December 31, 2008

Shimon Peres replaces Jose’ Ferrer in the film, “Ship of Fools”

A Benighted Knight

By Rael Jean Isaac, Editor
Outpost, December 2008

Shimon Peres is now Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and St.. George, the sixth most senior award in the British system. The award immediately rises to first place according to one criterion; it easily boasts the most foolish recipient of any British honor. Future Knights should be embarrassed to be lumped in the category of Israel’s Simple Shimon.

A few recent samples from the cornucopia of Israel’s Prince of Fools:

· On Nov. 17, Peres recycled one of his tired “witticisms’ to the annual General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities. “ Peace is a little bit like marriage. You have to close your eyes and accept what is possible to accept.”

· In May 1977, Peres was quoted in Jerusalem Report “In Argentina, the home of the tango, you know that in order to dance you have to close your eyes and let the romance begin. Peace is a romantic process.” The assembled Jewish leaders laughed and applauded, suggesting they are worthy followers in the game of Shimon Says. (You not only have to close your eyes but shut down your brain to think that the peace process” has been anything but an unmitigated catastrophe for Israel.)

· On October 28 The Jerusalem Post offers this surreal gem from Shimon; We will not cease to negotiate with the Palestinians and help them with all our might in order to establish an independent Palestinian state...never in the past 100 years have we been closer to peace than we are today.”

· Topping it off, speaking to the British Houses of Parliament (in the wake of the Grand Cross business) Peres declared that “the way in which Great Britain ran the Mandate” had “inspired the state of Israel.” Of course, the way Great Britain ran the Mandate was to close Palestine—which it was “mandated” to make the Jewish National Home—to Jewish immigration, when the need for escape from Europe was most acute - dooming millions to their death.

(Of course, this latest award to President Peres is a perfect companion piece to his Nobel Peace Prize obtained in conjunction with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat) jsk

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:31 PM | Comments (0)

December 30, 2008

IRL - in the News

Just in case you are as uninformed as I and would like to try and keep up with kids – “IRL” is not a news service, like I thought. In computer lingo it means, In Real Life (IRL) as opposed to in cyberspace, which is, in fact, rapidly becoming the “In Real Life.”


White House Congressional Leaders say Hamas must stop Rocket Attacks

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard L. Berman, D-Calif., and ranking Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, condemned the Hamas rocket attacks. Ros-Lehtinen said the Israeli response “has been carefully calibrated to halt the rocket fire, aimed at surgically eliminating Hamas militants and the teams that are operating the rockets, while at the same time making every effort to limit civilian casualties in the face of Hamas’ callous use of innocent Palestinians as human shields.”

The White House and congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle rallied to Israel’s cause Monday as it pressed forward with large-scale air attacks against Islamic militants in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli offensive began on Dec. 27 after gunmen of the ruling Hamas party fired hundreds of rockets into Israel following the Dec. 19 end of a six-month truce.

“ In order for the violence to stop, Hamas must stop firing rockets into Israel and agree to respect a sustainable and durable ceasefire,” White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Monday. “That is the objective to which all parties need to be working. That is what the United States is working towards.” His remarks were echoed by congressional leaders.

“ I strongly support Israel’s right to defend its citizens against rocket and mortar attacks from Hamas-controlled Gaza, which have killed and injured Israeli citizens, and to restore security to its residents,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., said Monday. “Hamas’ failure to stop these attacks only exacerbates the humanitarian situation for the residents of Gaza and undermines efforts to attain peace and security in the region.”

A dissenting view was expressed by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, D-Ohio, ( who remains safely ensconced within another planet and a great favorite of the Democratic far Left – jsk) called for an independent United Nations investigation of the situation!

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:18 AM | Comments (0)

December 28, 2008

Blaming the Chinese, not us

The New York Times
December 25, 2008

WASHINGTON — In 2005, a low-key Princeton economist who had become a Federal Reserve governor coined a theory to explain the growing tendency of Americans to borrow from foreigners particularly the Chinese, to finance their heavy spending. The problem, he said, was not that Americans spend too much, but that foreigners save too much. The Chinese have piled up so much excess savings that they lend money to the United States at low rates, underwriting American consumption. This colossal credit cycle could not last forever, he said. But, in a global economy, the transfer of Chinese money to America was a market phenomenon that would take years to work itself out

Today, the dependence of the United States on Chinese money looks less benign. And, the economist who proposed the theory, Ben Bernanke, is dealing with the consequences, having been promoted to chairman of the Fed in 2006, as these money flows were reaching stratospheric levels.

In the past decade, China has invested upward of $1 trillion, mostly earnings from manufacturing exports, into US. Government bonds and government-backed mortgage debt. That has lowered interest rates and helped fuel a historic consumption binge and housing bubble. China, some economists say, lulled American consumers, and their leaders, into complacency about their spendthrift ways.

Many economists now say America should have recognized that borrowing from abroad for consumption and deficit spending at home is not a formula for economic success. Even as that weakness is becoming more widely recognized, however, the United States is likely to be more addicted than ever to foreign creditors to finance record government spending.

Some critics argue the United States could have pushed Beijing harder to abandon its policy of keeping the value of its currency weak — a policy that made its exports less expensive and helped turn it into the world’s leading manufacturing power. If China had allowed its currency to float, its export growth probably would have moderated. In addition, it would not have acquired the same vast hoard of dollars to invest abroad.

Others say the Fed and the Treasury should have seen the Chinese lending for what it was: a giant stimulus to the US economy, not unlike interest rate cuts by the Fed. They say the Fed (and the Democratic Congressional leadership – jsk) under Alan Greenspan, contributed to the creation of the housing bubble by leaving interest rates too low for too long, even as Chinese investment further stoked an easy-money economy.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 02:36 AM | Comments (0)

December 26, 2008

President G W Bush – A genuine friend of Israel

Acknowledging Bush’s Historic “Tilt”

By Jason Maoz

The Jewish Press, November 7, 2008

George W. Bush will leave office as one of the most unpopular presidents in history, battered by years of non-stop criticism, scorn and derision — a good deal of it deserved, but much of it politically motivated, hypocritical and unfair.

Whether Bush will, like Harry Truman (who left office in January 1953 with approval numbers lower than Bush’s), eventually rise in terms of public esteem is a question that won’t begin to be answered for years if not decades. But one thing that can be said with near certainty is that we shall not see a president as instinctively pro-Israel as Bush for a very long time to come — a president who entered office determined to pursue a policy that unambiguously favored Israel over its enemies.

In their anti-Bush book The Price of Loyalty, author Ron Suskind and his collaborator and protagonist Paul O’Neill, the treasury secretary who left the Bush administration on less than friendly terms, provided a revealing glimpse into Bush’s thinking on Israel.

On January 30, 2001, just ten days after his inauguration, Bush met with his senior national security team and, according to O’Neill as transcribed by Suskind, startled those in the room when the discussion turned to Middle East policy. “We’re going to correct the imbalances of the previous administration on the Mid-East conflict,” Bush announced. “We’re going to tilt it back toward Israel. And, we’re going to be consistent. Clinton overreached, and it all fell apart. That’s why we’re in trouble.”

Bush reminisced about meeting Ariel Sharon (who the following week would easily win election as Israeli prime minister) when they shared a helicopter flight during Bush’s visit to Israel in December 1998. “We flew over the Palestinian camps,” Bush said. “It looked real bad down there. I don’t see much we can do over there at this point. I think it’s time to pull out of that situation.”

Powell protested that “such a move might be hasty” and spoke of the “roots” of the violence in the Palestinian areas. “He stressed,” wrote Suskind, “that a pullback by the United States would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army. “ The consequences of that could be dire,” he said, “especially for the Palestinians.” Bush, according to Suskind and O’Neill, shrugged. “Maybe that’s the best way to get things hack in balance,” he said. “Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarity things.”

