Jews With Views

 

It is high time that we ceased indulging in theatrics and spoke the truth. We all desperately yearn for peace, and the vast majority of us do not wish to rule over Arabs. If we could convince ourselves that our neighbors would commit to peaceful coexistence, we would make major sacrifices. But alas, the prospects for a comprehensive settlement in the near future are virtually zero.

Since the Oslo Accords, we have remained in a state of denial, refusing to reconcile with the reality that the duplicitous Palestinian leaders, then Yasser Arafat and today Mahmoud Abbas, rather than seeking to create an independent state, were utilizing terror and diplomacy to dismember the Jewish state in stages. We ignored the relevance of Arafat’s repeated call to his people to heed the passage in the Koran relating to the prophet Muhammad consummating the Al Hudaibiya Treaty with the Koreishi Jews and subsequently reneging and killing them. The message clearly signaled that agreements with Jews and non-Muslims may be violated.

Our passion to achieve peace blinded successive governments into accepting the false premise that Palestinian leaders were peace partners, and repeatedly chant the idiotic mantra that the peace process was irreversible and that “peace in our time” was achievable. This cost the lives of thousands in terror attacks and generated successive wars. In conveying this charade to the world at large, we encouraged the false belief that our conflict with the Arabs was a struggle between two peoples to divide land. We maintained this nonsense even after Arafat and Abbas rebuffed Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, who had offered them virtually all the territory previously occupied by Jordan and Egypt.

The Palestinians polarized this further by insisting that the so-called Arab refugee right of return (a formula for the demise of the Jewish state) was a nonnegotiable component of any peace settlement. The Saudi peace plan, praised by the Americans and some foolish Israelis, incorporated this component. President Barack Obama was informed by the Saudis that until the Israelis accepted the plan in its entirety, he should not bother raising the issue with them.

TODAY, WE face the most intense international pressures we have ever experienced. Many European countries have forsaken us; the Obama administration has distanced itself and absorbed the false Palestinian narrative that the Holocaust was responsible for the creation of the State of Israel.

Obama has now been in office for 12 months and his negative approach and attempts to appease our enemies have backfired. There is a complete stalemate in relation to Iran. Israelis do not trust him. The intransigency of the Palestinians and their unwillingness to make any concessions has led to a breakdown in negotiations for which we are being blamed.

Despite the sweeping concessions offered by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his predecessors and the refusal of the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table, Obama alleged that Israel “still found it hard to make bold gestures” and offensively bracketed Hamas and Likud right-wingers as the principal obstacles to peace.

In fact, the Americans seem to have adopted the Palestinian approach hook, line and sinker. Having abandoned the principal of defensible borders and called on Israel to return to ‘67 lines and divide Jerusalem, they are urging that the delineation of future boundaries be dealt with first as a stand-alone issue. But they have yet to reject the Arab right of return.

Under the circumstances, we should be grateful to Abbas for refusing to negotiate. If the Palestinians demand further concessions without reciprocity, it would simply lead to additional confrontations and intensified global pressures.

The most frustrating aspect is that there is little doubt that such negotiations are perceived by all Palestinians – the PA no less than Hamas – merely as phases in their ultimate objective of eliminating Jewish sovereignty in the region. Any differences between them are primarily tactical. At least Hamas openly proclaims its objectives. Its charter is viciously anti-Semitic and urges its followers to kill as many Jews as possible and wipe Israel off the map.

It is time to speak plainly and expose the fact that our “peace partner,” the “moderate” PA, maintains a criminal culture of death and sanctifies the mass murderers within its midst.

Despite repeated exhortations to end anti-Semitic incitement, little has changed. The PA controlled TV, the media and the mosques continue pouring out hatred against the Jews. And from kindergarten onwards the PA educational system idolizes the shahid (the glorious martyr) or suicide bomber as role models.

While uttering endearing words about peaceful coexistence to the foreign media, Abbas proudly provides state pensions to families of suicide bombers.

