they reflexively defended because he was Muslim. This should expose the agenda of Islamist organizations which have a set of priorities at conflict with the clear and present danger to American security posed by the ideology of Islamism.

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy had, before at the time of his arrest and indictment, been on record calling for the highest punishment of this traitor and that he be made an example of what happens to those who choose the transnational goals of political Islam over American citizenship. We again reiterate that call for the heaviest punishment our law will provide this traitor.

Do organizations like CAIR or MAS not see how their rush to support any victim-mongering Muslim that shows up on their doorstep ends up putting them in this case, for example, in defense of radical Islamists who are traitors? But, their default is to trust Islamists and blame the government until proven otherwise in a court of law, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Their default is to soak up media bandwidth with grievance campaigns and victimization hoping that America forgets when the guilty verdict comes in – rather than joining modernists and reformists in our counter-terrorism, counter-Islamism, and counter-Jihadist efforts.

As I noted on March 6th in my Republic piece, the political rhetoric which consumes Islamist organizations and many political mosques and imams from their bully pulpits is the underlying fuel for radicals with a similar political agenda and grievance list. It does not matter that overt violence may not be preached from most mosque pulpits. What matters is that the grievances and goals of terrorist organizations like HAMAS, al Qaeda, and Islamic Jihad are in fact echoed and excused.

What matters is that the concept of ummah, the intent to collectivize Muslims into a Muslim “nation” – a goal at odds with the foundations of Western, liberal, secular democracies, still reverberates in mosques. What matters is that Islamist fundamentalism and Wahhabism are spread without challenge. A real investigation and exposure of these mosques and institutions and ideas would prove this.

The report out March 6th is a good start at exposing the problem. While the details of what ended up driving Abujihaad into violence appear to be part of the cyberjihad he gravitated toward while in the Navy, the more important stage is trying to ascertain what ideologies led him to search out those sites and how we as a Muslim community can and should reform that – without denial or obfuscation.

It is the foundational belief at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy that political Islam is the driving ideology which plants the seeds of separatism and lost identity, and ultimately drives a radical Islamist’s desire to become part of the transnational Islamist movement against the very nations in which these homegrown terrorists reside.

It's time for local reporters and investigators to start asking local mosques, including the one Abujihad attended, whether they will condemn militant Islamist organizations by name and whether they will stand against the establishment of the Islamic state and the global movement of political Islam.

Editor M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and Chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, based in Phoenix Arizona. He is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander, a private physician and a community activist.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:55 PM | Comments (0)

March 21, 2008

Historical Perspective – How did Israel get into this mess?


The Jewish Press, March 14, 2008

Many who protect the insane policies of Israel’s leaders hear the refrain: “We don’t want to get involved in politics.” However, our focus is not on trivial politics, such as who’ll enjoy the cozy perches of power or receive the most government largesse. Our concern is lives — the safety and survival of our brothers and sisters in the Holy Land, and, by extension, our entire people’s continued safety and security, even their very existence, in every corner of the world.

Over 40 years ago, with incredible miracles, Israel won the Six-Day War and gained an enviable position of strength. For the first time since independence in 1948, the Jewish state attained a position where its existence was not directly threatened. In the South, it gained vast territorial depth — the entire Sinai — insulating its heartland from direct Egyptian attack. In the North, it gained the dominating Golan Heights, so that Syrian guns could no longer threaten the whole Galilee. In the East, it gained Judea and Samaria, including the land’s strategic central highlands and a straight, far more defensible, border along the Jordan.

Despite symbolic protests from the Soviet block and others, the world then was ready to let Israel keep all its gains and to settle Jews in all liberated territories - just as, de facto, it had acquiesced to Israel keeping its gains after the 1949 armistice with the invading Arab nations. But, Israel’s leaders (for some inexplicable reason perhaps having to do with the perverted Jewish psyche. jsk), felt uncomfortable with their conquests. Right after the 1967 war, they sent messages to Washington that they were ready to relinquish all those territories!

Ever since, the situation has deteriorated, stage by stage. When the Arabs saw how Israel was embarrassed by its gains, they instantly ratcheted up their demands. It encouraged them to provoke the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which threatened Israel’s very survival.

When Jimmy Carter decided he had to redeem his presidency by making a peace deal in the Middle East, Israel’s embarrassment with it’s conquests enabled him to twist Menachem Begin’s arm to forfeit all the Sinai’s strategic territorial depth — together with its flourishing Jewish settlements, its oil wells developed by Jewish ingenuity, and its lucrative tourist resorts. Israel exchanged all this for a worthless slip of paper promising peace, the terms of which Egypt immediately violated and has done ever since.