So here was Bush, the media-caricatured simpleton, a week and a half into his presidency and some nine months before Sept. 11, making it clear that he was “going to tilt” U.S. policy “back toward Israel.” And, here was Bush, the man his opponents tell us is an empty suit in thrall to a coterie of Machiavellian advisers, refusing to be taken in by Colin Powell’s State Department-style prattle.

In his book The Right Man, which preceded Suskind’s by a year, former White House speechwriter David Frum also referred to Bush’s first NSC meeting, quoting the new president as saying “a top foreign-policy priority of my administration is the safety and security of Israel.” Frum also noted how Bush, seeking to allay the fears and suspicions of Jewish liberals, told an American Jewish Committee dinner, “I am a Christian. But I believe with the Psalmist that the Lord God of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.”

(An amusing, if somewhat depressing, sidebar to the AJC story is that the climactic line of Bush’s speech, the one about the God of Israel, was met with something less than approval from the secular Jews in attendance: “There was nothing,” wrote Frum. “Not a clap, not a cheer. Silence.”)

Bush has been pilloried by his critics for supposedly ‘ neglecting Israeli-Palestinian negotiations for most of his presidency. What those critics usually mean but don’t say is that Bush refused to push Israel in the manner they would have preferred, that he wasn’t even-handed enough, that he saw through Yasir Arafat’s pretensions and lies, that he actually carried through on the promise he made in that first NSC meeting “to tilt it back to Israel.” For that he deserves our heartfelt gratitude, no matter how we may view other aspects of his presidency.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:53 PM | Comments (0)

December 24, 2008

Oiy, The Return of Dennis Ross! Please say it isn’t so.

From: Israel Commentary, November 17, 2004

(An older published article that begs to be re-printed)

FORMER AMBASSADOR DENNIS ROSS’S SPIN

By Jerome S. Kaufman

(Re-printed - with today's minimal commentary - from the Detroit Jewish News of November 12, 2004)

It was quite a show at the West Bloomfield, Michigan, Jewish Community Center Jewish Book Fair on Nov. 4, 2004 - watching former Ambassador Dennis Ross mesmerize an adoring audience as to his great contribution to the so-called “peace process” in the Middle East.

His press agent wrote him up as, “A highly skilled diplomat, Ambassador Ross was this country’s point man on the peace process in both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations. He was instrumental in assisting Israelis and Palestinians in reaching the 1995 Interim Agreement; he also successfully brokered the Hebron Accord in 1997, facilitated the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty and intensively worked to bring Israel and Syria together.” (Assisted Israel! Huh!)

Evidently, the man who wrote the promo piece was not on the scene when these events occurred. Ross was indeed the point man along with the other great “assisters of Israel” in Clinton’s State Department: i.e., Martin Indyk, Aaron Miller, Richard Haase and, of course, Madeleine Albright and Clinton himself. Their “assistance” has all but brought Israel to its knees.

Way back in April 1991, in a Moment magazine article, former Near East Report editor Eric Rozenman described Ross as a “Jewish Arabist.” He wrote that Ross was responsible for shaping the Bush-Baker policy that was “indifferent to what Israel claimed as vital interests and undiplomatically hostile to Israel’s prime minister” and had made it “the least sympathetic American government toward Israel in that country’s 43 years.”

That government embraced the deluded Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin and Haim Ramon that brought the Oslo Accords, under cover of darkness, to Israel. Along with the Accords came a powerless, discarded Yasser Arafat isolated in Tunisia following the 1982 Lebanese war. Israel then made the colossal error of empowering this lethal enemy. The Palestinian Arabs were given rifles and sophisticated military equipment supposedly for use against riots among their own people. In short order, these weapons were instead, quickly used to kill Israelis. (Deja vu all over again)

Despite the obvious Arab lack of cooperation and compliance with the agreements sculpted by Ross, the Israelis continued with the insanity giving up the greater part of Judea and Samaria and all the major Arabs towns to the point where 97 percent of the Arabs were under Arafat’s rule. As a sign of his gratitude, Arafat orchestrated the even greater killing of Israelis that continues to this very day. In the 30 months after that date, more Israelis were killed by terrorists (2l3) than in the preceding 10 years — (209 from January 1983 to September 1993). In the following year, there were over twice as many Israeli terror fatalities!

The period since the Israel-PLO accords has seen the highest level of terrorist killings in the history of the State of Israel. The situation has gone from bad to worse. In the four years of the current Intifada, September 2000 to September 2004, 1,032 Israelis have been killed by Palestinian Arab violence and there have been 6,665 casualties.

Nevertheless, Ross continues to promote the same concept. He implores the Israelis to “get out of the lives of the Palestinian Arabs.” If the Israelis could only make the Palestinian Arabs accept the gracious deal of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak - all of Judea and Samaria, the Jordan Valley, Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, unlimited Arab right of return to Judea and Samaria, etc. Conveniently forgotten is the fact that the Israelis threw Barak out of office immediately after learning of what Barak, Dennis Ross, Bill Clinton and the American State Department had offered.

They replaced Barak with another general in the hope that this general would address the issue the way generals are supposed to deal with terror. This general, Arik Sharon, unfortunately has also fallen into the trap of “land for peace” despite the years of its abject failure.

Finally, Ross made the most incredibly, damaging statement of all. He said that he knew at the time that Yasser Arafat was incapable of sticking to any deal he made! Furthermore, in all those years of negotiation, the Ross mediators did not obtain one concession from Arafat himself - that, while Israelis were bleeding to death and coerced to give up more and more vital territory!

It is also obvious that Ross wants his point man job back. Thankfully, this is extremely unlikely with a Republican administration. (>But, from recent reports, under the Obama Administration, may succeed!)

Unfortunately, at least for public consumption, President Bush continues to urge Israel to accept another terrorist Arab state in its back yard. He has not accepted the fact that such an entity will not help the interests of the United States. It will backfire upon us. America will have one more enemy to deal with and, God forbid, eventually obtain instead, the loss of a fellow democracy and a stalwart military and political ally sold down the river.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:04 AM | Comments (0)

December 21, 2008

The Trouble With Obama's Energy Czar

By Michelle Malkin

Yet another Clintonite has been wheeled out of the political morgue to serve in the Obama administration. Carol Browner, a neon-green radical who headed the Environmental Protection Agency from 1993-2000, is widely rumored to be the president-elect's choice for "energy czar." But, an ethical cloud still hangs over Browner's EPA legacy. It doesn't take a team of Ivy League lawyers to figure out that this is one more headache the Hope and Change crew doesn't need.

In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, let me dust off the cobwebs and help out all the smarty-pants vetters on the Obama team with a little background on Browner's stained past:
On her last day in office, nearly eight years ago, Browner oversaw the destruction of agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge's order requiring the agency to preserve its records. This from a public official who bragged about her tenure: "One of the things I'm the proudest of at EPA is the work we've done to expand the public's right to know."

Asked to explain her track-covering actions, the savvy career lawyer played dumb. Figuratively batting her eyelashes, Browner claimed she had no clue about a court injunction signed by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth on the same day she commanded an underling to wipe her hard drives clean. Golly gee willikers, how could that have slipped by?

According to testimony in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against EPA by Landmark Legal Foundation, a Virginia-based conservative legal watchdog group, Browner commanded a computer technician on Jan. 19, 2001: "I would like my files deleted. I want you to delete my files."

Not coincidentally, Landmark Legal Foundation had been pressing Browner to fully and publicly disclose the names of any special interest groups that may have influenced her wave of last-minute regulatory actions. Two days before she told her technician to purge all her records, EPA had gone to court to file a motion opposing the federal court injunction protecting those government documents. Plausible deniability? Not bloody likely.

Incredibly, Browner asserted that there was no work-related material on her work computer. She explained she was merely cleaning the hard drive of computer games she had downloaded for her son, and that she wanted to expunge the hard drive as a "courtesy" to the incoming Bush administration. How thoughtful.

