May 30, 2009

Never mind the US Constitution

Vote for “empathy,” social engineering and Sonia Sotomayor

Identity Politics on the Court

By George F. Will
The Washington Post, May 29, 2009

Responding to early 19th-century rumors that they drank excessively, the Supreme Court justices decided to drink nothing on conference days — unless it was raining. Al the next conference, Chief Justice John Marshall asked Joseph Story to scan the sky for signs of rain. When Story said he saw none, Marshall said: “Our jurisdiction extends over so large a territory that the doctrine of chances makes it certain that it must be raining somewhere — let us refresh ourselves.”

Americans have argued about the court’s jurisdiction forever. They should not stop, especially now that the president has nominated US. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The 1987 fight over President Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork interred the tradition that the Senate, in evaluating nominees, would not delve deeply into the nominee’s jurisprudential thinking. Judge Bork’s defeat was unjust, but the new approach to confirmations was overdue, given the court's increasingly central role in American governance.

Before Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings begin, the Supreme Court probably will overturn a ruling she supported on the 2nd Circuit — the propriety of New Haven, Conn., canceling fire department promotions because there were no African-Americans (although there was a Hispanic) among the 18 firemen the selection test made eligible for promotion. A three-judge panel of 2nd Circuit judges, including Judge Sotomayor, affirmed a district court’s dismissal of the firemen’s complaint, doing so in a perfunctory and unpublished order that acknowledged none of the large constitutional questions involved.

Stuart Taylor of the National Journal calls this “a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep the case quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism or both.” Mr. Taylor says that when “the court's more conservative judges got wind of the case,” they sought to have it reversed by the full 2nd Circuit They failed but successfully argued that the Supreme Court should take the case.

Mr. Taylor also has noted this from a Sotomayor's speech to a Hispanic group: “I would hope that a wise Latino woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Says Mr. Taylor, “Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005, a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: ‘I would hope that a white male with the ‘richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latino woman who hasn’t lived that life’ — and had proceeded to speak of ‘inherent physiological or cultural differences.’ (!!) jsk

Her ethnicity aside, Judge Sotomayor is a conventional choice. The court will remain composed entirely of former appellate court judges. And like conventional liberals, she embraces identity politics, including the idea of categorical representation: A person is what his or her race, ethnicity gender or sexual orientation is, and members of a particular category can be represented — understood, empathized with — only by persons of the same identity. (Huh?)jsk

Democrats compounded confusion by thinking of the court as a representative institution. Such personalization of the judicial function subverts the rule of law. In 2003, affirming the constitutionality of racial preferences in university admissions, Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority said such preferences would be unnecessary in 25 years — 19 years from now. How long does Judge Sotomayor think they will be necessary? What are her criteria of necessity?

Perhaps Judge Sotomayor subscribes to the Thurgood Marshall doctrine: “You do what you think is right and let the law reach up” (quoted in the Stanford Law Review, summer 1992). Does she think the figure of Justice should lift her blindfold, an emblem of impartiality, and be partial to certain categories of persons?

A better jurisprudential doctrine was expressed by a certain Illinois state legislator in a 2001 radio interview: “The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. ... It says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post. His e-mail address is

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:41 PM | Comments (0)

May 29, 2009

PM Netanyahu’s address on the occasion of the Jerusalem Day State Ceremony

May 21, 2009

Honorable President, Mr. Shimon Peres
Honorable Speaker of the Knesset, Mr. Reuven Rivlin
President of the Supreme Court, Justice Dorit Beinish
Ministers, Members of Knesset
Chairman of the Opposition
Israel's Chief Rabbi, Yona Metzger
Chief of the General Staff, Maj. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi
Dear Bereaved Families
IDF Fighters and their Families
Distinguished Guests

Last night I returned to Jerusalem, our capital, from a very important visit to Washington, capital of the United States. It was very important for me to come back to participate in this ceremony and say the same things I said in the United States:

United Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Jerusalem has always been - and always will be ours. It will never again be divided or cut in half. Jerusalem will remain only under Israel's sovereignty. In united Jerusalem, the freedom of worship and freedom of access for all three religions to the holy sites will be guaranteed, and it is the only way to guarantee that members of all faiths, minorities and denominations can continue living here safely.

Distinguished guests,
For nineteen years Jerusalem was a wounded city; a city at the heart of which were barbed wires and minefields, firing posts and "no-man's lands"; a city whose main streets were covered with defensive walls against snipers; a city whose residents could not move freely from place to place. In June 1967, this situation changed forever. It changed in this place, on Ammunition Hill, and in other heroic battles inside Jerusalem. You, fighters for the liberation of Jerusalem, with your bodies and with the blood of your comrades, pried open the chokehold, united the city together, and allowed Jerusalem to be reopened once again as a lively, vibrant city.

I enlisted shortly after the liberation of Jerusalem and I met with one of the fighters, who is here with us today, Nir Nitzan. He did not voluntarily tell us; we had to repeatedly ask him to tell us what happened here, in that battle. Ultimately, quietly, shortly, dryly even, he told us a little of what took place here on that day, and we, as youngsters, stood in awe of the greatness of spirit, solidarity and sacrifice of those fighters who fought here, and the many others who fought in other places. The fighters who fell instilled pride in our people and gave us back our capital. As a boy, that day was etched in my memory.

I remember the elation following the words of Motta Gur, when we heard the news on the radio and Motta Gur announced: "Har Habayit is in our hands!" The excitement we felt was something neither we nor any other Jew had experienced for generations. It lifted the hearts of Jews all over the world.

Another remarkable thing happened: thousands, thousands of Israeli citizens, not only from Jerusalem, but from all over the country, rushed in masses into the Old City, passing through roads that were previously blocked, places we were never allowed to set foot in, through barbed wires, along the now shattered separation walls, climbing rocks and entering into back alleys. All of us heading towards the same place: the Western Wall.

I remember that the square was narrow - in fact, there was no square and the place was too narrow to contain the large masses, and each of us waited our turn to arrive at that ancient wall. I remember the beating of my heart and the exhilaration I felt when I first touched the stones of the Western Wall, thinking about King David, King Solomon, Israel's prophets and kings and the Maccabim.

I thought about the people of Israel throughout the generations, as did the thousands of Israelis who arrived there. The liberation of Jerusalem and the Western Wall marked for all of us the deep connection to the roots of Jewish history. We felt that the dream of generations had finally come true. Thousands of years ago, a Psalms poet wrote: "built-up Jerusalem is like a city that is united together.” It is as if this song was written now about the events of our generation.

Look around you and see how Jerusalem is built, how it is connected, how it grows and develops to the east and west, north and south. Jews, Muslims and Christians, religious and secular, ultra-orthodox and conservatives live here in peace and good neighborly relations. Look around you and see how vibrant and full of life Jerusalem is, during the day and night. The houses of prayer and synagogues are filled, as are the cafés and recreational places.

But Jerusalem is not only a city of the day-to-day or night life. It is first and foremost a city of sanctity, a city of vision, a city of prayer; the eyes of the entire world are fixed on Jerusalem. As Isaiah prophesized: "it will happen in the end of days: The mountain of the Temple of the Almighty will be firmly established as the head of the mountains, and it will be exalted above the hills, and all the nations will stream to it. For from Zion will the Torah come forth, and the word of the Almighty from Jerusalem".