The Camp David Accords provided the model for all later pressure. If the IDF could forcibly evict Jews from their homes in Yamit, why not pressure Israel to do the same elsewhere? It encouraged the PLO to make terrorist attacks on Israel’s north, from Lebanon and later the Arabs within the Holy Land to start the first Intifada. It encouraged the rest of the world to press for more and more Israeli concessions.

In 1982, Israel had no choice but to enter Lebanon. It had the PLO by the throat, but was too embarrassed to finish off the job, caving in to let them to leave for Tunisia. Yet, instead of letting them stay there, Israel’s leaders, with incredible naivety, decided in 1993 to welcome the PLO “thugocracy” into the very heart of the Holy Land, raising them to the status of a quasi-sovereign government, arming them — with the naïve intention of stopping own hoodlums from terror acts against Jews and awarding them generous funding!

Naturally, the PLO utilized these unexpected gifts to do their thing — to escalate terror against Jews to unprecedented highs. But, Israel’s leaders still didn’t learn their lesson. The PLO has never kept any of its agreements, so Israel has had every right to cancel them. But, Israel has been too embarrassed to show it does not meekly turn the other cheek. Instead, ever since, all its leaders again and again have rewarded the PLO with more territory, more arms, more funds and more concessions.

Even when Sharon decided — without any external pressure — to award them the entire Gaza Strip, although it meant uprooting many thousands of peaceful Jewish citizens from their homes, he gained no points with the Arabs, or with the rest of the world. Instead the area turned into a brand-new rogue state, a front for Iran and Al Qaeda, that commits daily aggression against Israel’s citizens and threatens the stability of the whole Middle East and, potentially, of the entire world.

Have Israel’s leaders learned their lesson yet? Of course not! They’re still running after the PLO to agree to negotiate with them, and after Syria to agree to take back the Golan. Even when PLO leader Abbas boasts how he started the original violence against Israel and that he still intends to use violence when it will work, even when his Fatah and Al-Aksa brigadiers continue to commit terrorism — which could not be without his knowledge. Nevertheless, Israel’s naïve leaders are begging him for the honor of accepting everything they have to offer him.

Protesting against this stupidity is called politics? Inspired by the repeated prophetic warnings of the Rebbe over 25 years, we’re just pointing out what any sane, objective person realizes on his own; that these misguided policies place the life of every Jew in the Holy Land in dire peril. First, it was the Jews beyond the “Green Line” — in Judea and Samaria. Then it’s the Jews of Sderot, and gradually more and more communities in that area. Now it’s already reaching Ashkelon. How long will it take to reach Ashdod and then Tel Aviv?

Furthermore, it’s not that this doesn’t affect us in the Diaspora. Anti-Semitic incidents are increasing frighteningly across Europe and around the world, because all Jew-haters everywhere are encouraged by their comrades’ successes in the Holy Land. Let’s call a spade a spade: This isn’t politics! Our very survival is at stake. Israel’s leaders are playing games while every Jew’s future is burning!

(In the meantime, the leading Diaspora organizations are too frightened and deliberately uninformed to accept the truth. Instead they use “not their right to get involved” as a cop-out. G-d forbid, they will sooner than later experience the dire consequences of this cop-out just as generations have done before thus contributing directly in their own demise. Jsk)

Additional cpmment from reader:

And Sharon uprooted the Jewish homes in Gaza!! Also, remember that even the limited Egyptian restraint is to AVOID losing their annual 2.5 billion USA bonus that no one talks about for allowing Israel to give up all the oil, the strategic depth, a beautiful town, etc. for Sinai, not to forget the loss of the airfields so crucial for training purposes? Menachem Begin was outsmarted by Sadat and the arch enemy of the Jews, Jimmy Carter.. And Ben Gurion in 1948 sinking THE ALTALENA, WHEN Rabin shot and killed Jews, destroyed a boat load of desperately needed ammunition and supplies on Ben Gurions's orders.

Jerry Boris

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:55 AM | Comments (0)

March 18, 2008

A Breath of Sanity - Senator John McCain in Jerusalem

New York Sun Staff Editorial, March 13, 2008

Senator McCain is remembered in Israel for, among many other things, a wonderful incident that happened at the annual gathering of policy intellectuals at Herziliya. The senator attended via a large screen projecting his voice and image from America. It turned out that the hookup allowed the man from Arizona to see the assembled guests in Israel. At some point, he noticed, off to the corner, the Israeli most identified with the universal struggle for democratic rights. "Is that my friend Natan Sharansky?" he called out from across the seas. The man who had survived the Gulag Archipelago acknowledged the greeting. Then, referring to charges relating to various forms of corruption swirling around Israeli leaders, he said: "Both Senator McCain and I know that it is better to go to jail before being elected to public office."