Later, her agency admitted that three other top EPA officials had their computers erased despite the federal court order and ongoing FOIA case -- the record is silent on whether Browner's son was playing games on their desktops, too. A further belated admission revealed that the agency had failed to search Browner's office for public documents as required by Landmark's public disclosure lawsuit.

Not only were the top officials' hard drives cleared and reformatted, but also e-mail backup tapes were erased and reused in violation of records preservation practices. After a two-year legal battle, Lamberth finally held the EPA in contempt of court for the systemic file destruction -- actions Lamberth lambasted as "contumacious conduct" (obstinate resistance to authority). The agency was also forced to pay all of Landmark Legal Foundation's court-related fees. As is typical in Washington, Browner weaseled out of any serious repercussions. Lamberth inexplicably decided that slapping the agency as a whole with contempt -- rather than any individual -- would deter future cover-ups.

Is this a gamble the Obama administration wants to take? Browner has crossed the line and violated public trust before in her capacity as eco-chief. Early in her first term as EPA head, a congressional subcommittee caught her using taxpayer funds to create and send out illegal lobbying material to over 100 grassroots environmental lobbying organizations. She exploited her office to orchestrate a political campaign by left-wing groups, who turned around and attacked Republican lawmakers for supporting regulatory reform. These are the very same groups -- anti-business, anti-sound science, pro-eco-hysteria -- that Browner would be working arm in arm with as Obama's "energy czar."

This is regression we can't afford.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:11 PM | Comments (0)

December 19, 2008

Vitally Important Postcard Campaign

Please write to Fred Taub listed below if you would like to obtain postcards to try and help get Jonathan Pollard pardoned. Tens of people that have perpetrated far greater and more damaging offenses have served far less time in prison. The postcard is to go directly to President George W. Bush who has the sole authority to pardon Mr. Pollard - in prison for 23 years! I am unable to attach the link directly here.

Fred Taub, of the Betar organization, has been kind enough to design the postcard and you can obtain a supply of them from him directly to immediately distribute.

Please help.

Jerome S. Kaufman

Below is Fred’s message and address:

As a project for Betar, I designed and ordered 5,000 postcards addressed to President Bush, asking him to commute Jonathan Pollard's sentence. (See the attached PDF copy) If you want a stack, I can mail them to you, but you need to cover the postage for Betar, which is $5 for the Priority Mail envelope.
Additional donations to Betar would be appreciated, to defer the general printing and mailing cost for this project.


Betar's address is:

2121 S. Green Rd Suite 5
South Euclid, Ohio 44121

Postcard request e-mail address is:
Pollardpostcards@betar.org


President Bush can be reached at:

Telephone: White House Tel 202/456-1111. If busy, you can call the switchboard at: 202/456-1414.
Fax: President at the White House at: 202(456-2461. You can send a
Letter to: President George W. Bush The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20500
E-Mail: comment@whitehouse. gov or president@whitehouse.gov.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:43 PM | Comments (0)

December 17, 2008

ZOA URGES PRESIDENT BUSH TO RESCIND SUPPORT

FOR UN VOTE ENDORSING PALESTINIAN STATE

December 15, 2008

Contact Morton A. Klein at: 917-974-8795 or 212-481-1500

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is urging the Bush Administration to rescind support for a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution tomorrow which seeks to enshrine endorsing the creation of a Palestinian state. The text, co-sponsored by the U.S. and Russia, is seen by officials as "geared to binding a future Israeli government to a commitment to a two-state solution," and will reaffirm international support for the Annapolis process begun in November 2007 (Harvey Morris, 'UN to drive Middle East peace settlement,' Financial Times [London], December 15, 2008).

The ZOA is urging the Bush Administration to rescind its support for the UNSC draft resolution, saying that its passage would convey a stark message to the Palestinians that they can receive massive concessions without having to reform their society and institutions to end support for terrorism and the incitement to hatred and murder of Jews that feeds it.

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "We oppose any diplomatic effort or United Nations resolution, such as that supported by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, designed to anchor the concept of creating a Palestinian state in accordance with the process commenced in November 2007 at Annapolis. As the ZOA observed at the time of Annapolis, this conception of peace-making is deeply flawed and unrealistic, because it fails to take account of the 15 years since the 1993 Oslo Accords in which all the commitments undertaken by Palestinians have remained unfulfilled.

"These commitments include arresting terrorists, dismantling and outlawing terror groups, confiscating their weaponry and ending the incitement to hatred and murder in the Palestinian Authority (PA) controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps that feeds terror.

"In such circumstances, creating a Palestinian state would simply mean creating a terror state. Such a state would enjoy sovereign powers, would be free to enter into hostile alliances against Israel and import weaponry without control or supervision of any kind.

"The one reason Judea and Samaria are relatively peaceful is because, unlike Gaza, from which Israel withdrew in 2005, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are on the ground and able to intervene to prevent terrorist acts and break up terror cells when and where necessary. That would no longer be the case the moment a Palestinian state is established. Just as Ashkelon and Sderot are already under constant bombardment from Palestinian shells and missiles fired from Gaza, Jerusalem, Ben Gurion Airport and most of Israel's major population centers would be in range of Palestinian terrorists in Judea and Samaria. Cross-border raids would become routine along what would become Israel's longest border. To do this runs contrary to all logic and prudence: We should be dismantling terrorist states, not establishing them.

"Under Mahmoud Abbas, the record shows that, within the PA, few opportunities are missed to glorify a terrorist, celebrate a suicide bomber, or inculcate Palestinian youth into worshipping cold-blooded murderers. The record also shows that all aspects of PA life – the schools, youth movements, sports teams, newspapers, TV, even the names of streets – are made vehicles for honoring and praising terrorists and their vile deeds. This in turn breeds more terrorists and bloodshed. Only last year, Fatah, the Palestinian party co-founded by Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, issued a new official emblem, showing a map of all of Israel, even within the pre-1967 armistice lines, covered with a Palestinian head-dress, including pictures of arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat and a Kalashnikov rifle.

"In January this year, Abbas mourned the passing of veteran Palestinian terrorist George Habash, saying, 'The death of this historic leader is a great loss for the Palestinian cause and for the Palestinian people.' He also declared three days of mourning and ordered Palestinian flags lowered to half mast. In February last year, he called for uniting the blood of Fatah and Hamas in a common struggle against Israel. In May 2006, Abbas named Mahmoud Damra, wanted by Israel for supervising various terror attacks against Israelis, as commander of Fatah's Force 17.

"Abbas, like Arafat before him, has sheltered wanted terrorists in the Muqata, his presidential compound in Ramallah, including Khaled Shawish, a senior Fatah commander responsible for the murder of 19 Israelis, until Israeli forces captured him when he ventured outside the compound in May 2007. Abbas personally congratulated the family of the multiple murderer Samir Kuntar when the Israelis released him this year. In fact, Abbas' Fatah even organized a rally in Ramallah to celebrate the event. In December 2005, Abbas approved legislation mandating financial benefits to be paid to families of killed Palestinian terrorists. He has described wanted terrorists as 'heroes fighting for freedom' and dead terrorist leaders like Yasser Arafat, Hamas' Ahmad Yasin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi and Palestinian Islamic Jihad's Fathi Shikaki as 'martyrs.'

"In short, Abbas is not a genuine peace partner, and the idea of constructing a peace settlement based upon agreement with him and the PA is divorced from reality. We dare not create a new terror state and increase the enormous dangers already facing Israel. Until fundamental changes occur within the Palestinian leadership and society, there should be no rewards or concessions to the PA.

"In these circumstances, were the UN to declare that a Palestinian state must come into being, this would be one of the biggest rewards imaginable for the unreconstructed and terror-promoting PA. It would convey the clearest possible message the world could deliver that the Palestinians need not honor signed agreements and need make no reforms, in the certainty that the world will continue to pressure Israel for concessions to them leading up to statehood. They will learn, as they have already done, that there are no consequences for extremism, terrorism and hatred.