Since the unification of Jerusalem under Israel's flag, this prophecy has been gradually coming true. Never, in the thousands of years of its history, has Jerusalem been so great and remarkable. Never did it have such freedom of worship for members of all faiths and such free access to all places of worship. Pilgrims, believers and visitors from all ends of the universe visit Jerusalem every day.

Our connection to Jerusalem is thousands of years old. As a people, we have never relinquished "the apple of our eye,” the object of our prayers, our nation's capital, Jerusalem. Today, as a state, we are fulfilling this age-old yearning - this ancient wish.

The greatest hardships, exiles and difficulties in history could never dissuade us from pursuing the realization of the Jewish people's dream of generations - the establishment of a state in the land of Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital. This was the wish of every Jew in exile, at every community and in every prayer: "next year in built-up Jerusalem.”

I believe that only the reuniting of Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty would enable us to quickly fulfill the second part of Isaiah's prophecy: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares. Nation will not lift sword against nation and they will no longer learn how to wage warfare.”

This is our prayer, and this is our hope here in Jerusalem.

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:47 AM | Comments (0)

May 28, 2009

Tragically, only the “lunatics” understand the existential threat

By Moshe Feiglin

The Jewish Press, May 15, 2009

“I am a Palestinian,” said Golda as she presented her Mandatory Identification Card. For many years, the Israeli determination not to recognize the Palestinian “nation” crossed all political lines. With the exception of Uri Avneri, Abie Nathan and a few other colorful, fringe characters on the radical Left, Israel was united in the clear consensus that the Palestinians were not to be recognized. Israel would not hold negotiations or talks with Palestinians.

Pre-Camp David and Oslo, with the Holocaust, re-birth and do-or-die wars still fresh in the collective experience — Israel was clearly able to understand the danger inherent in recognizing a Palestinian “Nation.” It was easy then to understand that recognition of a Palestinian nation and its sovereign rights in the Land of Israel would mean the erosion and even the eventual elimination of the recognition of the Jewish homeland and its sovereignty in the Land of Israel.

In those years, everybody still lived the reality whereby the Jewish nation and the State of Israel were required to pay in blood for the simple right to exist. At Camp David, Prime Minister Menachem Begin recognized Palestinian rights and sowed the seeds of destruction.

In the 1992 elections, Yitzhak Rabin, won with a slight majority, which he attained by guaranteeing that he would not talk with the PLO. When be subsequently shook Arafat’s hand on the White House lawn, Rabin looked like he had swallowed a broom. That infamous handshake effectively negated the entire Zionist ethos - and he knew it.

Today, those who claim that there is no Palestinian nation are considered lunatics dangerously detached from reality. However, what has happened in Israel in the last two weeks, shows that from the moment that the wall of Israeli non-recognition of those claiming sovereignty in our land was breached, Israel’s demise began. When we recognized their claims to sovereignty in Israel as valid, we lost our own validity.

It is like a seesaw now that the entire world recognizes the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian People,” the possibility of wiping Israel off the map, became valid - Not just according to Ahmadinejad, but more ominously on Western campuses — the world’s ideological breeding grounds. This ongoing situation is much more serious and dangerous than any weapons of mass destruction.

One lesson that we learned from the Holocaust is that invalidation of a person’s rights precedes invalidation of his very life. When we recognized the Palestinian “nation,” we invalidated ourselves.

In what seemed like a healthy attempt to assert his nationalist instincts, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially made the renewal of negotiations with the Palestinians contingent upon their recognition of Israel as the Jewish state and upon removal of the Iranian threat. (These two conditions are closely related.) But, in hindsight, we would have been better off if he had not set those conditions. Netanyahu cannot re-invent history. In his first tenure as prime minister, he was elected to restore Israel to sanity after Oslo. Instead, he warmly shook hands with Arafat.

Now, Netanyahu cannot claim that he was not aware of the significance of his actions. And, sure enough, within a few days of his original declaration, Netanyahu backed down from the conditions that he had set and let the genie out of the bottle. Israel recognizes those who want to usurp it, but they, and in their wake, refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation.

“If Obama is so anxious for Netanyahu to agree in advance to the establishment of a Palestinian state - let him pressure Mahmond Abbas to agree in advance that Israel is the Jewish state. Makes sense, doesn’t it? Not so, at least if you ask the Americans. Netanyahu's announcement did not make any impression on U.S. envoy George Mitchell. At the end of their meeting he said that the political process will be based on the solution of two states for two peoples — with no additions or reservations” (Akiva Eldar, Haaretz, April 20, 2009).

It turns out that the lunatics dangerously detached from reality - those who insist even today on not recognizing the Palestinians - are the only people whose outlook will ensure the continued existence of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel.

Moshe Feigning is the founder and president of Manhigut Yehudit (The Jewish Leadership Movement)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:25 AM | Comments (0)

May 26, 2009

Divine Retribution?

(Jewish Press Editor’s note – May 11, 2009)
Article below originally published in the March 9, 2007 issue of The Jewish Press. In light of the filing of Chapter 11 by Chrysler L.L.C., we thought it would be appropriate to reprint it.

Justice And Jewish Slavery: Daimler-Chrysler’s Final and Inevitable Collapse

Introductory paragraphs of article by Professor Louis Rene Beres

The Jewish Press, May 11, 2009

On its face, it would surely be foolish to blame Daimler-Chrysler’s extraordinary woes on the very dark history of Daimler-Benz. On its face, the combined company’s deep decline is manifestly a function of bad economic judgments. After all, from the very start, the 1998 decision by Germany’s Daimler Benz to merge with Chrysler simply made financial sense.

Yet, there are sometimes factors that play an important or even decisive role in explaining all aspects of human life — including the collective lives of nations and corporations — that are neither tangible nor measurable. The sad history of this iconic American automobile company may well have been determined, at least in part by factors that we can’t really identify or clarify in Management 101 textbooks

The humiliating fate of the Chrysler Corporation cannot be detached entirely from the sordid history of Daimler-Benz It might have been different perhaps if there had ever been some acknowledgement of the German parent company’s enthusiastic wartime use of Jewish slave labor, but no such acknowledgment was ever made. Although not distinctly testable in science, silence can sometimes have genuinely frightful consequences

Justice must always have a decipherable voice and there can never be any such voice without memory. At the time of the 1998 merger, no public mention was ever made of Daimler’s Nazi involvement. It was conveniently assumed by Chrysler’s top executives, that a murderous Daimler-Benz history could be shoved under the rug and the insistently seductive calls for corporate wealth in America would drown out the increasingly weak cries for justice.

These assumptions were not merely sinister, they were also wrong. What we witness today, in Daimler Chrysler’s now evident corporate collapse, is the ineradicable stain of unpunished and unapologetic Daimler-Benz wartime crimes against humanity.

Justice always requires a voice. Even today, someone must still speak for those who can no longer speak for themselves. Someone must speak for those endless railway cars of Jewish slave laborers whose seemingly inexhaustible supply in Nazi Germany and occupied lands had actually made them less than slaves. Even today, someone must speak for those starved and brutalized victims de-humanized by a venerated German corporation during World War II.

LOUIS RENE BERES (Ph. D., Princeton, 1971, lectures and publishes widely on Israeli and American security matters. He is the author of ten major books on international relations and international law and is a frequent contributor to journals of law, military strategy intelligence and counterintelligence.