Next week, Mr. McCain will present himself in the flesh — not through a video relay — in Israel and other Middle East countries. He is starting off on March 18 at Jerusalem, where he is scheduled to confer with Prime Minister Olmert, Foreign Minister Livni, and Defense Minister Barak. He will also visit London and Paris. The GOP nominee-to-be just denounced the Palestinian Arab attack on students at a yeshiva in the Israeli capital, calling it a "heinous massacre" and supporting Israel's right to self-defense. His campaign issued a statement saying, "This gruesome attack once again makes clear to the world that Israel faces extremists whose cause is not peace but the slaughter of Israelis."

Mark that Mr. McCain issued no comments about a "cycle of violence," no moral equivalence, no question about which side he and America are on. Cynics will attribute this to a campaign desire to firm up support among American Jewish voters, heretofore a Democratic bastion. If so, legitimate. We are more interested in what his visit and his comments portend for the type of president he would be. On Tuesday, Mr. McCain told Reuters that if elected, he would focus on the Middle East. Until quite recently, Democrats have been criticizing the Bush administration for having swapped a focus on Israeli-Palestinian peace-making for the war in Iraq.

So what exactly did Mr. McCain mean? He told Reuters that the reasons he would focus on the Middle East is because of "… the level of tensions, the exchange of fire across Israel's border aimed at innocent people. There's Hamas, a terrorist organization, now governing Gaza ... considerable unrest in southern Lebanon. There's very big issues that need to be addressed."

It seems the question for Mr. McCain is not the matter of securing a state for the Palestinian Arabs but rather a "struggle ... between radical extremist Islamic forces throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East, and Western values and standards and beliefs and everything that we stand for." The conflict involving Israel, Mr. McCain said, "is all part of this struggle that we're in."

It would be a mistake, history has taught us, to read too much into all of this. But it would not be a mistake to watch with interest Mr. McCain's progress as he sets out on an important tour, particularly given that "national security experience" — or the lack thereof — has become a major issue of contention among Senators Clinton and Obama. Mr. McCain naturally wants to play to his strength in this field.

The question of who one wants to answer the red phone ringing at 3 a.m. with the latest report of crisis is not merely about "experience" but about the substance of the world view held by the next president.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:48 PM | Comments (0)

March 17, 2008


By Morton A. Klein,
President, Zionist Organization of America

Former Israeli Prime Minister and current Likud Chairman and Opposition Leader Benjamin Netanyahu has warned the Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert against making any further concessions to Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas. In an address to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations at Jerusalem's David's Citadel Hotel, Mr. Netanyahu warned that any land Israel conceded to Abbas in Judea and Samaria would simply create new bases for militant Islam. Netanyahu said, "That's what happened when we left Gaza, that's what happened when we left Lebanon" and that any part of these territories vacated by Israel would be filled by Hamas.

Mr. Netanyahu also stated that Israel has no peace partner in Mahmoud Abbas and castigated the Olmert government for permitting the PA to rebuild its presence in Jerusalem, noting that there have been dozens of Fatah events at Orient House, the PLO headquarters in Jerusalem closed down by former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Moreover, he told the audience, the Olmert government is proceeding without pause in negotiating concessions over Jerusalem, which would result in bringing death and destruction to Israel's capital, just as earlier withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza have brought the same for Israel in those regions.

Mr. Netanyahu also took issue with the Olmert government's recent action to prohibit all growth of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, including even development within these communities to accommodate natural population growth. He said that, "It's not right or sensible to prohibit natural growth" of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, just as there are no barriers on the natural growth of Arab communities in these areas.

"When agreeing to the Oslo Accords in 1993, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin pointedly refused to stop the natural growth of the communities. The reason for this refusal was clear. Despite the deep and genuine Israeli interest in reaching peace with the Palestinians, no Israeli government was prepared to endorse the view that these communities are somehow illegitimate.

Israel has always rejected the idea that it is illegal for Jews to live in Judea and Samaria. Regardless of the differing approaches of successive Israel governments to the question of territorial concessions, no Israeli government has previously accepted the notion that these territories must be judenrein. The Zionist Org. of America applauds the Opposition Leader for affirming this position."

"This decision to freeze all growth within the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria is all the more troubling and inappropriate in view of the fact that Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority (PA) has done absolutely nothing to meet it signed commitments under the Oslo agreements. The basis of these agreements was to end terrorism and the incitement to hatred and murder in the PA-controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps.