"This would be a travesty of any diplomatic approach that can be called a 'peace process.' A true peace process must be designed to maximize the prospects of Palestinians making these essential reforms and changes, without which no genuine peace is possible. Those truly interested in the cause of peace will oppose the UN taking such a counter-productive step.

"We urge the Bush Administration to rescind its support for this UNSC draft resolution and to instruct the United States' Ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, accordingly."

PS December 17, 2008

UN Security Council resolution passed 14-0, Libya abstained, including a positive vote by the US. Now it is up to Israel to stand up for its own best interests. This resolution is not binding on anyone and the Palestinian Arabs have yet to abide by the basic demand of every resolution ever created – that they abandon terrorism as a state instrument and stop indoctrinating their children to hate Jews and Israelis. In 15 years, this has yet to happen – not to mention the centuries before.

Jerome S. Kaufman



Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:50 PM | Comments (0)

December 15, 2008

The futility of our attempting to conserve oil to lower prices...

...When the primarily Arab Cartel (OPEC) simply has to turn off the faucet to raise the prices and put us right back behind the eight ball. Alternate sources, out of their hands, are obviously our only solution. ( jsk)

Nations comprising OPEC:

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a permanent, intergovernmental Organization, created at the Baghdad Conference on September 10–14, 1960,
Five Founding Members:
Iran,
Iraq,
Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia
Venezuela
Nine other Members:
Qatar (1961)
Indonesia (1962)
Libya (1962)
United Arab Emirates (1967)
Algeria (1969)
Nigeria (1971)
Ecuador (1973) – suspended membership from December 1992-October 2007
Angola (2007)
Gabon (1975–1994)

OPEC output cut to force raise in oil prices Dec. 14, 2008

SAUDI GAZETTE, 14 December, 2008

ALGIERS - OPEC ministers are in agreement on the need to cut output when they meet on Wednesday 17 December) in Algeria to prop up sagging prices,
OPEC President Chakib Khelil said on Saturday (13 Dec).
"There is an OPEC consensus on the reduction. But I can not tell you
(more)," Khelil told reporters.

Since early September, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries has already agreed to reduce supply by a total of two million barrels per day (bpd). OPEC oil ministers are scheduled to meet in the western Algerian city of Oran on Wednesday (17 Dec) amid expectations they will endorse a large cut in supplies to prevent further falls in oil prices.

Khelil, who is also Algeria's energy and mining minister, said Russia and
some other non-OPEC oil producing countries like Azerbijan, Oman, and Syria are to due attend the Oran meeting. But, he gave no further details about their possible contribution in trimming oil crude supply. The head of OPEC also said Russia and three other non-OPEC members will take part in the oil producers' summit next week in Oran. Khelil said Russia will send its deputy prime minister in charge of energy and its oil minister to Wednesday's (17 Dec) summit. Khelil asserted that a final consensus has been reached by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to reduce oil output levels

Sue Lerner - Associate, IMRA
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:59 PM | Comments (0)

December 12, 2008

(The NY Times, the London Times, The BBC Radio France, the Media at large)

Why I Can't Stand the New York Times

By TOM GROSS

Redacted from Wall Street Journal Europe

Last week in Mumbai (Bombay, India) we witnessed as clear a case of carefully planned mass terrorism as we are ever likely to see.
The seven-venue atrocity was coordinated in a highly sophisticated way. The terrorists used BlackBerrys to stay in touch with each other during their three-and-half-day rampage, outwitting the authorities by monitoring international reaction to the attacks on British, Urdu and Arabic Web sites. It was a meticulously organized operation aimed exclusively at civilian targets: two hospitals, a train station, two hotels, a leading tourist restaurant and a Jewish center.

Murder in Mumbai (Bombay, India)
“The work of 'practitioners.”

There was nothing remotely random about it. This was no hostage standoff. The terrorists didn't want to negotiate. They wanted to murder as many Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists and other "infidels" as they could, and in as spectacular a manner as possible. In the Jewish center, some of the female victims even appear to have been tortured before being killed.

So why are so many prominent Western media reluctant to call the perpetrators terrorists? Why did Jon Snow, one of Britain's most respected TV journalists, use the word "practitioners" when referring to the Mumbai terrorists? Was he perhaps confusing them with doctors?

Why did Britain's highly regarded Channel 4 News state that the "militants" showed "wanton disregard for race or creed" when exactly the opposite was true: Targets and victims were very carefully selected. Why did the "experts" invited to discuss the Mumbai attacks in one show on the state-funded Radio France Internationale, the voice of France around the world, harp on about Baruch Goldstein, who carried out the Hebron shootings in 1994 (totally unrelated and out of context - jsk) and virtually the sole case of a Jewish terrorist in living memory?

Unfortunately, in recent years, we have become used to leftist media burying their heads in the sand about the threat that Islamic fundamentalism poses, in much the same way as they once refused to report accurately on communist atrocities. But now, even conservative media may be doing it too.

What is the motivation of journalists in trying to mangle language -- such as going out of their way to refer to terrorists as "militants," as one Mumbai story on yesterday's Times of London Web site seemed to do? Do they somehow wish to express sympathy for these murderers, or perhaps make their crimes seem almost acceptable? How are we going to effectively confront terrorists when we can't even identify them as such?

But then, the terrorists in Mumbai didn't need to make any public announcements. They knew that many deluded Western journalists and academics will do that job for them, explaining that the West is to blame, especially the Zionists. We have started seeing this already on the BBC -- the world's largest TV and radio network, which broadcasts in dozens of different languages around the world and is lavishly funded by the British taxpayer.

You would be hard pressed to find any talk of radical Islam on the BBC in recent days, or mention of the fact that Islamists think India should be a Muslim country. Instead the BBC continues to try to persuade its massive global audience that "it is a local Indian problem," that "the subcontinent has a history of unrest," and so on.

Even the Pakistani angle has been presented as some kind of local Pakistan-India dispute rather than as a problem with radical Islam -- this despite the fact that according to numerous reports the Mumbai terrorists themselves were screaming "Allah Akbar" (Allah is the Greatest) as they murdered "the Jews and the infidels" in line with bin Ladenist ideology.

For some time, many have argued that an element of anti-Semitism has distorted the way the BBC covers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But now, following the Mumbai events, we can perhaps see that anti-Semitism may even be at work in the way the BBC covers foreign news in general. For much of the Mumbai siege, the BBC went out of its way to avoid reporting that the Jewish community center was one of the seven targets. At one point, viewers were told that "an office building" had been targeted (referring to the Jewish center as such).

Then, on Friday morning, TV pictures of Indian commandos storming the besieged Jewish center were broadcast by networks around the world. Heavily armed commandos, their faces covered by balaclavas, rappelled from helicopters onto the roof while Indian sharpshooters in buildings opposite opened fire and a helicopter circled overhead. Huge crowds of onlookers could be seen looking aghast as they watched from nearby streets. While Sky News and other channels were gripped by these dramatic pictures, BBC World was not, almost pretending there was no siege at the Jewish center -- even though by then it was one of only two sites that remained under attack in Mumbai. Had the terrorists chosen to besiege a church or mosque instead, can you imagine the BBC ignoring it this way?

Meanwhile -- perhaps even more disgracefully -- a New York Times report on the last day of the siege stated: "It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene." Has the New York Times learned anything since the Holocaust, when, even after the war ended in the spring of 1945, the paper infamously refused to report that the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Germans and so on killed in the camps had been Jews, and killed as Jews?

Dozens of eyewitness accounts by local Indians said the gunmen shouted "Allah Akbar" from the Jewish center. It is housed in a nondescript block and is not obviously marked from the outside as a Jewish center. It is the one Jewish building in a densely crowded city of millions. And, the Times, the self-proclaimed paper of record, wants to let readers think it might have been an accidental target?

Even the Times's British equivalent, the Guardian, began its news story: "The inclusion of the headquarters of an ultra-orthodox Jewish group was obviously intended to send its own message." Does the New York Times think that the seeking out and murder by Muslim terrorists of the only New York rabbi in Mumbai and his wife was "an accidental target"?