Reader comment - May 26, 2009:

I want to thank you for this site and the information you are providing. So much evil is passing for good, so much harm is being done in the name of religion and will of God. I am 75 and may not live to see the full consequences of what is happening today yet I know my extended family will. I cry when I read articles of the atrocities inflicted on the Jewish people and the hatred that is still there. What does it say about our nation when big companies hide the truth of their afiliations from the public? Have we no shame. How can we elect a president that honors a leader that has the same interests in destroying America as the terrorist of 9/11 yet treats with disrespect the leader of an ally country? Thank you brave writers for taking a public stand against the ever looming threats to democracy, decency and good. God bless you all.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:49 AM | Comments (0)

May 24, 2009

The Gall (Chutzpa) of editorial, Palm Beach Post May 17, 2009

The editor of the Palm Beach Post, May 17, 2009, had the gall (chutzpa) to give several orders, via Barack Obama, to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu:

... “Barack Obama, who enjoys high approval ratings, must tell Mr. Netanyahu that Netanyahu’s political weakness (the editor’s estimation) is just one of the “excuses” Obama will reject for Netanyahu not attempting to negotiate a political deal with the Palestinians.”

Unpublished (naturally) Letter to the Editor

As to Barack Obama Demanding “Excuses” from the Sovereign Nation of Israel

By Jerome S. Kaufman

The Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, does not have to give Barack Obama any “excuses” for not immediately making a so-called “peace” deal with the Palestinian Arabs nor for doing anything else that he and the people of Israel think is not in their best interests, especially when their very survival is at stake.

Mr. Netanyahu does not “owe” Mr. Obama another chance to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Achmadinejad constantly threatens a nuclear attack to eliminate the Jews and the State of Israel. The Jews and the entire world, that ignored Hitler’s Mein Kampf, better take him at his word.

Mr. Obama’s naive approach and sweet talk to the Arab nations, the United Nations, the powerless European Union and the vague promises of the Russians and the Chinese with diametrically opposed objectives to ours, will result in exactly nothing. The farce of unsuccessful nuclear negotiations in North Korea is simply repeating itself.

Our “strengthening” Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the expense of Hamas is another farce. Hamas overwhelmingly defeated Abbas in the elections in Gaza and turned it into a launching pad for thousands of rockets into the heart of Israel. Furthermore, if open elections were held today, Hamas would take over the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and do exactly the same thing, five minutes from the heart of Israel.

As to the editor's criticism of the Israeli settlements which, by the way, are built only on land that was supposed to have been the Jewish homeland in the first place - since the League of Nations Mandate of 1917: There were no settlements when Israel was founded on a miniscule small strip of land along the Mediterranean coast in 1948. Nevertheless, the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon immediately waged all-out war to eliminate that tiny strip. Attempted eliminaton of the settlements with near 300,000 Israelis living productive lives, is just another Arab Trojan horse.

Perhaps the editor should be telling Obama he should be obtaining “excuses” from Ahmadinejad of Iran and Kim Jong-ll of North Korea or the Russians and the Chinese instead of attempting to weaken the only democracy and true ally we have in the entire Middle East.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 21, 2009

Obama re-visited - The whole sad, terrifying story


By Emanuel A. Winston, Mid East analyst & commentator

May 20, 2009

Today, May 20th, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had successfully launched a missile with the range of 1200 miles, capable of reaching Southern Europe, Israel and American bases in the Middle East.
The old version of Russian roulette was ‘one bullet in the revolving chamber is a game of almost suicide’. In President Obama’s version for Israel, all the chambers are filled with bullets. Therefore, it is an absolute guarantee that Israel will be forced to commit national suicide, if they elect to use Obama’s gun.

Obama has turned into an enigma for voters. As a candidate for President, Obama played the role of a half-black/half-white Christian who was born and spent his early life in a Muslim community, going to Muslim schools, registered as a Muslim. As President, we observe that his earliest education under the guidance of his Muslim Islamist father and Islamic schools is coming out. However, his adoption of a Christian persona for Chicago/Illinois politics did well for his career.

Yet, his Church (run by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a most radical preacher who preached hate against whites, Jews and America) was the Obamas’ choice for 20 plus years. His choice of friends all seemed to be of a radical nature: Bill Ayers, the unrepentant domestic terrorist; Syrian-born Tony Rezko who adopted an Italian name which may also be a cover for his birth name. Rezko was Obama’s political guide and obtained certain financial backing for him. Rezko is now in prison. The black Muslim convert, Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour (aka Donald Warden), was a conduit, as reported, for Saudi money, which assisted Obama to pay for many things in his career, including his education and, possibly, some of his campaign funding.

Perhaps in his daily life, Obama was a practicing Christian but, now as President, he seems to follow his earliest teachings of being a Muslim Islamist through and through. In Obama’s first days as President, he spoke about his plans to reach out to the most radical Muslim nations like Iran and Syria - both well known as anti-American Terrorist ‘Jihadist’ (warriors for Islam) nations.

President Obama’s first formal TV interview was to Al-Arabiya in Dubai - which has a potential audience exceeding 23 million in the Gulf region; his first international phone call was to Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority (not a country).

Obama also selectively gathered around him some of the most notorious Arabists, each of whom at some time, advocated hostility to the Jewish State of Israel. All of these advisors, including the Arabist State Department, know that the Muslim ‘Jihadists’ cannot be appeased or pacified - except possibly by ‘gifting’ them with the demise of Israel.

We hear from General James Jones, among others, that "they will not throw Israel under the wheels of the bus.” These words intend to mislead because - that is exactly what they intend to do - within the U.S. State Department doctrine of ‘appeasing’ Muslim States and their Terrorist Proxies (like Hezb’Allah and Hamas).

Just the other day Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met with President Obama. Netanyahu was concerned about Iran’s burgeoning nuclear weapons’ program and Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s pledge to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Obama’s reported response was that, in his opinion (from his great experience) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was far more important to the United States than facing down Iran and its nuclear plans which, if completed, could threaten all of Europe, all the Middle East - as well as Israel.

Obama’s solution was to engage Iran in discussions by the end of the summer and IF these "negotiations" did not succeed by year’s end (7 months), he would only then push for stronger sanctions. Obama’s naive solutions are laughable, given for 20 plus years, the U.N. and the Europeans have had all sorts of negotiations and various sanctions which did zero good.

Iran lied about everything and ignored the heretofore weak sanctions the world tried to use to corral Iran’s hostile nuclear ambitions. Nevertheless, the Europeans continued to do business with the Ayatollahs, despite U.N. sanctions. President George W. Bush also tried sanctions and threats to no avail. Bush’s own State Department and some groups with the Intelligence community sabotaged his plans to attack and destroy Iran’s nuclear manufacturing facilities.

The global Intelligence community and the savvy political leaders know that they cannot negotiate and pacify the Islamic community because their doctrinaire goal is a World Caliphate under Sharia law - as dictated by the Koran. However, they have no problem with buying time by offering Israel a fully loaded revolver to commit suicide, hoping this human sacrifice will slow down Islam’s global Terror attacks against the Judeo-Christian West.

Israel is facing a second Holocaust with the assistance of the Free Western nations - not unlike the first Holocaust in which they also participated. It was reported that one of the ruling clique of Ayatollahs said "One bomb would eliminate most of Israel’s population while three retaliatory bombs against Iran would ‘only’ kill 15 million Iranians - leaving more than 15 million survivors to carry on."