Since the Annapolis summit, Fatah officials have said they will fight alongside Hamas if Israeli forces enter Gaza. Fatah terrorists have targeted Israeli civilians. Abbas, Saeb Erekat and other senior PA officials have stated that they will not accept Israel as a Jewish state; Abbas has approved a new Fatah poster showing Israel named 'Palestine' and painted in Palestinian colors and Fatah television has displayed similar maps. Nor has Fatah amended its Constitution calling for Israel's destruction and the use of terrorism as an essential element in the struggle to achieve that goal

We regard this as a dark day in the history of Zionism and we urge other American Jewish organizations, irrespective of their individual approach to the question of peace-making, to criticize this freeze. Even organizations that support large territorial concessions to the Palestinian Authority should be appalled at the implications of this move and the unjustified hardship and penalizing of these Jewish communities. Peace will not come to Israel by making Judea and Samaria judenrein as it did not by removing the Jewish communities from Gaza or relinquishing the Security zone in Lebanon. Exactly the opposite has occurred with an even greater loss of Israeli lives and Israeli crucial military defensive positions.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:33 AM | Comments (0)

March 14, 2008

Senator Obama’s record in the Senate – Just the facts

Since January 4, 2005, Senator Obama sponsored 129 bills but only 9 made it out of committee. In addition, only one of these became law.

·Voted FOR needing a FISA warrant for wiretapping ABROAD (endangering the lives of Americans and our allies)
·Voted YES on giving the captured terrorists in Guantanamo the same right to habeas corpus in American courts on American soil as American citizens have.
·Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on interrogation methods of captured
·Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act’s wiretap provision.
·Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the U.S. government.
·Voted YES on building a fence along the U.S. Mexican border.
·Voted YES on allowing ILLEGAL aliens to participate in Social Security.
·Voted NO on repealing the Alternate Minimum Tax
·Voted NO on raising estate taxes (death tax) exemption to $5 million
·Voted NO on permanently repealing the death tax.
·Voted NO for extending the capital gains tax cut and dividend cut. This will have a negative effect on all persons invested in mutual funds, stocks and pensions.
·Voted NO on $40 BILLION in reduced federal spending.
·Voted NO on recommending a Constitutional ban on desecrating the American flag.

The question is do you want to vote on a man's record or his grandious pie in the sky, chicken in every pot speeches and promises?

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:09 PM | Comments (0)

March 13, 2008

I Al Sharpton – Champion Racist Hate-Monger

II The Tawana Brawley/Sharpton Fiasco Re-visited

I Article by Frank Cerabino
The Palm Beach Post, March 12, 2008

The Rev. Al Sharpton needs a theatrical agent. He’s a gifted actor, but he accepts too many bad scripts. That’s why he needs somebody to read over his shoulder and weed through the ridiculous roles he sometimes plays. Like Tuesday, for example:

The Reverend Al duck-walked himself up to the microphones in front of the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office in downtown West Palm Beach like the perfect matinee idol he is. The leading man was fashionably late and ready to deliver his lines to the cluster of microphones on the makeshift sidewalk and stage.

The part was a bread and butter role for him: decrying the victim-hood of three local black teenagers caught up in a juiced criminal justice system Al can do roles like this in his sleep. He just finished a bravura performance in the Jena 6 story in Louisiana, and now, he was starting on a new role - except this new script is destined to be a box-office bomb.

If AJ had an agent, he’d be reminded that Denzel Washington stays on top because he doesn’t do ridiculous, audience-insulting scripts. Denzel does Malcolm X and the Great Debaters - not Booty Call and Soul Plane.

Sharpton isn’t that discerning. He’s more like Chevy Chase. He doesn’t turn down the dreck. So Tuesday, he started shooting, Free the Dunbar3! The logline seemed promising: A group of white teenagers in Boca Raton are accused of rape, and free on bond, while a group of black teenagers in West Palm Beach’s Dunbar Village housing project are charged with rape, and are held without bail.

“You cannot have one set of rules for acts that are wrong and horrific in Boca, and another set in Dunbar Village,” Sharpton said Tuesday, delivering his lines.
But, he would have been much better off combing the country for a better script. The facts in the Boca Raton case and Dunbar Village case are radically different.

In being the champion for the Dunbar boys, Sharpton is making victims of black teenagers who are charged with raping a black woman in their housing project, in what police say was retaliation for her littering complaint. Police charge the group of teenagers with abducting the woman at gunpoint, raping her, forcing her to have sex with her own son, then dousing her internally and externally with ammonia and alcohol and pouring nail-polish remover in her son’s eyes. It was a black-on-black crime and a rape so violent and heartless that a judge’s decision to hold these boys without bail was far from controversial.

In the Boca Raton incident, sheriff’s officials have charged that a group of white teenage boys got two of their own female friends - white teenage girls from their neighborhood, deliriously drunk and then raped them. The case will hinge on the defense claim of consent. Those boys, like the Dunbar boys, were charged as adults, but were allowed to post bonds

To call these cases identical, as Sharpton did, is to ignore far too much. And, to make martyrs of the Dunbar teenagers, only trivializes real cases of racial injustice and further denigrates two black victims of unspeakable crimes. A good agent would have told Reverend Al that he was stepping back to Tawana-land on this one. And, that sometimes, the roles you don’t play are as important as ones you do.