There was nothing accidental about any of the seven sites that the terrorists attacked. Moreover, it was no accident that Mumbai was hit. It is the most multi-religious city in India -- with Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsees and Jews living in relative harmony.

Mr. Gross is a former Middle East correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:59 PM | Comments (0)

December 11, 2008

Five Basic Arguments addressing the concept of a Palestinian State

Redacted from two articles by Prof. Paul Eidelberg
The Jewish Press, November 21 and 28, 2008

Contrary to the governments of the United States and Israel, various experts in both countries reject the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While mentioning their views, I‘ve developed five decisive arguments against a Palestinian state. They are: economic, demographic, political, strategic and democratic.

Economic:

First, a RAND Corporation study indicates that a Palestinian state would not be economically viable. It would require 533 billion for the first 10 years of its existence. Note: This study was made before the economic crisis now confronting the United States and the rest of the world.

Further, to confine more than two million Arabs to the 2,323 square miles of the West Bank, and to squeeze another million into the 141 square miles of Gaza, is to doom these Arabs to economic stagnation and discontent. The projected state would be a cauldron of envious hatred of Israel, fueled by the leaders of one group of Arab clans or another — or thugs parading under the banner of Allah.

Moreover, to compensate perhaps 200,000 Jews expelled from the West Bank (or even half that number) would bankrupt Israel’s government, to say nothing of the resulting trauma and civil discord.

Demographic:

Two-state solution advocates warn that the Arabs between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean will soon outnumber the Jews, necessitating a Palestinian state. The Sharon government, without public debate, used this demographic contention to justify its perfidious implementation of Labor’s policy of unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005. The Olmert-Livni government is using the same policy to withdraw from Judea and Samaria, including parts of East Jerusalem.

However, a ground breaking study by the American. Israel Demographic Research Group, revealed in 2005 that Israel does not need to retreat from Judea and Samaria to secure Jewish demography. The study shows that the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics exaggerated the Arab population in Judea, Samaria and Gaza by nearly 50%. Rather than 3.8 million Palestinians, it was no more than 2.4 million. Since those registered as Jews in Israel comprise almost 80% of Israel’s population, they make up a 59% majority with Gaza, Judea and Samaria included - and a solid 67% majority with Judea and Samaria, but not Gaza, included!

The American and Israeli researchers also found that Jewish fertility rates are steadily increasing while Arab fertility rates are steadily decreasing. Not only is there no demographic time bomb necessitating the surrender of Judea and Samaria to Palestinian terrorists, but Israel’s demographic position should also encourage its government to develop a strategy for annexing Judea and Samaria

Political:

According to Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland, former head of Israel’s National Security Council, “The Palestinians do not truly desire the conventional two-state solution. The Arab world — especially Jordan and Egypt — does not truly support it either (Jerusalem Post, September 23, 2008).

Dr. Yuval Steinitz, former Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman, said that the idea of a two-state solution should be dead. “A Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria,” he said, “would bring about Israel’s demise... Such a Palestinian state would immediately become an outpost for Iran.” (Jerusalem Post, September 11, 2008).

Advocates of a Palestinian state live in a fantasy world, or lack the intellectual courage to acknowledge the obvious: the Palestinians are committed to Israel’s annihilation. A generation of Arab children has been educated to hate Jews and emulate suicide bombers. Prominent political commentator Daniel Pipes said it would take at least two generations to undo such indoctrination. This would require, among other things, basic changes in the Koran. Muslims would have to renounce the ethos of Jihad. Unfortunately, no American or Israeli official has the guts to speak of this religious-cultural issue.

4. Strategic Arguments

a. On December 29, 2002, the freighter Karin-A set sail from Iran en route to the Suez Canal. It was boarded by Israeli commandos without opposition from the four crewmen, who were members of the Palestinian naval force. When the commandos examined the ship’s cargo, they discovered launchers and rockets, mortars, anti-tank weapons, mines, two tons of explosives, assault rifles, machine guns, sniper rifles with telescope lenses, hand grenades, and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition — enough weaponry to tilt the balance of terror against Israel. The destination of Karin-A was Gaza.

Consistent with Dr. Steinitz’s warning, this Iranian arms shipment signifies that Iran views the Palestinians as a battlefield in its 30-year war with Israel. (See Ronen Bergman, The Secret War with Iran, 2008, p. 270)

b. Even if it were agreed that a Palestinian state would have to be demilitarized, only fools would believe that the Arabs would abide by such an agreement — no more than they adhered to the arms limitations in the Oslo Agreement.

c. An armed Palestinian state would expose all of Israel to missile attacks. Preoccupied with such attacks, Israel could no longer serve effectively as America’s strategic ally in the Middle East. No longer could it provide the U.S. with priceless intelligence and technological assistance whose value far exceeds the value of US military aid. And, I have not mentioned the multibillion-dollar economic market Israel provides the fifty states of the American Union.

d. Ponder also the fact that rewarding the Palestinians with statehood would promote irredentist movement or civil war and terrorism throughout the world.

5. Democratic Arguments

a. Doctrinaire adherence to the democratic principle of self-determination would encourage any ethnic group to seek independent statehood. It would endow any ethnic group with the right to elect a tyrannical form of government, whether fascist, communist or Islamic.

b. Hamas, an Islamic terrorist group dedicated to Israel’s destruction, was victorious in the 2006 democratic elections. Lincoln echoed Jefferson when he said, “No people have a right to do what is wrong.”

c. The “Palestinians have not only bungled their every chance of self-government by making Fatah and Hamas terrorists their leaders. Having educated their children to emulate suicide bombers, the goal of these thugs is not statehood but Israel’s annihilation The democratic principle of self-determination is not an absolute; it is limited by rational and ethical considerations It would be irrational — indeed, criminal — to establish a Palestinian state on Israel’s doorstep.

Conclusion

a. Since it would be insane and destructive to establish a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, many observers have said that the proper venue of such a state is Jordan whose population is 60 percent Palestinian. I outline a phased solution to the problem in my book A Jewish Philosophy of History.

b. I ask: What has prevented the U.S. and Israel from developing a strategy to overcome the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians? Can it be, more than anything else, a lack of intellectual integrity and moral courage — preconditions of statesmanship? America’s decision-makers and opinion-makers have been stunted by the university-bred doctrine of moral equivalence. Having abandoned the principles of Jefferson and Lincoln, they drift without steadfast conviction and purpose. Meanwhile, Israel’s ruling elites, having abandoned the Book that inspired Western civilization, behave like grasshoppers. Mired in Lilliputian-like politics, they permit barbarians to encroach on Jerusalem and mankind with a new dark age.

c. Both Israel and America need a very large dose of truth and courage.

Professor Paul Eidelberg is the founder and president of (lie Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel’s system of governance.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:24 AM | Comments (0)

December 09, 2008

How the world's media cowers to Islamic Terrorism

Redacted from, Jews get killed, but Muslims feel vulnerable

By Mark Steyn
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |

Shortly after the London Tube bombings in 2005, a reader of Tim Blair, The Sydney Daily Telegraph's columnist wag, sent him a note-perfect parody of a typical newspaper headline: "British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow's Train Bombing."
Indeed. And, so it goes. This time round — Mumbai — it was the Associated Press that filed a story about how Muslims "found themselves on the defensive once again about bloodshed linked to their religion". Oh, I don't know about that. In fact, you'd be hard pressed from most news reports to figure out the bloodshed was "linked" to any religion, least of all one beginning with "I-" and ending in "-slam."

In the three years since those British bombings, the media have more or less entirely abandoned the offending formulations i.e. "Islamic terrorists," "Muslim extremists.” By the time of the assault on Mumbai the (scared stiff jskmedia found it easier just to call the alleged perpetrators "militants" or "gunmen" or "teenage gunmen," as in the opening line of this report in The Australian: "An Adelaide woman in India for her wedding is lucky to be alive after teenage gunmen ran amok." Kids today, eh - Always running amok in an aimless fashion.