Obama, either through ignorance of history, naiveté or the deliberate desire to participate in the ongoing Global "Jihad" for a Global Caliphate due to the re-awakening of his Muslim heritage seems to think that all the Islamic "Jihadists" will simply stop attacking the West and America, in particular.

Why would Iran cease funding Hezb’Allah, Hamas, Al Qaeda - or cease collaborating with Syria, who has been the conduit for terrorists and arms to hit Americans in Iraq? Why would the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq cease warring against U.S. interests in Iraq, planning to grab whatever territory they want when the Americas leave?

Obama continues to insist upon the "two-state solution" originally conjured up by James Baker III, the U.S. State Department and spewed out by Condoleezza Rice with the approval of George W. Bush. For every gesture squeezed out of Israel, none made any difference to the Palestinian Terrorists of Fatah or Hamas.

Oslo failed, leading to the murders of at least 1,500 Israelis - with thousands more wounded, many maimed for life. Gaza turned into a firing base against Israel, as predicted by many including this writer. More than 10,000 Rockets, Missiles and Mortars were fired into Israel’s civilian population before the 22 day "Cast Lead" campaign that started but wasn’t allowed to finish the job of de-fanging the Muslim Terrorists called Hamas (another proxy of Iran).

Now Barack Hussein Obama wishes to appease the entire Muslim Arab world by making Israel transfer those parts of Jerusalem occupied and desecrated by Jordan from 1948 to 1967 (North, East and South Jerusalem) and the entire territory of Judea and Samaria (called the ‘west bank’ to make it appear as part of Jordan). Israel would have to evict 300,000 to 500,000 Israeli Jewish men, women and children in order to do that, because Arabs don’t allow Jews to live in peace with them. Up next would be the Golan Heights and the Jordan Valley.

Who pays for the suffering that inhumane action would cause? Just like Gaza, everyone who observes this ongoing pressure on Israel to abandon vital parts of her minuscule territory, holy sites and ancient homeland, knows that these areas would be flooded with hostile Muslim Arabs who will invite in Iran, Syria, Hebz’Allah. Hamas, Al Qaeda, ‘et al’.

The current President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, has been a useless "dead man walking" who has tried to take over Arafat’s Fatah and failed. The U.S. pretense that this man (who was Yassir Arafat’s ‘yes-man’, companion, financier and partner in Terror for 40 years) is the so-called moderate who will make peace with Israel is a tragic joke.

Of Obama’s Middle East advisors, like James Baker III, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Dennis Ross, Rahm Emanuel, General James Jones, General Keith Dayton, Susan E. Rice (Obama’s U.N. Ambassador), all know that the so-called second of two states will be nothing more than a Terrorist State which has already vowed in its various Charters to wipe out all of Israel.

Perhaps even more stupid is the fact that a Palestinian Terror State in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and vital parts of Jerusalem would be the invading force to subvert Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf Oil States with the help of Iran and Syria. Even Egypt will fall into the hands of the extreme Islamist Muslim Brotherhood as Egypt’s 81 year old President Hosni Mubarak leaves power.

If Obama is successful in forcing Israel to surrender her security and sovereignty to permit this so-called "two-state solution", Obama will have created the last link of a deadly Middle East Islamist terrorist necklace-chain, stretching from Iran, through Syria, Lebanon, the west bank new State of Palestine - on to Egypt and Libya, etc.

This then will be Obama’s legacy as the Gulf Oil States, Saudi oil fields and Jordan fall into line. A nuclear-armed Iran will be the dominant force in the entire region. Whether Obama is doing this as a latent Islamist or just through ignorance, the end game will be the same.

Sacrificing Israel in such an experiment will make the name 'Obama' synonymous with 'Chamberlain' who mislead Britain and France with the thought that Adolph Hitler could be appeased by the Sudentenland of Czechoslovakia as the sacrifice. Moreover, when all Middle East oil is under the control of Iran and their proxies, the howling of the American people will be heard around the world. Remember that Islam means "Submission.” You want oil? Beg - and submit to Islam.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:30 AM | Comments (0)

May 19, 2009

The Dumbing-Down of America

The SAT Exam and Its Enemies

Redacted from a comprehensive 10 page article



This month a quarter million kids or more will slump their way into a high school classroom and, with clammy palms, take the SAT. Over the next three hours, they will determine the course of the rest of their lives. At least, that’s what a lot of them will think they’re doing. They’ll be wrong, of course—dozens of people have gone on to live happy and healthy lives after bombing the SAT.

Critics of the SAT are eager to remind you that its intellectual genealogy traces back to the intelligence tests eugenicists, racial theorists, and other creepy types promoted in the early 20th century as a way of purifying the gene pool. “Racists worked hard to design a test that would confirm theft racism, and they succeeded,” says Robert Schaeffer of Fair Test, an activist organization that has declared war on all standardized tests, especially the SAT.

It’s fair to say the tide of elite opinion now runs solidly against the use of the SAT in college admissions. Wake Forest’s President, Nathan O. Hatch noted that on average, richer students score higher on the SAT than poorer students. He did not note that on average, Asian Americans perform better than whites on standardized tests, whites better than Hispanics, Hispanics better than African Americans, and, at least in math, men better than women. Any such gap, President Hatch said, is conclusive evidence of some crippling defect in the SAT and provides sufficient reason to eliminate it from college admissions. (G-d forbid, the facts get in the way of the social engineers- jsk).

Like so many widely shared beliefs in the world of higher education, this argument is seldom challenged, even though it’s a relatively novel view. The “achievement gaps” in SAT scores were evident 40 years ago, yet most liberal educators defended these standardized tests all these years. The irony is hard to miss. From the progressives’ panacea in the mid-20th century to the progressives’ bogeyman in the early 21st, the evolution of the SAT is a story about our shifting notions of merit, democracy, populism, the life of the mind, and what we expect from higher education.

It was a symbol of the American way of success. It produced the level playing field, the belief that prosperity was within the reach of everyone regardless of birth. The liberal journalist, Nicholas Lemann, who wrote a comprehensive history of the SAT, called it a means of deciding who would reap America’s rich material rewards.” This is an overblown way of describing a real trend.

Then the worm turned and exposé’s of the SAT became commonplace among leftwing journalism. The attacks came along lines of race and class. They nicely illustrated a larger rupture in the country’s cultural politics. The old progressivism, with its meritocratic ideal, was being abandoned by the new progressives, who saw the meritocratic ideal as at best a delusion and, at worst and more likely, a scam.

Nevertheless, platitudes, truisms —are everywhere in the anti SAT literature. ... The material Wake Forest issued to support its new test-optional policy, was a series of statements that are demonstrably untrue. statements that SATs aren’t good predictors of college success, that they’re merely an indicator of socioeconomic status rather than aptitude, that they are a barrier to college for “many well-qualified students,” that they’re crippled with cultural and racial bias, and so on, is contradicted by mountains of data and common sense.

Regardless, the war on the SAT continues and intensifies. But why? In addition to the obvious political reasons, there are compelling institutional ones as well. The deans may be progressives, but they’re also bureaucrats. A test-optional admissions policy boosts department budgets and staff, since the personal interviews and graded essays used in place of test scores require much more manpower.