In recent weeks, a major public square in Ramallah was named to commemorate the 50th birthday of Dalal Mugrabi, the female terrorist who murdered 37 civilians, including 10 children, on a bus in 1978. Both Abbas and the allegedly “moderate” Prime Minister Salam Fayyad participated in the ceremony referring to Mugrabi as a “martyr” (click here to show a clip from Palestinian Authority TV glorifying Dalal Mugrabi, translation provided by Palestinian Media Watch ).

The same “moderate” Fayyad personally paid a condolence call to the family of those who murdered Rabbi Meir Avshalom Chai, father of seven, last month. In public addresses, Abbas referred to these murderers, members of his own Fatah, as “martyrs executed cold-bloodedly by Israeli forces.”

Yet the White House continues praising the moderation and leadership qualities of both Abbas and Fayyad.

The PA has yet to curb terrorist affiliates like the Aksa Martyrs Brigades and other armed Fatah militias which continue to engage in acts of terror. Yet we remain indifferent to the US- trained Palestinian security forces that are supplied with Israeli weapons which, as in the past, will probably ultimately be employed against us.

SO WHERE do we go from here? We must stop behaving like performers in an Alice in Wonderland pantomime. Netanyahu should cease pleading for negotiations with an Abbas who is unwilling (or powerless) to make any reciprocal concessions. He is aware that the PA in all likelihood will ultimately either merge with or be taken over by Hamas.

We must now proclaim explicitly that meaningful progress cannot be achieved in the absence of a genuine peace partner, and that we can no longer continue making unilateral concessions which only strengthen Palestinian intransigence. We should continue raising the living standards of the Palestinians and encourage the creation of a middle class in the hope that this will one day encourage them to pressure their leaders into choosing peace over war.

It is also important that our government tell people the truth. That will strengthen our position in the war of ideas and garner stronger support in the US. It may also encourage the Obama administration to desist from pressuring us to continue making unilateral concessions and ease our growing concern that, like Czechoslovakia in the 1930s, we are being offered as a sacrifice on the altar of appeasement.

 

 

 

 