Sharpton has already being panned by a network of black women bloggers – including Tanisha Mathis, 31, a Florida college student who visited Dunbar Village and has followed the case closely. “I’m not sure why of all the cases, he picked this case,” she said. “I didn’t see the, injustice going on here.”
So, if anybody has an actual civil rights story, please notify Sharpton before he does any more harm to the legitimate cause of racial injustice.

For you that don’t remember Sharpton’s notorious fraudulent Tawana Brawley case, here on the bare details:

II The Worst of Al Sharpton

By William Saletan, Ben Jacobs, and Avi Zenilman

Posted in Slate Monday, Sept. 8, 2003, at 11:22 AM ET

Charge: In 1987, a 15-year-old black girl named Tawana Brawley went missing and was found four days later covered in dog feces and with racial slurs written on her body. She claimed that at least two and possibly six white men, one of them carrying a badge, had repeatedly raped her in the woods in upstate New York.

Sharpton took up Brawley's cause and defended her refusal to cooperate with prosecutors, saying that asking her to meet with New York's attorney general (who had been asked by Gov. Mario Cuomo to supervise the investigation) would be like "asking someone who watched someone killed in the gas chamber to sit down with Mr. Hitler."

According to the Associated Press, Sharpton and Brawley's lawyers asserted "on 33 separate occasions" that a local prosecutor named Steven Pagones "had kidnapped, abused and raped" Brawley. There was no evidence, and Pagones was soon cleared.

Sharpton then accused a local police cult with ties to the Irish Republican Army of perpetrating the alleged assault. The case fizzled when a security guard for Brawley's lawyers testified that the lawyers and Sharpton knew Brawley was lying. A grand jury investigation concluded in late 1988 that Brawley "was not the victim of forcible sexual assault" and that the whole thing was a hoax.

The report specifically exonerated Pagones, and in 1998 Pagones won a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton, Brawley, and Brawley's lawyers. Sharpton was ordered to pay Pagones $65,000. Johnnie Cochran and other Sharpton benefactors subsidized the payment.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:29 PM | Comments (0)

March 11, 2008

James Baker III as per Mayor Ed Koch

Redacted from an article by Rafael Medoff

The Jewish Press, February 29, 2008

Although Ed Koch has not held elected office for nearly two decades, the feisty former mayor of New York City remains a powerful force in American politics and in the American Jewish community. Reporters still ask for his comments on the latest news developments, and candidates for office still seek his endorsement. Now Koch has a new book out — and it contains a stunning revelation that may ignite a second round of his now-famous clash with James Baker. Round One of Koch vs. Baker exploded across headlines around the world in March 1992, when Koch revealed, in his New York Post column, that then-Secretary of State Baker had made an obscene remark about American Jews.

Koch reported that during a White House meeting, one participant mentioned something to Baker about growing Jewish concern over his unfriendliness toward Israel. According to Koch, Baker replied: “[Expletive] ‘em. They [the Jews] didn’t vote for us.” Baker’s ugly statement had been quoted to Koch by someone who was present at the meeting. Not surprisingly, Koch could not divulge the identity of his source. That put him at a considerable disadvantage when Baker vehemently denied the allegation and State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler called Koch’s expose “garbage.”

Now Koch is setting them straight. In his new book, The Koch Papers: My Fight Against Anti-Semitism, on which he and I collaborated, Koch reveals for the first time the name of his source: Jack Kemp, who at the time was serving as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Not only was Secretary Kemp an unimpeachable source, but Baker’s statement was consistent with his record concerning Jews and Israel, reaching all the way back to his 1952 senior thesis at Princeton University. In his thesis, young Baker defended the 1940’s anti-Zionist policies of British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin. In a foreshadowing of his 1992 attack on American Jewish voters, Baker at Princeton lambasted “the irrational and extreme behavior of American Zionists [in the 1940’s]” and dismissed U.S. support for Jewish statehood in 1947 as nothing more than a case of “the vote-conscious American Government backing its Zionists.”

In more recent years, Baker reportedly referred to pro-Israel members of Congress as “the little Knesset,” according to the Los Angeles Times. The late David Bar-Ilan, who at the time was one of the editors of the Jerusalem Post, reported in Maariv in 1992 that Baker once remarked, “Jews remember the Holocaust but they forget insults as soon as they smell cash.”

Koch, for one, has not forgotten either Baker’s insults or his policies. The Koch Papers reminds us that U.S. Mid-East policy when Baker was secretary of state was consistently unfriendly to Israel, from pressuring the Jewish state to refrain from defending itself against Iraqi missile attacks to withholding U.S. loan guarantees for the absorption of Soviet Jewish immigrants.

A fresh reminder of the Baker days was provided just last month, when Japan’s largest newspaper, Yomiuri Shimbun, revealed that in 1991, when Baker was secretary of state, Israel was preparing to strike at a North Korean ship smuggling Scud missiles to Syria “but canceled it at the eleventh hour under U.S. pressure.”