...Inevitably, I suppose, the demotion of the SAT and what it represents begins to carry a whiff of the same post-modernism that has overtaken the humanities in most elite colleges. We shouldn’t be surprised if it seeped through the ventilators and under the door jambs into the admissions office next door. An attack on the traditional notion of aptitude is also an attack on one long-standing and widely accepted notion of what higher education is for, as a place where academic excellence is pursued both for its own sake and as a preparation for life. If higher education is not defined this way it’s hard to see what it will be defined by—beyond the whims of school presidents and progressive deans. Maybe that’s the whole idea?

Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:03 PM | Comments (0)

May 17, 2009

Netanyahu to offer Obama 'laundry list' for peace talks

By Aluf Benn and Barak Ravid Haaretz Last update - 23/04/2009

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is developing a "laundry list" that he will present to U.S. President Barack Obama when they meet in Washington. The Israeli premier will present Obama with a three-part plan involving halting Iran's nuclear program, closer relations with moderate Arab states and dealing with the Palestinian issue through several channels.

Netanyahu will tell Obama that he will not recognize a nation-state providing Palestinian self-determination if the Palestinians don't recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. From the standpoint of the Israeli prime minister, the requirement that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people is a fundamental demand in any negotiations on a final settlement. It is not a pre-condition to conducting negotiations, but rather necessary to progress towards an agreement.

During the course of negotiations to form his coalition government, Netanyahu revealed that the Olmert government demanded recognition of Israel as a Jewish state in its talks with the Palestinians, but withdrew that demand within just 24 hours because of opposition from the Palestinian negotiators. Netanyahu intends to stop the erosion of the fundamental Israeli positions, as was his position during his prior term as prime minister following the Oslo Accords.

Why is Netanyahu insistent on Palestinian recognition of Israel as "the nation-state of the Jewish people," rejecting critics who see the demand as a means to scuttle negotiations? There are a few explanations for his position. First of all, Netanyahu wants to present an Israeli demand for recognition of national rights as a counterweight to the demand that Israel recognize "Palestinian rights."

Second, he is concerned that if the Palestinians evade such recognition in political negotiations, they will also refrain from telling their constituency that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and will continue to pursue the conflict even after a settlement is reached. Third, recognition of a Jewish state will neutralize the Palestinian demand for the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees.

The prime minister also has political considerations, however. To mobilize support from the Israeli public and from the U.S. Congress for his positions in the face of possible pressure from Obama, Netanyahu needs to build a common denominator across party and factional lines. The principle of the "Jewish state" enjoys wide support among relevant sectors of the public, and it is much easier to mobilize support for this than a policy opposing withdrawal from territories and evacuation of settlements.

Netanyahu is also seeking to come to an agreement with the United States defining "limitations on sovereignty" to be imposed on a future Palestinian entity. This includes prohibiting it from maintaining an army or forging military agreements or alliances, and Israel continuing to monitor its external borders, airspace and electromagnetic spectrum. The prime minister's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, unsuccessfully tried to secure such guarantees from the Bush administration, despite having proposed a withdrawal from almost all of the West Bank. Netanyahu accords great importance to security guarantees from the Americans, and thinks he will be more successful in securing them than Olmert had been.

In deliberations Netanyahu is conducting to develop his peace plan, there will also be consideration of gestures which Israel will make to the Palestinians, as well as Israel's response to the demand to freeze construction in the settlements, vacate outposts and remove roadblocks. The prime minister intends to bring the issue of the settlements to a decision by the cabinet, and it is assumed he will only present his position right before his trip to the White House.

Netanyahu believes the Iranian threat provides Israel with an unprecedented opportunity in that, for the first time since 1920, moderate Arab states share the same strategic assessment. In fact, Iran will be central to the plans Netanyahu will present to Obama. He will explain to the American president that the existence of Israel is the guarantor of the continued existence of the Jewish people following the Holocaust and that nuclear weapons cannot fall into the hands of those who deny the existence of the Jewish state. Netanyahu would prefer that the U.S. deal with the Iranian threat and, if Obama asks what Israel would be willing to give in return, the Israeli premier would show great interest in the subject.

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:33 PM | Comments (0)

May 15, 2009

The Late and Great Congressman Jack Kemp

Jack Kemp 1935-2009

Redacted from an article in Sports Illustrated, May 11, 2009

... Jack Kemp read William F. Buckley and Ayn Rand on team flights. He campaigned for Republican candidates. He befriended Richard Nixon and was a liaison to college campuses for the Republican National Committee. A foray into politics seemed inevitable but not before the end of his football career. And, what a career it was!

Kemp’s Favreian style (he could scramble and would, upon identifying a target, throw the ball as hard as humanly possible) was a little too unrefined for the NFL—he spent time on four teams’ taxi squads—but it was perfectly suited for the fledgling AFL. He also possessed Favreian toughness. Kemp could heave the ball 90 yards despite a chronically dislocated right shoulder. His non throwing shoulder was so badly damaged that he was declared unfit for duty when his Army reserve unit was called up in 1961, and he played most of the ‘62 season with a dislocated finger that had to be popped back in after every snap.

Kemp couldn’t always practice, and he had to receive several painkilling injections to play—but he always did, and that made him one of the most respected leaders in the game. “It’s hard to describe,” Chargers teammate Ron Mix once said, ”but what ever it is, Jack’s got it.” In nine AFL seasons, Kemp made five championship game appearances, winning two, and was a seven-time All-Star.

He retired in 1970 as the league’s all-time leader in passing yardage and soon announced that he was running for the vacant congressional seat in a heavily Republican district near Buffalo. A 1961 Sports Illustrated story described Kemp as looking “like the little boy down the block who one afternoon throws a rock through your picture window and the next morning comes back to sell you a subscription to The Saturday Evening Post.” If anything, that all-American image hampered his campaign. “He looks too kiddish, too pretty,” one aide said. We have to un-slick him, give a little character to his face.”

In a race that was closer than it should have been, Kemp won the seat he would hold for nine terms. “Pro football gave me a good sense of perspective to enter politics,” he said just before the 1970 election. I’d already been booed, cheered, cut, sold, traded and hung in effigy.”

As an unwavering advocate of supply-side economics, Kemp was closely associated with the Reagan revolution, but on social issues, he was far more progressive. He called himself a “bleeding-heart conservative” and said his views on race were shaped by his football career. “I can’t help but care about the rights of the people I used to shower with.” he was fond of saying.

After an unsuccessful presidential bid in 1988, Kemp served as George H.W. Bush’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He was Bob Dole’s running mate on the GOP presidential ticket in 1996. Like his football career, which ended with an interception, his political career ended on a flat note, as he and Dole were soundly beaten.

Nevertheless, Kemp remained a prominent voice in the Republican party, delivering speeches, writing a syndicated column and running a consulting and lobbying firm with his son. “The only way to oppose a bad idea is to replace it with a good idea,” he said, and I’d like to think that I have spent my life trying to promote good ideas.” —MB.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:19 AM | Comments (0)

May 13, 2009

Basic position of Mahmoud Abbas, US and Israel favorite to make peace

Jewish Press May 1, 2009

Abbas, ‘I don’t accept Israel as a Jewish state’

Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah leader Mabmoud Abbas refused Monday to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. “A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean.” Abbas asked during a speech in Ramallah. “You can call yourselves what you want, but I don’t accept it and I say so publicly.”