______________________________________

In the course of Rosh Hashanah reviews in recent years I usually concluded that the outgoing year had been in the nature of things an annus horribilis. No doubt many observers would be inclined to classify 5769 in a similar vein. Our Arab neighbors have reaffirmed their determination to bring an end to Jewish sovereignty in the region. The Iranian nuclear threat looms large. Tensions with the Obama administration have yet to be resolved. Global anti-Semitism has peaked and the United Nations campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel is accelerating. The global economic crisis is still having a devastating impact, especially on the weaker sectors of the Israeli community and the Jewish world at large. To top it off, as we enter 5770 both our former president and former prime minister have been indicted on charges of moral turpitude and corruption and two former Ministers were convicted and sent to jail.
Ushering in a new year under the shadow of such a vast array of negatives justifiably dampens hopes for the immediate future. Yet hope I do. I am in fact optimistic about 5770 and believe that for the first time in many a year, the people of Israel are in the process of regaining a new sense of purpose.
Much of my hope for the future is based on the unexpected success to date of the Netanyahu government. Those who confidently predicted that extremist and conflicting demands of the smaller parties would ensure its swift collapse were proven wrong. In fact, until now, Netanyahu has demonstrated an ability to achieve a stable leadership whilst simultaneously managing a highly sensitive policy involving major strategic initiatives. Moreover he has also succeeded in presenting a course of action which has effectively united the broad mass of the nation whilst neutralizing his right wing critics. Far from dividing the nation as his critics predicted, Benjamin Netanyahu has skillfully created a broad consensus which should enable us to confront the sensitive international political challenges with strength and greater confidence.
One can of course argue over whether Netanyahu is in the process of conceding too much or too little to the Obama administration. But no objective observer can deny that by and large, he has thus far succeeded to avert a complete breakdown with the United States without capitulating on core issues. Whether he can continue sustaining this fine balancing act has yet to be determined. His real test will be at the end of the month when he meets President Obama and Israel faces new onslaughts from the United Nations. But to date Netanyahu has confounded his critics, emerging as a responsible leader and acting judiciously at all levels.
This is highlighted by the fact that the harshest criticism that the hostile media can direct against the Prime Minister is that his office includes a number of incompetent people and is somewhat dysfunctional. That may be true but it is a problem that can easily be rectified and represents a far cry from the abysmal failures and limitations of his predecessors whose ongoing policies of endless unilateral concessions only further emboldened and radicalized our enemies.
Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan address in response to President Obama’s Cairo speech was not merely a skillful diplomatic articulation of Israel’s policy. It won him the support of the bulk of the national political mainstream. This will without doubt enable us to more effectively face challenges from a less friendly United States administration as well as more confidently confront the threat from Iran. That the American Jewish leadership is now overwhelmingly supporting the Netanyahu government and even expressing criticism of President Obama’s biased treatment of the Jewish state and appeasement of the Arabs is an additional positive development which could not have been achieved in the absence of Netanyahu’s sensitive diplomacy.
We have also been spared from what could have been more painful repercussions from the global economic upheaval. Given a responsible government and the beginning of what may be a global economic recovery, despite the suffering of the weakest sections of society, we may be over the worst. There are also hopeful signals that under Education Minister Gideon Saar we may see the implementation of long overdue reforms within the educational system and the reintroduction of Jewish and Zionist values designed to motivate young Israelis to a greater commitment to their national obligations.
One also senses that corruption at the public level is at long last being effectively neutralized. There are few societies in the democratic world in which a president and a prime minister are judged with greater severity than the ordinary citizen in terms of public responsibility and ethical behavior by the police and legal institutions. Although the trials which may drag on for a long time will undoubtedly nauseate us, they will also act as a beacon reminding politicians that corruption in the public arena will no longer be tolerated and that those holding office will be held to account for even minor transgressions.
We are obliged to remind ourselves that most of our recent problems were self inflicted by the ineptitude of our own leaders. My optimism for the coming year is based upon the belief that when the Jewish people unite – and this is the direction towards which we are moving – we can and will successfully overcome our challenges. Hopefully, the leaders of the principal opposition party Kadima will overcome the selfish motivations which dissuaded them from joining the Netanyahu government and they will soon reenter the government, bringing about a genuine unity coalition which is desperately needed during these challenging times.
As we enter the New Year 5770, we have every reason to give thanks and pray that our dreams for peace and security will come closer to realization although we should be under no illusion that genuine peace in our time will be realized only when our neighbors are reconciled to living in peace and harmony with a Jewish state. Until that day comes we must remain strong and resilient.
Rosh Hashanah is a time to review our status as a people. We must constantly remind ourselves that despite all the problems facing us, we still remain the most blessed generation of Jews in 2000 years of exile and persecution. We must ensure that our children and grandchildren appreciate the miraculous progress we have achieved as a nation which only 60 years ago suffered the most devastating horrors and mass murder to become transformed into a modern industrial state capable of defending itself.
In short we have every reason to overcome our dark moods and give thanks to the Almighty for the incredible progress the Jewish state has achieved since its inception. We must also constantly remind ourselves that despite the awesome challenges still confronting us, we are today an empowered people, a haven for Jews seeking refuge from oppression from all corners of the world and with the help of the Almighty, responsible for our own destiny. Israel still represents the greatest success story of the century

_________________________________________________________

 

 There may be worse to come
by Isi Leibler
August 25, 2009
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=1766
 