The veteran British TV anchor Jon Snow, on the other hand, opted for the more cryptic locution "practitioners." - practitioners of what, exactly - Hard to say and getting harder.

For the Wall Street Journal, Tom Gross produced a jaw-dropping round-up of Mumbai media coverage:
· The discovery that, for the first time, in an Indian terrorist atrocity, Jews had been attacked, tortured and killed.
· From the New York Times a serene befuddlement: "It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene."

Hmm. Greater Mumbai forms one of the world's five biggest cities. It has a population of nearly 20 million. But, only one Jewish center, located in a building that gives no external clue as to the bounty waiting therein. An "accidental hostage scene" that one of the "practitioners" just happened to stumble upon? "I must be the luckiest Jihadist in town. What are the odds?"

Meanwhile, the New Age guru Deepak Chopra laid all the blame on American foreign policy for "going after the wrong people" and inflaming moderates, and "that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster" in Mumbai. Really? The inflammation just "appears"? Like a bad pimple The "fairer" we get to the, ah, inflamed militant practitioners, the unfairer we get to everyone else.

The murdered Jews were described in almost all the Western media as "ultra-Orthodox," "ultra-" in this instance being less a term of theological precision than a generalized code for "strange, weird people, nothing against them personally, but they probably shouldn't have been over there in the first place."

Are they stranger or weirder than their killers? Two "inflamed moderates" entered, shouted "Allahu Akbar!," tortured the Jews and murdered them, including the young rabbi's pregnant wife. Their 2-year-old child escaped because of a quick-witted (non-Jewish) nanny who hid in a closet and then, risking being mowed down by machine-gun fire, ran with him to safety.

The Times was being silly in suggesting this was just an "accidental" hostage opportunity — and not just because, when Muslim terrorists capture Jews, it's not a hostage situation, it's a mass murder-in-waiting. The sole surviving "militant" revealed that the Jewish center had been targeted a year in advance.

The 28-year-old rabbi was Gavriel Holtzberg. His pregnant wife was Rivka Holtzberg. Their orphaned son is Moshe Holtzberg, and his brave nanny is Sandra Samuels. Remember their names, not because they're any more important than the Indians, Britons and Americans targeted in the attack, but because they are an especially revealing glimpse into the pathologies of the perpetrators.

In a well-planned attack on iconic Mumbai landmarks symbolizing great power and wealth, the "militants" nevertheless found time to divert 20 percent of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city's poor in a nondescript building. If they were just "teenage gunmen" or "militants" in the cause of Kashmir, engaged in a more or less conventional territorial dispute with India, why kill the only rabbi in Mumbai?

And, yet we take it for granted that Pakistani "militants" in a long-running border dispute with India would take time out of their hectic schedule to kill Jews. In going to ever more baroque lengths to avoid saying our "Islamic" or "Muslim" or "terrorist,” we have somehow managed to internalize the pathologies of these men.

We are enjoined to be "understanding," and we're doing our best. A Minnesotan suicide bomber (now there's a phrase) originally from Somalia returned to the old country and blew up himself and 29 other people last October. His family prevailed upon your government to have his parts (or as many of them as could be sifted from the debris) returned to the United States at taxpayer expense and buried in Burnsville Cemetery. Well, hey, in the current climate, what's the big deal about a federal bailout of jihad operational expenses? If that's not "too big to fail," what is?

Last week, a Canadian critic reprimanded me for failing to understand that Muslims feel "vulnerable." Au contraire, they project tremendous cultural confidence, as well they might: They're the world's fastest-growing population. A prominent British Muslim announced the other day that, when the United Kingdom becomes a Muslim state, non-Muslims will be required to wear insignia identifying them as infidels. If he's feeling "vulnerable," he's doing a terrific job of covering it up.

We are told that the "vast majority" of the 1.6 billion to 1.8 billion Muslims (in Deepak Chopra's estimate) are "moderate." Maybe so, but they're also quiet. And, as the AIDS activists used to say, "Silence=Acceptance." It equals acceptance of the things done in the name of their faith. Rabbi Holtzberg was not murdered because of a territorial dispute over Kashmir or because of Bush's foreign policy. He was murdered in the name of Islam — "Allahu Akbar."

I wrote in my book, "America Alone," that "reforming" Islam is something only Muslims can do. But, they show very little sign of being interested in doing it, and the rest of us are inclined to accept that. Spread a rumor that a Quran got flushed down the can at Gitmo, and there'll be rioting throughout the Muslim world. Publish some dull cartoons in a minor Danish newspaper, and there'll be protests around the planet. But, slaughter the young pregnant wife of a rabbi in Mumbai in the name of Allah, and that's just business as usual. And, if it is somehow "understandable" that for the first time in history it's no longer safe for a Jew to live in India, then we are greasing the skids for a very slippery slope. Muslims, the AP headline informs us, "worry about image."

(While the rest of us worry about our lives and our ability to remain free of their insane dogma.) Jsk

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:32 PM | Comments (0)

December 08, 2008

What’s your take on Gay Marriage?

Does Opposition to Gay Marriage Equal Hatred?

The Jewish Press, November 28, 2008

By Harry Eisenberg

Millions across the nation and indeed around the world are rejoicing in the election of Barack Obama for various reasons, not the least of which is that it shows America is not the racist country some have alleged it to be. Of course, there are always a few bad apples in every bunch, but can anyone deny what a long way we have come, considering that it was not so long ago, in the lifetime of many of our senior citizens, that African-Americans were not even allowed to participate in major league sports?

In California, our largest state, President-elect Obama won 61% of the vote, with his margin of victory there amounting to nearly two-and-a-half million votes. However, California was also in the news on election night due to its state constitutional amendment ballot initiative proposing to ban gay marriage. It passed by a much smaller margin, 52.5% to 47.5% - a difference of slightly more than half a million votes. (Similar measures were passed in Arizona and Florida, by wider margins.)

Gay marriage did not go down to defeat in California due to advertising. Voters in that heavily Democratic state were subjected to an advertising blitz in which opposition to gay marriage was declared to be opposition to equality for all and tantamount to hatred of gay people. All told, opponents of the gay marriage ban outspent proponents $43.6 million to just $29.8 million, but lost anyway. Should we therefore conclude that millions of Californians are filled with deep-seated hatred towards their fellow citizens who just happen to be gay?

Personally, I have gay relatives I care about and for whom I wish nothing but the best. In the past, I’ve worked closely with gay people who displayed concern and compassion for their fellow workers combined with consummate professionalism on the job. Clearly, upstanding gay citizens are worthy of no less respect than anyone else.

We are, however, a nation of over 300 million people in which just about every possible human scenario can and will happen. If gay marriage is legal, the following situation is bound to at some point:

Two consenting adults who are closely related (for example, a pair of brothers) apply for a marriage license. The clerk turns them down on grounds that such a marriage would constitute incest, which is considered harmful to society. But why, they ask, would our marriage be incest? We can’t conceive children. In what way would our gay marriage be more harmful to society than any other gay marriage? I can’t answer that question. Can you?

So, you say, why not? What harm can it do? Then a heterosexual brother and sister come along and want to be married. (It was common in ancient Egypt and other societies.) But, that can be very harmful to potential offspring and so you say no. But, what if they promise not to have children? What if they take medical steps to guarantee it? What if they only want to adopt children?

In addition, there are other marriage issues that are not even gay-related. In the Islamic religion, a man can legally have up to four wives at the same time. What if a Muslim man were to come forward and insist on being allowed to marry more than one woman as a religious right? Certain sects that broke away from the main body of the Mormon Church already doing that out West.

For 2,000 years Western culture and law have for the most part limited the right to marry to one unmarried man and one unmarried woman who are not closely related, have both freely consented to marry, and are beyond a certain minimum age. It is one thing to allow gay marriage. But, does that mean any and every conceivable form of marriage should also be allowed? If not, where do you draw the line? I’m open to suggestions.