The Abbas government has been propped up by the United States and Israel (in order to further their own delusions - jsk) since the PA’s first democratic election in 2006, in which the Hamas terrorist organization won almost twice the number of parliamentary seats as Fatah. Both Israel and the United States rejected the election results and instituted Fatah leader Abbas as PA president, calling him a “moderate” alternative to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and political bureau chief, Khaled Mashaal, who is based in Damascus.

Israel has also thwarted several assassination attempts on Abbas by providing intelligence to Ramallah-based PA officials before the attempts could take place. Abbas will meet for talks in Washington, D.C. with U.S. President Barack Obama on May 28 (INN).

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:29 PM | Comments (0)

May 12, 2009

As to questions concerning President Obama’s religious heritage

Mecca’s Special Guest

By Aaron Klein, Jewish Press, May 1, 2009

President Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, will reportedly perform the Muslim Haj pilgrimage in November along with her son, Syeed Obama. A private Kenyan television channel, quoted extensively by the Kenyan and Pakistani media, reported that Sarah Obama and her son will also visit Dubai before going to Saudi Arabia to perform the Haj. The pair lives in Kenya.

The News, a newspaper in Dubai, confirmed the report. It quoted United Arab Emirates property tycoon Sulaiman Al Fahim as stating that he would personally sponsor Sarah Obama’s trip after meeting the elderly Obama in Kenya last week and learning she had always wanted to perform the Haj. “I found out that she had not been to the Haj and that she very much wants to go. As my own mother is no longer with us, our family has a spare place. So I invited her and she has accepted,” The News quoted Fahim as saying.

The Haj is the largest annual pilgrimage in the world. The fifth pillar of Islam requires all able-bodied Muslims to travel to Mecca at least once in their life in a demonstration of solidarity with fellow Muslims and in an act of individual submission to Allah.

Aaron Klein is Jerusalem bureau chief for

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:25 AM | Comments (0)

May 09, 2009

The beginning of Israel’s disastrous transformation into a Banana Republic


Redacted from an article
By Gail & Emanuel A. Winston, Mid East analyst & commentator

The Jewish Press, May 1, 2009

Yes, we were there at the Ben Gurion Airport July 21, 1986 at the roll-out for the first Lavi proto-type, when one of the heroes of Israel’s fight to build her own state-of-the-art jet fighter, called the Lavi (Lion) when Jack Kemp was the key-note speaker. Yes, it was our hero and friend, Jack Kemp, a Republican Congressman from Buffalo, New York. Jack Kemp died on May 2nd after a long, valiant battle against cancer.

Kemp was a hero for America on many fronts. In the 1970’s, Jack Kemp introduced supply-side economics, restoring strong economic growth while ending double-digit inflation helping Ronald Reagan’s optimistic, pro-active strategy in ending the Cold War. It facilitated a massive defense build-up while helping Reagan in his confrontational phase of his foreign policy in the 1980s.

But, we remember the accomplishment that most impressed us. The Lavi jet fighter was an Israeli-designed air superiority and close ground support fighting platform that out-flew the General Dynamics F16 and at $15.5 million per plane was a lot cheaper than the F16. Israel’s outstanding R&D developers at IAI (Israel Aircraft Industries), Raphael, and all her other major and minor developers creating very high tech avionics - including ECM (electronic counter measures) - the black boxes for electronic warfare that were the Lavi’s strongest and most secret suit. The Lavi had extreme maneuverability. No existing fighter can outrace a locked-on SAM (Surface to Air Missile) but the Lavi’s agility makes it easier to outmaneuver the missile by veering more sharply than the missile can.

At least 4000 Israelis owed their jobs specifically to the Lavi. Before the Lavi was killed, there were 21,000 jobs involved in high tech aeronautics. After the Lavi was killed, there were only 13,000. Too many skilled workers were forced to leave Israel for the West. In addition, about 120 U.S. subcontractors, employing many thousands more, were working on Lavi systems. Congress voted the yearly to insure the appropriations for the Lavi.

However, some American aircraft companies were determined to keep Israel on a par with the Muslim Arab nations, rather than a step ahead of them. Those lobbying against the Lavi falsely inflated the labor costs from the Israeli salaries of $24 per hour to an American engineer’s salaries of $47 per hour. Those lobbyists paid off others in Israel to falsify their expert opinions against the Lavi's capabilities.

We labored mightily to promote the Lavi’s continued R&D and progress to build the air superiority fighter at $15.5 million per plane - instead of buying American planes for at least $22 million per plane. (Today it’s much higher.) The American Congress continued to appropriate money for the co-production by America and Israel of the Lavi. In fact, shortly after the vote to continue appropriations, the Israeli Cabinet under then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin voted to cancel the Lavi by one vote - Rabin's!

The Lavi scam was all in the 1980s. The American effort to kill off Israel’s R&D skills, ability to devise unique defensive systems, and be more than competitive in the global market continues in this millennium. Strangely, Israeli innovation saved America Billions of dollars and man-hours because Israel invariably shared her advances with U.S. industry.

January 11, 2007 NBC reported that the U.S. Army blocked the use of RAFAEL Defense System. The Pentagon urged the trial use of the Israeli TROPHY system for AFVs in Iraq but the army blocked the testing. The Israeli system could have saved U.S. lives, but procurement waits for RTN in 2011 instead. Once again, the U.S. Military/Industrial complex (so named by General-President Dwight Eisenhower) has moved to save themselves at the price of U.S. soldiers being killed by RPGs (Rocket-Propelled Grenades).

This seems also to connect with the arms cut-off to Israel initiated by the State Department in the fall of 2006. According to NBC sources within the Pentagon, the U.S. Army officials considered the Israeli TROPHY system a threat to the USD $160 Billion RPG defense system being developed by the Raytheon Company. The Army is currently paying Raytheon USD $70 million to build the system from scratch - but it won’t be ready until 2011 - leaving American and Allied soldiers at risk from RPGs. Israel’s TROPHY tests out at 98% effective and could be protecting American and Allied soldiers today.

Presently, the U.S. State Department and the American Armament industries have forced Israel to submit any negotiations for the sale of Israeli-developed weapons’ systems to them for their approval - thus forcing Israel out of competition with some American companies - unless Israel partnered with U.S. manufacturers. The Military-Industrial Complex cannot force any other country into such an absurd agreement.

The magnificent Merkava Main Battle Tank was also scheduled to be cancelled and replaced with the Abrams A1M1 American tank. That effort failed but the plan to kill off the Merkava is still in the works. In war games between the Merkava and the Abrams, the Merkava out-performed the Abrams by a significant margin. All reports were quashed in deference to the feelings for their U.S. ally.

If Jack Kemp was still with us and still in the Congress - If someone with his courage, spirit, and smarts would emulate his example, we could again enjoy Israel building wonderful high-tech advanced weapons’ systems, guaranteed to stop those determined to destroy western civilization. The open Judeo-Christian community that America has created could be defended and shared out to the rest of the world who for whoever truly wants democracy, liberty and freedom.

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

May 08, 2009

The sick, mindless anti-Semitism of a “demented” Pat Buchanan

Buchanan, Demjanjuk and Jesus Christ

Jason Maoz, Senior Editor

The Jewish Press, May 1, 2009

Every so often, the Monitor feels the need to dust off its files on Pat Buchanan and remind readers why Senator Joseph Lieberman and other Washington eminences are dangerously wrong when they insist Buchanan is no anti-Semite. A column he wrote last month on John Demjanjuk provides the latest opportunity to put Buchanan in proper perspective.