One wonders how Baker would have responded if he were secretary of state during Israel’s recent strike on an apparent Syrian nuclear facility developed with North Korea. In The Koch Papers, which will be published this week by Palgrave MacMillan, Mayor Koch and I bring together many of his previously unpublished memoranda and speeches on anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, and Israel, as well as some of his most powerful columns from the New York Post and other periodicals. The book also features a number of articles on which he and I have collaborated in recent years, including a lengthy essay on anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism that we wrote exclusively for this volume.

The Baker-Kemp revelation is perhaps the book’s most explosive element, in view of media reports that Baker could be a candidate for a senior position in a future administration. Can Baker’s hopes for a new government post survive Koch’s revelation about the 1992 remark? That remains to be seen.

In the meantime, Baker is not the only Koch nemesis who could end up in a position to influence U.S. policy toward Israel. Also in the running, it appears, is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser. Years, before Baker’s hostile remark about American Jews, Brzezinski, then an adviser to candidate Carter, was reported (by Marvin Kalb) to have said to an Israeli official, “How will you like the idea of working with a new president who owes nothing to the Jews?”

In March 1980, Koch caused a major controversy when he criticized Brzezinski and three other top Carter Mid-East advisers as a “Gang of Four” who were trying to turn the U.S. against Israel. (The reference was to a group of Chinese leaders who had been pushed out of power by their rivals.)
During his years in the Carter administration, Brzezinski did indeed push for a tilt against Israel, as he acknowledged later in his memoirs of that period. More recently, he and several colleagues issued a statement urging the U.S. and its allies to engage in “a genuine dialogue” with Hamas. Brzezinski has endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president and reportedly is part of Obama’s circle of foreign advisors.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:29 PM | Comments (0)

March 09, 2008

Dutch Awakening to Islam - the “Religion of Peace”

By Leander Schaerlaeckens


BRUSSELS — Europe’s uneasy relationship with its Muslim minority faces another blow this month, when Dutch politician Geert Wilders releases a 15-minute film that compares Islam to Nazism and Communism. The film is called, “Fitna” Arabic term for “discord.” It intersperses verses of the Koran with footage of terrorist attacks and their Islamic inspired violence.

“The film will show that the Koran isn’t a dead work, but the face of Islam as a tremendous hazard.” Mr. Wilders told the daily newspaper NRC Handelsblad. He said the film calls the Koran “the latest test to Western democracies since Nazism and communism.” Mr. Wilders said the film would be finished March 1 and will be posted on a Web site,, when it airs on television.

Several Pakistani Internet providers tried last week to block YouTube, on the orders of the government, because it carried a movie trailer for the film. The effort caused a worldwide trash of the popular online site for sharing videos. In recent years, other perceived insults to Islam in Europe have turned deadly. Worldwide riots after the 2005 publication of editorial cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad left more than 100 people dead.

In 2004, a terrorist killed Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in broad daylight over another short film titled “Submission,” which told the tale of abused women in the Muslim community. The assassin called Mr. van Gogh, a descendent of the 19th-century artist, an “enemy of Islam” in a note that threatened the life of then-Dutch lawmaker Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote the script for the film. Ms. Hirsi Ali now lives in the United States under tight security.

About 1 million Muslims live in the Netherlands, with a population of about 16 million. The Iranian justice minister requested his Dutch counterpart to ban the latest film, calling it “satanical and undermining according to Iranian press agency IRNA. The Dutch government has thus far refused to act, citing the principle of free speech.

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, director of the Washington-based Center for Islamic Pluralism, said it was “strange” and “ahistorical’ to think that a 1,400-year-old text could become a threat to the West. “My advice to Muslims is to ignore such trivial provocations, maintain their dignity and faith and work to improve their communities, Mr. Schwartz said, “Mr. Wilders has a right to make whatever films he wants and Muslims have a right to ignore them.”

Mr. Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament since 1998, has proposed closing the country to all non-Western immigrants for at least five years and banning construction of Islamic schools and mosques fur the same period. He has also proposed a law that would prevent foreign imams from preaching in the Netherlands and forbid preaching by anyone in any language other than Dutch.