Harry Eisenberg formerly taught history at the Mesivta of North Jersey and served as head writer for the TV game show “Jeopardy.”

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:17 AM | Comments (0)

December 06, 2008

Israeli Election and the Likud Party Primaries

Creating New Jewish Leadership

By Moshe Feiglin

The Jewish Press, November 28, 2008

The Likud Primaries

It’s election time again in Israel. But, before elections, the Likud will be holding primaries to determine who will be on its Knesset list. These elections will be held very soon, on December 8. With God’s help and with the combined effort of us all, I hope to win a slot on the Likud’s Knesset list.

The fact that a diverse array of nationalists will be running in the primaries is a positive phenomenon. It means that the Likud is a broad-based national movement. We must strive to make the Likud the political home of the entire national camp — from Yisrael Beiteinu to Shas.

Not surprisingly, though, a number of leftist opportunists have also joined the primaries race. They include Expulsion supporters Dan Meridor and former police chief Asaf Chefetz. It is fine for candidates who represent a broad spectrum of views to run in the Likud primaries. We can only hope that Likud members will not be dazzled by the media hype surrounding these men, and will vote for the candidates who truly represent the nationalist camp.

In the next Knesset, with God’s help, I will emphasize Jewish education and dealing with the uprising of Israel’s Arabs. I will also work to show the entire country that Israel needs leadership that cleaves to its heritage, its land, and it’s Creator. It is important to remember that my entrance into the Knesset now is a significant step toward the future — when we will establish Jewish leadership for the State of Israel.

Every campaign in which I have participated represents the culmination of years of explaining, convincing, meeting with groups and individuals, calls, conferences, registrations, interviews and prayers. This one is no different. By the time this newspaper hits the newsstands we will have only 13 days to bring all of our efforts to fruition, as we bring the Jewish leadership alternative into the homes and hearts of Israel’s citizens.

Here’s a political update from the general manager of Manhigut Yehudit.

Rabbi Michael Fuah:

Excellent Achievements at Likud Central Committee

The Likud Central Committee’s meeting on Sunday, November 16 brought good news for Moshe Feiglin and his supporters. These achievements are the fruits of long and hard behind the scenes efforts. First, the list of eligible Likud voters was closed at approximately 96,000. We successfully blocked the motions to allow “registration by crate.” whereby a particular candidate registers thousands of people who have no affinity to the Likud just so that they can vote in a particular election

In addition, we successfully blocked the attempt to save preferred spots on the /Likud list for “all-star” candidates. Along with other Central Committee ~ members, we also successfully blocked the merger of Uzi Dayan’s Tafnit (Turnaround) party with the Likud — thus preventing the 15,000 Tafnit voters from voting in the upcoming Likud primaries.

The Central Committee decided that every voter will vote for 10 candidates on the general list and one candidate in his district. This decision works in our favor. The stage for our success is set. Now it is up to us to get Moshe Feiglin and associated faith-based candidates elected to the Likud Knesset list.

Despite the fact that my chances to be elected to the Knesset are good, I have decided not to run this time and instead dedicate 100 percent of my efforts to Moshe Feiglin’s success. Moshe Feiglin is a symbol. His election to the Knesset will create a new political power balance in Israeli society.

The struggle to get Moshe elected will not be easy. There are a lot of popular people, each trying to get into one of the 19 relevant slots on the Likud list. We call upon each and every one of our friends and supporters to do whatever you can to help.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:25 PM | Comments (0)

December 04, 2008

ZOA URGES PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA NOT TO APPOINT KURTZER

...HOSTILE ISRAEL CRITIC AS MIDDLE EAST ENVOY

December 4, 2008

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States, has urged President-elect Barack Obama not to appoint hostile Israel critic Daniel Kurtzer as his Middle East envoy which Obama is reportedly considering. As envoy, Kurtzer would report directly to President-elect Obama, rather than to his secretary of state (Akiva Eldar, 'Obama mulls ex-ambassador to Israel, Daniel Kurtzer, as special Mideast envoy,' Haaretz, December 2, 2008).

The ZOA opposes an appointment for Kurtzer because of his long, documented record of hostility to and severe pressure upon Israel during the course of his career, which has included stints as U.S. Ambassador to Egypt (1997-2001) and Israel (2001-5). Over the years, strong criticism and concern has been expressed about Daniel Kurtzer's statements, polices and actions by an array of Israeli and American Jewish leaders. These include the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, former Israeli prime ministers Yitzhak Shamir and Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli negotiator and ambassador, Itamar Rabinovitch, veteran lobbyist Morris Amitay, and even leading Israeli newspaper, Yediot Ahronot.

There is a long list of Daniel Kurtzer's troubling statements and record on Israel and the Middle East:
· His support for the 2002 Arab so-called “Peace Initiative”: This Initiative, often described as one that offers Israel peace and normal relations with all the Arab states in exchange for Israel returning to its pre-1967 borders. In fact, it demands Israel's surrender of vitally strategic territory by demanding its full withdrawal to the pre-June 1967 armistice lines, contrary to the language of UN Security Council Resolution 242. It also would involve evicting over 400,000 Jews from these areas, as the unified Arab position is that a Palestinian state must be judenrein (free of Jews as Hitler’s Nazi Germany – jsk).
· It also demands, on the basis of a non-binding 1948 UN General Assembly Resolution (194) which the Arab states themselves rejected at the time, implementation of the legally baseless so-called 'right of return' to Israel for Palestinian Arab refugees and their millions of descendants, at Arab discretion, while Israel would be obliged to compensate those choosing not to return.
· In other words, Israel would have to agree to its own eventual destruction before the Arab League will recognize it.

Additionally this Initiative requires no concessions from, nor does it impose any obligations upon, the Arab parties. Yet, according to the Times [London], "Kurtzer submitted a paper to Obama on the question before [the] presidential elections. He argued that trying to reach bilateral peace agreements between Israel and individual countries in the Middle East, was a recipe for failure as the record of Bill Clinton and George W Bush showed. In contrast, the broader Arab plan 'had a lot of appeal.'" (Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter, 'Barack Obama links Israel peace plan to 1967 borders deal,' The Times [London], November 16, 2008).

· Critical of Israeli strikes at Palestinian terrorists: In August 2001, Kurtzer publicly criticized Israel for striking at Abu Ali Mustafa, head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which over the years has murdered at least 14 American citizens and numerous Israelis.

· The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations issued a statement on August 28, 2001 saying it was "surprised and dismayed" that Kurtzer "felt compelled to raise the issue with Prime Minister Sharon," Yet, "We did not hear of any similar actions when American citizens were the victims of terror attacks over the past few months. Indeed, just hours after Kurtzer's statement, an American Jew, Ben Dansker, was shot and wounded by Arafat´s terrorists near the town of Rogalit – yet Kurtzer made no statement about the attack.”

· Criticism of Kurtzer from former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Netanyahu "has said more than once that with Jews like Kurtzer, it is impossible to build a healthy relationship between Israel and the United States" (Haaretz, April 6, 2001).

· Rebukes Israeli negotiators for being insufficiently concessionary: The Israeli Labor government's then left-wing ambassador to the U.S., Itamar Rabinovitch, described a "stormy dispute" between Kurtzer and the head of Israel´s negotiating team, in which "Kurtzer thought that Israel was not going far enough with the Palestinians. There were sharp exchanges between them [and Kurtzer] rebuked" the Israeli negotiators (Haaretz, April 6, 2001).

· Criticism of Kurtzer from former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir: "Kurtzer frequently pressured Israel to make one-sided concessions to the Arabs; he constantly blamed Israel for the absence of Mid East peace, and paid little or no attention to the fact that the Palestinians were carrying out terrorist attacks and openly calling for the destruction of Israel."