Buchanan’s concern for former Nazis is nothing new, of course. Alan A. Ryan, Jr., a former Justice Department prosecutor, once characterized Buchanan as “the spokesman for Nazi war criminals in America.”

A constant critic of Kurt Waldheim during the latter’s tenure as UN Secretary General, Buchanan suddenly became a lot more supportive when the truth about Waldheim’s wartime activities was made public. The ostracism of Waldheim by the U.S. and other countries, wrote Buchanan, had to it “an aspect of moral bullying and the singular stench of selective indignation.”

In addition to weighing in on Waldheim, Buchanan actively lobbied then Attorney General Edwin Meese on behalf of Karl Linnas, who had headed a concentration camp in Estonia. Meese ignored Buchanan’s entreaties and deported Linnas to the Soviet Union and made his unhappiness known when the U.S. apologized to France for having sheltered the Butcher of Lyons, Klaus Barbie. He also took up the cause of Arthur Rudolph, the father of Hitler’s V-2 rocket program who after the war had become an American citizen and part of the U.S. space effort, as well as that of Demjanjuk.

The support for Nazi war criminals repeatedly voiced by Buchanan is but one harsh note in the syndicated columnist’s ongoing primal scream against Jews and Israel. His deep-seated resentments were perhaps best summed when he complained about what he called “the caustic, cutting cracks about my church and my popes from both Israel and its amen corner in the United States.”

The controversy that erupted in the late 1980’s over the desire of some Carmelite nuns to erect a permanent convent at Auschwitz was made to order for Buchanan. Upset with conciliatory statements made by the late Cardinal John O’Connor and other church leaders, Buchanan sneered: “If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic Cardinals as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken.... Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume the role of defender of the faith.”

In 1988, angered that The New York Times had published only a tepid critique of “The Last Temptation of Christ,” a movie deemed blasphemous by many Christians, Buchanan lamented “a ‘newspaper of record’ that can sniff out anti-Semitism in some guy turning down a kosher hot dog at the ballpark.”

Though he claims that at one time he was an “uncritical apologist for Israel,” Buchanan was already on record as early as the mid-1970s imploring Congress not to listen “to the counsel of the Jewish lobby” and criticizing legislation designed to counter the Arab boycott of Israel.

In 1979, Buchanan insisted that Americans were asking themselves “how long taxpayers must subsidize Israel with annual billions ... [and] why the United States is siding with three million Israelis — instead of 100 million Arabs who have oil.”

In 1982, Buchanan referred to the mass killing of Palestinians by Lebanese Christians in the Sabra and ShatiIa refugee camps as the “Rosh Hashanah massacre” and opined, “The Israeli army is looking toward a blackening of its name to rival what happened to the French army in the Dreyfus Affair.”

And so Buchanan already had something of a history when, shortly before the 1991 Gulf War, he famously declared that “There are only two groups that are beating the drums...for war in the Middle East: the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States.”

In the years since, he’s authored books and columns arguing that the U.S. should not have fought Nazi Germany in World War II and has been in the forefront of those charging that the war in Iraq was dreamed up by a cabal of neo-conservative Jews and their Knesset handlers.

Then last month, in a column that appeared on Good Friday, an apparently demented Buchanan wrote that the Justice Department’s determination to deport Demjanjuk to Germany is reminiscent of “the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago.”

In other words, Buchanan likened the plight of an accused Nazi war criminal to that of Jesus Christ, the very object of his religious veneration. I wonder if Joe Lieberman still says, as he did to the late Tim Russert in 2000, “I enjoy Buchanan’s company. He’s a bright, interesting guy ... No, I wouldn’t call him an anti-Semite at all.”

Jason Maoz can be reached at

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:04 PM | Comments (0)

May 06, 2009

The Real Story of the Re-birth of the Jewish State

Redacted from a comprehensive article by Elliot Resnick

The Jewish Press, May 1, 2009

If asked, “Who created the modern state of Israel?” most Jews would offer such names and institutions as David Ben-Gurion, Chaim Weizmann, the Jewish Agency and the United Nations. A newly translated memoir, however, completely upends this popular perception.

In The First Tithe, Israel Eldad, who ran the underground Lehi movement (sometimes known as the Stern Group) together with future Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir and Nathan Yellin-Mor, argues that the British would never have left Palestine in 1948 had the Irgun (headed by Menachem Begin) and Lehi not forced them out. He also defends his group’s deadly terrorist tactics and unique Zionist vision, which included the building of the Third Temple.

After Israel’s founding, Eldad — who held a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Vienna — became a high-school teacher, but Ben-Gurion, fearing Eldad’s influence, ordered the Ministry of Education and Culture to fire him. Eldad continued writing ideological books and articles (he also translated most of Friedrich Nietzsche’s works into Hebrew) until his death in 1996. His son, Aryeh Eldad, currently serves in the Knesset.

To mark Yom Ha’atzmaut, The Jewish Press interviewed Zev Golan, who translated The First Tithe into English. Golan has authored three books in his own right and directed the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in Jerusalem from 1992-2003.

The Jewish Press: Do you agree with Eldad’s take on Israel’s founding — that the Irgun and Lehi, not the Haganah or the Jewish Agency, are responsible for the British leaving Palestine?

Of course. It would be absurd to claim the British left Eretz Yisrael because of the Jewish Agency, which was cooperating with the British and asking them to stay and help them hunt the Underground. They left because they were blown out of the country. When they left, they said that 84,000 British soldiers and policemen in the country couldn’t preserve law and order. And, it wasn’t the Haganah and Jewish Agency that were blowing up their buildings. It was the Irgun and Lehi.

Very few history books tell the story in this manner.
Well, he who writes history determines what’s in the history books and there’s no doubt that the Labor Party took control of Israel, wrote the history books, and wrote the Irgun and Lehi out of them.

... Lehi was fighting for a Jewish state from the Nile to the Euphrates and the Irgun was fighting for a Jewish state that included Transjordan. Both of those organizations were fighting for a Jewish state with the capital in Jerusalem. In addition, Lehi was fighting for a Beit Hamikdash (A house of biblical study) in the center of Jerusalem and to bring all the world’s Jews to Israel. In other words, complete redemption. They both were fighting to prevent the British from staying in Eretz Yisrael, and Ben-Gurion according to them was doing the opposite.

If you see Ben-Gurion as doing the opposite, what’s the point of turning power over to him?

All this is pretty critical of Ben Gunon. The First Tithe was written in 1949-1950. Eldad’s view of Ben-Gurion changed over the next four decades. I’m not saying he viewed Ben-Gurion as a hero, but he recognized later that Ben-Gurion did things that no one else did. He set up the Jewish state, built a Jewish army and led the country. Nobody did that except him.

You mentioned Eldad’s vision of a Jewish state from the Nile to the Euphrates with a Temple in Jerusalem and all the world’s Jews living there. Did he really see this as a practical goal?
Yes. And if, hypothetically, Eldad had been in charge in 1948 and he received a state with smaller borders? If he got smaller borders, the borders would have been used to expand.

In terms of aliya, at least, it seems Eldad’s vision was no different from Ben-Gurion’s.
That’s completely wrong. When Ben-Gurion started negotiating with American Jews and taking their money, he stopped believing that all the Jews had to come to Israel. Eldad did not. The Bible says clearly that exile is a punishment and anywhere we go in the Diaspora we will suffer. Ultimately, according to Eldad, exile and Diaspora lead to one of two things: assimilation or extermination.