In addition, he has sought to ban the Koran, calling it the Islamic answer to Hitler’s manifesto “Mein Kampf?’ Dutch authorities fear that Mr. Wilders, already the recipient of numerous death threats, faces similar dangers to the assassinated van Gogh.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:15 PM | Comments (0)

March 07, 2008

A Better Solution than losing more Israeli Soldiers in Gaza

Redacted from an article by Moshe Feiglin

The Jewish Press, February 22, 2008

As calls for all-out war on Gaza increase, it is important to set things straight. As I explained this week in an interview on the Knesset channel of Israel TV, there is no reason for Israel to enter Gaza unless it intends to stay there, expel the hostile elements, declare Israeli sovereignty and build 100 Gush Katifs.
(Israel settlements like the ones that were destroyed to pacify the Arabs and have only resulted in more Arab terrorism to all of Southern Israel now under constant rocket and missile attack) jsk

It is unacceptable to send Israeli soldiers to almost certain death in the booby-trapped alleys of Jabalya, Gaza, for no real purpose. It is not an option to send them to fight, weighed down by a Western power ethical code that prefers Israeli deaths to the deaths of terrorists deliberately positioned among hostile Arab civilians. Moreover, worst of all, it is unthinkable to send them to give their lives to conquer the Gaza Strip - to take it away from an arch-terrorist Hamas, and then turn it over to a different arch-terrorist Fatah, even if that were possible. Of course, after a short break, Fatah will thank us by renewing the Kassam fire on Israel.

A war on Gaza now will suit Prime Minister Ehud Olmert well. After allowing the situation in the Negev to reach the boiling point, he will stage a war with wall-to-wall public and political support. The war will not solve the problem because it will not be fought with the ultimate objective in mind: to win and remain in Gaza. Nevertheless, there will be deaths and funerals, and these will create public pressure.

Olmert will attempt to diffuse the pressure by destroying more Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), throwing their residents into the streets. Soldiers’ will be killed, settlements will be destroyed — and the Kassam rockets and terror will steadily increase. Then, on cue, in the dust kicked up by all the turmoil, Olmert will have bought himself another two years in office.

If, my Party, Manhigut Yehudit says “no” to war on Gaza, then what exactly do we propose? We have proposed a bill in the Knesset that would mandate complete disengagement from Gaza. No, this is not the ideal option. The ideal option, as above, is to re-conquer Gaza, drive out all hostile elements and make it flourish with Jewish settlements. But, as long as we do not have leadership that believes in our historic right to the entire Land of Israel, and as long as we do not have leadership that will initiate a war on Gaza to re-conquer and settle it, we must not endanger our soldiers for nothing.

The next best thing we can do is demand complete disengagement from Gaza. We must not supply them with anything. No bread, no electricity, no fuel, no gas and, if it would be possible, no air, either. Any hostility from Gaza should be met with heavy artillery fire to force them to pull the missile launchers all the way into Gaza City and turn all the launching territory into a sure-death zone. The longer the range of the missiles, the farther the sure-death zone will have to extend.

What if the world protests? In the 41 years that have passed since the miraculous Six-Day War, the State of Israel has done all in its power to convince the world that the Land of Israel belongs to its enemies. We have nobody to blame for that but ourselves. As long as Israel continues to justify the claims of its enemies, it is difficult to think about a return to national sanity. Complete disengagement from Gaza is the most that we can expect from Israel’s current leaders. If Israel is convinced that this action is just, the rest of the world will be convinced as well, and negative world opinion will dissipate.

It is important to join the residents of Sderot in their protests. But, our message must be clear: We demand complete disengagement from Gaza — not cynical sacrifice of more soldiers in a re-run of the recent Lebanon war.

(To learn more about Moshe Feiglin, MK and Chairman of Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership), and their plan for Israel’s future — and to order Feiglin’s newest book, The War of Dreams — visit

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:21 PM | Comments (0)

March 05, 2008

Editorial: Senator Barack Obama’s views on Israel!!

The Jewish Press February 29, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama’s views on the Middle East have been the subject of much attention in recent weeks. Many have pointed to his choice of advisers known for anti-Israel public statements. Others have pointed to his singling out of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, both Jews, in his criticism of Bush administration neo-cons. Still others have problems with his referring to Al Sharpton as “a voice for the voiceless, and a voice for the dispossessed” and with this glowing tribute he delivered to Rev. Sharp ton’s National Action Network: “What National Action Network has done is so important to change America...” In addition, Sen. Obama has been criticized for his relationship with the pastor of his church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who has had some very bad things to say about Israel.

So it was not surprising that Sen. Obama would seek to burnish his credentials with the Jewish community. Earlier this week he met with dozens of Jewish leaders in Cleveland to address the concerns of the Jewish community. Frankly, his performance was a mixed bag. The Democratic Party’s presidential frontrunner went out of his way several times to re-iterate his support for the notion of a “special relationship” between the U.S. and Israel, declaring that “the defense cooperation between the United States and Israel has been a model of success and I believe it can be deepened and strengthened.”

He acknowledged that Iran is the greatest threat to Israel and a major supporter of terror worldwide, and vowed to deal with that reality. And he spoke favorably of Israel “as a Jewish state.” But he also confronted the criticism directed toward some of his advisers, denying that they’re anything but “stalwart friends of Israel.” And then he continued, in somewhat rambling fashion:

“This is where I get to be honest and I hope I’m not out of school here. I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says that unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how to achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress. And, frankly, some of the commentary that I’ve seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is non-military or non-belligerent or doesn’t talk about just crushing the opposition, that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel. Then, I think we’re going to have problems moving forward.”