· Morris Amitay, former executive director of the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has said: "Kurtzer … will use his Jewishness as a protective cover for his anti-Israel views" (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 29, 2001).

· Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot editorialized on Kurtzer's malign influence: "Possibly more than any other U.S. State Department official, Kurtzer has been instrumental in promoting the goals of the Palestinians and in raising their afflictions to the center of the U.S. policymakers' agenda" (Yediot Ahronot, August 9, 1991).

· In his 1976 PhD dissertation at Columbia University, Daniel Kurtzer blamed Israeli responses to terrorist strikes for "the radicalization of those Palestinians to violence." It is deeply troubling that Kurtzer never characterized as "terrorists" those who carried out massacres of civilians. In his thesis, they were called "guerrillas."

· "Kurtzer's poor relations with Jerusalem's political bureaus reached a new climax" in 1990, when he authored a speech by James Baker strongly criticizing Israel, which was delivered at an AIPAC conference, "causing a commotion among the conference participants ... A Jewish community leader told Kurtzer [shortly afterwards], 'Your children will bear the consequences of the Israeli policy you are encouraging.'"

· Clashes with Israeli officials: Kurtzer had a "vocal conflict" with an Israeli government official in Philadelphia in the summer of 1990, after Kurtzer "attacked the Israeli government for refusing to include the PLO in the peace process [and] said that this constituted the main obstacle to peace" (Haaretz, April 6, 2001).

· Public interference in internal Israeli budgetary policy-making: Kurtzer stated, "Instead of taking care of the disabled and or economic development, Israel is investing in Jewish settlements, which should be dismantled" (Washington Times, January 9, 2002).

· Kurtzer is co-author with Scott Lasensky of a new book, Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East, which praises only the stewardship of President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker, who applied ruthless pressure on Israel and held Israeli policies as responsible for obstructing peace. In the book Kurtzer and Lasensky also claim that America falsely labeled Arafat and the Palestinian leadership as responsible for the collapse of the Oslo process, in contradiction of virtually all American officials engaged in the 2000 Camp David and Taba negotiations, including President Clinton and Middle East envoy Dennis Ross.

· In 1988, Kurtzer, then a State Department advisor, counseled the outgoing Reagan Administration to recognize the PLO after Yasser Arafat made a number of statements that suggested the PLO had accepted Israel and renounced the use of terrorism. This is something the PLO, Arafat and his successor Mahmoud Abbas have done in English many times since, while continuing to promote incitement to hatred and murder in Arabic.

Kurtzer was the principal author of one of the most important statements of U.S. policy in the Middle East, a speech by Secretary of State George Shultz to a conference at the Wye Plantation in Maryland in 1988, in which he said that "The legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including political rights, must be recognized and addressed," said Shultz. "Palestinian participation is required at every stage of the negotiations."

· Kurtzer has based his policy of embracing the PLO on words alone, but has refused to confront other, hateful words of the PLO when confronted with them or modify his policy or advice to government. When once confronted in a synagogue by a man armed with harsh rhetoric by PLO officials in stark contrast to their public commitment to peace, Kurtzer responded, "The United States can't and will not base its peace process policy on public statements made by either side. We don't support statements by either side that are excessive. We don't support public statements by either side that are designed not to advance the peace process, and we don't react to those kinds of public statements."

Zionist Organization of America
4 East 34th Street, New York, N.Y. 10016
(212) 481-1500 Fax: (212) 481-1515 email @ zoa.org www. zoa.org
Contact Morton A. Klein at: 917-974-8795 or 212-481-1500

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:24 PM | Comments (0)

December 03, 2008

NYC Congressman Anthony Weiner Renews Call for Clemency for Jonathan Pollard

Justice4JPnews - December 1, 2008

December 1, 2008
Honorable George Bush
President
The White House

Dear President Bush:

I write to request that you grant clemency to Jonathan Pollard.

This year Mr. Pollard celebrated his 54th birthday. This is the 23rd year that he has celebrated his birthday in prison. No other person convicted of espionage on behalf of a United States ally has ever been imprisoned for so long.

Mr. Pollard has admitted that he broke U.S. laws. He has expressed sorrow for what he did. Mr. Pollard cooperated fully with the investigation into his activities and he waived his right to a jury trial. He has served more than enough time for the crime of passing information to an ally.

The life sentence which Jonathan Pollard is now serving is not a reflection of the severity of the crimes he committed, but rather the result of past ineffective counsel and a damage assessment report written by an intelligence community that was badly shaken by unrelated espionage cases earlier that year.

In a review of Mr. Pollards case, Former federal Judge George Leighton wrote, "The evidence shows that the government engaged in serious misconduct that went unchecked by an ineffective defense counsel, Richard Hibey, and... these constitutional violations severely prejudiced Mr. Pollard, and resulted in his sentence of life in prison.?

Mr. Pollard did commit a serious crime and he deserved to be punished for his action. However, after reviewing the facts of the case and receiving multiple classified briefings on this matter, I believe that he has served a sentence that far exceeds the appropriate term for the crimes he has committed. Mr. President, the time has come to free Jonathan Pollard. I respectfully urge you to grant him clemency and send him home to Israel.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

ANTHONY D. WEINER
Member of Congress


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:31 AM | Comments (0)

December 01, 2008

Muslim violence triumphs

While media and governments refuse to report the truth, preferring to wallow in self-delusion, obsequious political correctness and abject fear of Muslim violence.

The War against Civilization

From: SPECTATOR.CO.UK

By Melanie Phillips
November 30, 2008

The atrocities in Mumbai have left reporters and commentators floundering for explanations. Why India? Was this a local terrorist group or al Qaeda? Why single out Americans and Brits if they also targeted Indians in the railway station? Why attack some obscure Jewish organization? And, so on. They are floundering because they still just don’t get it.

The atrocities demonstrated with crystal clarity what the Islamist war is all about – and the western commentariat didn’t understand because it simply refuses to acknowledge, even now, what that war actually is. It does not arise from particular grievances. It is not rooted in ‘despair’ over Palestine. It is not a reaction to the war in Iraq. It is a war waged in the name of Islam against America, Britain, Hindus, Jews and all who refuse to submit to Islamic conquest.

The Mumbai atrocities told us very clearly a number of things.

· The Islamists want to murder as many Americans, Brits, Hindus and Jews as possible. That is because they are waging all-out war against civilization.
· They singled out Americans, Brits and Indians in the financial heart of India to break the ever-more important strategic alliance between India and the west.
· They went to some lengths in addition to single out a center for observant Jews. Rabbi Holtzberg and his wife Rivka were murdered not because of Palestine but simply because they were Jews. That is because hatred of Jews as Jews is fundamental to the Islamists’ hatred of the west – and of Israel.
· The Islamists showed a degree of organisation and co-ordination which are more akin to commando raids by an army than acts of terrorism.
· They have the capacity not merely to commit mass murder but to cause mortal damage to a country’s economy.
· If they can do this in Mumbai, they can do it in London or other British (or American-jsk) cities; the infrastructure of Islamist terror is more extensively developed in Britain, and the authorities more paralysed in the face of what they have allowed to grow in their midst, than anywhere else in the west.

Yet still, the west is scratching its head... ??

Melanie Phillips is a syndicated columnist and author now famous for her book Londonistan

Published 2006 by Encounter Books in US and Gibson Square in the UK. Published in paperback with a new afterword in 2007 The suicide bombings carried out in London in 2005 by British Muslims revealed an alarming network of Islamist terrorists and their sympathizers. Under the noses of British intelligence, London became the European hub for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamist terror and extremism - so much so that it has been mockingly dubbed 'Londonistan'. In this ground-breaking book, Melanie Phillips pieces together the story of how Londonistan developed as a result of the collapse of British self-confidence and national identity and its resulting paralysis by multiculturalism and appeasement. The result is an ugly climate in Britain of irrationality and defeatism, which now threatens to undermine the alliance with America and imperil the defence of the free world.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:05 AM | Comments (0)