Was Eldad’s vision, then, essentially a religious one?
I’m not sure if Eldad would use that term. It wasn’t in fulfillment of commandment number two hundred, and fifty something or other. But, there’s no doubt that his vision of redemption is the biblical, prophetic and traditional view of redemption.

I will say that a lot of the underground leaders and fighters were very disappointed at the apathy of religious leaders who left the field of Jewish redemption to others. And, that’s one of the reasons why Israel today has such a non-religious character: because religious Jews spent a lot of time fighting over soccer fields being open on Shabbos and how women should dress — which are both important — but then ignored the questions of how to get Jews out of Europe on the eve of World War II and how to get the British out of Eretz Yisrael who were locking the gates to the country.

Can you translate Eldad’s philosophy into contemporary Israeli politics?
If the Jewish people are going to deal in small politics, negotiating with the non-Jews for our right to live, then we’re back in the shtetl. In order for us to survive, it’s not only useful but also necessary that we have a strong, large Jewish state that does not shrink but rather gets larger, and the place for all the Jews in the world is in that state.

Another application concerns the Iranian threat. Many hope the world will take care of this threat.
Eldad would say that the purpose of the Jewish state is that we take our destiny in our own hands. If we cannot resolve the Iranian nuclear threat on our own then perhaps this entire experiment of the Jewish state was pointless.

Elliot Resnick is a Jewish Press staff reporter.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:04 PM | Comments (0)

May 05, 2009

Great news - if your Chrysler breaks down, call Barack Obama

And, if you need tickets for the next College Football Championship, call Joe Biden

As the Democrats realize their dream of Big Brother taking over our lives

Chrysler files for bankruptcy

The Associated Press, May 2, 2009

After months of struggling to stay alive on government loans, Chrysler finally succumbed to bankruptcy Thursday, its fate now in the hands of judges, Washington and a partnership with Italian automaker Fiat. A fixture of American industry since 1925, the nation’s third-largest automaker hopes to emerge from financial disaster in as little as 30 days as a leaner, more nimble company, probably with Fiat as the eventual majority owner.

In return, the federal government agreed to give Chrysler up to $8 billion in additional aid — and to back warranties on its autos. “It's a partnership that will give Chrysler a chance not only to survive, but also to thrive in a global auto industry,” President Obama said from the White House.

Starting Monday, Chrysler said, it will close all its plants until it comes out of bankruptcy At least three Detroit-area factories sent workers home Thursday after suppliers stopped shipping parts over fears they would not be paid.

CEO Robert Nardell announced he would step down when the bankruptcy is complete and take a post as an adviser with Cerberus up Capital Management LP, which will give its 80 percent ownership of Chrysler under the automaker’s plan. Vice Chairman Tom LaSorda, who once ran the company when it was owned by German automaker Daimler, said he would retire.

“A lot of us are scared,” said Steve Grabowski, 33, who has worked at a Warren, Mich., parts stamping plant for seven years and was sent home Thursday. “We knew something like this was going to happen, but we didn’t think it would be so soon.”

When Chrysler emerges from bankruptcy, the United Auto Workers union will own 55 percent of the automaker and the U.S. government will own 8 percent. The Canadian and Ontario governments, which, also are contributing financing, will share a 2 percent stake.

(Correction: So not only do you have Barack Obama to call if your Chrysler breaks down. If he is busy with the new puppy, you can call one of the guys from the United Auto Workers that put the car together in the first place or the Canadian Prime Minister. Now, that’s the way to run an automobile company! Jsk)

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:09 AM | Comments (0)

May 02, 2009

My favorite term for the politically naive and deranged – “Useful Idiots”

A Metapolitical View Of Useful Idiots

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The Jewish Press April 17, 2009

Vladimir Lenin is credited with having coined the term “useful idiots.” He had in mind capitalists who would sell the Soviet Union the rope with which to hang them.
Israel’s useful idiots have gone much further. They have released, armed - and even paid - Arab terrorists whose prestige soars by killing Jews. Alas, I must be frank and say that Israel’s useful idiots have also yielded Jewish land to Arabs dedicated to Israel’s annihilation.

Beginning with Yitzhak Rabin in 1993, one Israeli prime minister after another, has pursued the inane policy of “land for peace.” These prime ministers have not only sacrificed their intellects to this suicidal policy - in the process, they have also sacrificed the lives and well being of countless Jews.

Driving their stupidity is timidity. Thus, back in June 2005, when Ariel Sharon was at the helm, Jerusalem Post analyst Caroline Click wrote an article entitled “A coward for a prime minister.” Israel’s ruling elites simply lack the moral and intellectual probity to pursue a Jewish — or let us merely say a more independent - foreign policy. Israel has the strategic means of doing so. Bear in mind that U.S. military aid amounts to less than 1.5 percent of Israel’s Gross Domestic Product. It cost Israel more than that to erect security fences, re-deploy IDE forces, and compensate Jews expelled from their homes.

It should be obvious to the people of Israel that, regardless of their political and religious conviction, the Netanyahu government will pave the road to an Arab-Islamic state in Judea and Samaria, Israel’s heartland. This retreat or treachery will be facilitated by Netanyahu’s Defense Minister, Labor leader Ehud Barak, who, as we shall now see, is unsurpassed as a useful idiot.

When Barak was Israel’s Prime Minister, he concocted, without cabinet approval, the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum of September 4, 1999, in which he offered Yasser Arafat a Palestinian State consisting of 96 percent of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (including the Jordan Valley), eastern Jerusalem including the Temple Mount, 4 percent of the Negev, and the entry of perhaps 150,000 Arab refugees! Yet, Arafat said “No.”

Arafat’s rejection of Barak’s offer is amazing! It utterly contradicts the PLO’s strategy of phases whose goal is Israel’s destruction. Arafat himself admitted that the Palestinians are fighting for a “political objective, namely, the liberation of “Palestinian soil” and the establishment of a Palestinian state over every part of it” (March 6, 1989, Qatar News Agency).

George Habash was equally unambiguous when he vowed: “The Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza will be the beginning of the downfall of the Zionist enterprise. We will be able to rely on this defeat in order to complete the struggle to realize our entire goal, which is the complete liberation of the national Palestinian soil” (June 9,1989, “Voice of the Mountain” Radio, Lebanon).But, Arafat was only following the phased peace-and-war strategy of Anwar Sadat who, in an interview withal al Anwar on Jtme 22, 1975 said, ‘The effort of our generation is to return to the 1967 borders. Afterward the next generation will carry on the responsibility.”

Weighed against this strategy, there is no commensurate political explanation for Arafat’s rejection of Barak’s offer. The PLO would have had control of the Judean/Samarian hills overlooking most of Israel’s population. Add Arab control of the Jordan valley and Israel would have been indefensible — the conclusion reached by the American Joint Chiefs of Staff after the Six-Day War. Arafat knew this. Perhaps Arafat’s rejection of Barak’s offer can only be explained in metapolitical terms.

I have often said that God has given Israel the best of enemies, one that can’t be bought by the potage of territory — a programmed enemy that cannot accept the “two-state” solution that useful idiots are trying to impose on Israel.

Professor Eidelberg is the Founder and President of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based tank for improving Israel’s system of governance.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:39 PM | Comments (0)