Although mindful of Iran’s threat to Israel and the world, he said that while a military option should not be taken off the table, “I believe that we need to present incentives, carrots, like the prospect of better relations and integration into the international community, as well as disincentives like the prospect of increased sanctions.”

In attempting to explain away his pastor’s anti-Israel rants, Sen. Obama said that Rev. Wright was very active in the South Africa divestment movement. In addition, you will recall that there was tension that arose between the American and Jewish communities during that period. We were dealing with apartheid in South Africa, because Israel and South Africa had a relationship at that time.... So there have been a couple of occasions where he made comments rooted in that - not necessarily ones that I share. That is the context within which he made those comments.

There we have it. A President Obama will decide for himself what is in Israel’s best interests and lean toward negotiations and incentives and against military action. He has an affinity for those harboring a radical agenda. In addition, he will not, unequivocally, disavow anti-Israel sentiment based on black power issues. Now we know.

(Do we have to draw you another road map as to where Obama is coming from? Let us hope left wing Jews enthralled with this guy, open their eyes before it is too late.) jsk

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 04, 2008

May we lighten up for just a minute?


Jews have marched on--and survived--for millennia, with a little help from their brains, not to mention their humor:

The President of Iran was wondering who to invade when his telephone rang. "This is Mendel in Tel Aviv. We're officially declaring war on you!"

"How big is your army?" the president asked.

"There's me, my cousin Moishe, and our pinochle team!"

"I have a million in my army," said the president.

"I'll call back!" said Mendel. The next day he called. "The var's still on!" We have now a bulldozer, Goldblatt's tractor plus the canasta team!"

"I have 16,000 tanks, and my army is now two million."

"Oy gevalt!", said Mendel. "I'll call back." He phoned the next day.

"We're calling off the var"


"Well," said Mendel, "we've all had a little chat, and there's no way
we can feed two million prisoners."

(Many thanks for this true story? to Jody Sara Kaufman (jsk) Benishay)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:52 AM | Comments (0)

March 01, 2008

Obama – By the Great Charles Krauthammer

By Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post Writers Group

February 18, 2008

There's no better path to success than getting people to buy a free commodity – like the genius who figured out how to get people to pay for water - bottle it (Aquafina was revealed to be nothing more than reprocessed tap water). Then, charge more than they pay for gasoline. Or, consider how Google found a way to sell dictionary nouns -- boat, shoe, clock -- by charging advertisers zillions to be listed whenever the word is searched.

Now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions. This kind of sale is hardly new. Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity -- salvation -- for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival with, as writer James Wolcott observed, a "salvational fervor" and "idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria."

"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country -- nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."

And believe they do. After eight straight victories, Obama is near to rendering moot all the post-Super Tuesday fretting about a deadlocked convention with un-elected super-delegates deciding the nominee.

Unless Hillary Clinton can somehow do in Ohio and Texas on March 4, what Rudy Giuliani proved is almost impossible to do -- maintain a big-state firewall after an unrelenting string of smaller defeats -- the super-delegates will flock to Obama. Hope will have carried the day. Interestingly, Obama has been able to win these electoral victories and dazzle crowds in one new jurisdiction after another, even as his mesmeric power has begun to arouse skepticism and misgivings among the mainstream media.

ABC's Jake Tapper notes the "Helter-Skelter cultish qualities" of "Obama worshipers," what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls "the Cult of Obama." Obama's Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience -- to such rhetorical nonsense as "We are the ones we've been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek."

That was too much for Time's Joe Klein. "There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism," he wrote. "The message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is." You might dismiss The New York Times' Paul Krugman's complaint that "the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality" as hyperbole. Until you hear Chris Matthews, who no longer has the excuse of youth, react to Obama's Potomac primary victory speech with "My, I felt this thrill going up my leg." When his MSNBC co-hosts tried to bail him out, he refused to recant. Not surprising for an acolyte who said that Obama "comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament."

I've seen only one similar national swoon. As a teenager growing up in Canada, I witnessed a charismatic law professor go from obscurity to justice minister to prime minister, carried on a wave of what was called Trudeaumania. However, even there, the object of his countrymen's unrestrained affections was no blank slate. Pierre Trudeau was already a serious intellectual who had written and thought and lectured long about the nature and future of his country.

Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem:

·Promises to heal the world with negotiations with the likes of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad;
·Promises to transcend the conundrums of entitlement reform that require real
and painful trade-offs
·Promises to fund his other promises by a rapid withdrawal from an unpopular war -- with the hope, I suppose, that the (presumed) resulting increase in American prestige would compensate for the chaos to follow.

Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:43 PM | Comments (0)