President Obama’s naive efforts to appease the Arabs by bullying and distancing the United States from Israel has backfired. However despite increasing unease extending to some of Obama’s most fervent supporters, the administration has yet to signal any change in policy.
The futility of trying to appease tyrannies is evident everywhere; the thuggish behavior of the Iranian regime toward its own people makes a farce of Obama’s efforts to reason with Ahmadinejad; in response to unilateral US overtures to the Syrians, President Assad visited the Iranian president, congratulated him on his bogus reelection and declared that their alliance had never been stronger; the North Koreans displayed utter contempt for Obama’s friendly outreach; Arabs states all responded negatively to Obama’s entreaties to provide a few crumbs of recognition in return for Israeli concessions; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was publicly humiliated by the Saudi Foreign Minister, who insisted there was nothing to negotiate unless Israel accepted all Arab demands.
The Palestinian response was even more noxious. Clearly emboldened, the Fatah General Assembly displayed contempt for any initiative that could further the peace process. Their intransigence again demonstrated the absurdity of the notion that this corrupt and duplicitous leadership could be a genuine peace partner. There were even elements of surrealism when the Fatah Assembly unanimously accused Israel of having assassinated Arafat and provided standing applause for a mass murderer.
They decreed that unless Israel acceded to all their demands, no further negotiations would take place and they could renew the “armed struggle.” Far from encouraging Arab moderation, Obama’s tough approach to Israel simply bolstered the hardliners.
The facts on the ground today make prospects for peace more remote than ever. The only clear message emerging from the Fatah Congress is that, as with Hamas, elimination of Jewish sovereignty in the region remains its ultimate objective. Were that not so, Mahmoud Abbas would have accepted Ehud Olmert’s offer, which virtually granted him all his territorial demands and even hinted at a compromise over the Arab right of return.
Obama’s advisers must have been bitterly disappointed when their diktats against Israel backfired. Indeed, their one-sided demands and bullying tactics can take credit for having created a rare consensus among the Israeli public, which today overwhelmingly supports Netanyahu.
To add to Obama’s problems and despite predictions to the contrary, American Jewish leaders have begun to openly challenge some of his policies. There is a growing unease even among some Jewish Democrats that Obama is betraying the unequivocal undertakings he made during the elections to faithfully preserve the alliance with Israel.
This was exemplified in remarks made by Howard Berman, the influential Democratic chair of the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, who in a closed meeting with Jewish leaders explicitly criticized the Obama administration’s pressure on Israel over settlements. Berman said Abbas was now “waiting for the US to present him Israel on a platter”. Stanley Hoyer, the Democratic House majority leader visiting Israel, made similar comments at a Jerusalem news conference.
OBAMA MUST also have been stunned when his friend and loyal supporter Alan Solow, the Chairman of the Presidents Conference representing 52 major American Jewish organizations, condemned his demands to limit Jews settlements in Jerusalem and its suburbs.
In a full page New York Times advert Abe Foxman of the Anti Defamation League stated “The problem is not settlements, it’s Arab rejection…Mr. President, it’s time to stop pressuring our vital friend and ally”. David Harris of the American Jewish Committee expressed similar feelings to a Congressional group. Whilst usually ritually reiterating their belief that Obama would not abandon Israel, Jewish leaders have begun openly criticizing the administration’s behavior toward the Jewish state.
Obama’s standing with American Jewish activists plummeted further when, contemptuously dismissing a rare virtually unanimous Jewish protest, he personally participated in the ceremony honoring former Irish president and 2001 UN Durban hate-fest convener Mary Robinson with the highest human rights award in the US. This was perceived as yet another manifestation of Obama’s new love affair with the UN and its anti-Israel affiliates.
It must also have been disappointing for Obama’s Jewish advisers promoting the J Street line when they became aware that despite expensive media promotions, opinion polls indicated that most Jewish activists remained contemptuous of the left-wing Jewish fringe groups urging Obama to force Israel to make further concessions.
However, as of now, while continuing to avoid any initiative which could irritate the Arabs, the US is maintaining its heavy-handed approach toward its erstwhile ally, Israel. While a face-saving compromise may soon eventuate, appreciating the unprecedented backing he currently enjoys from his constituency, Netanyahu would be unwise to capitulate to Obama’s demands.
Alas, irrespective of the settlement issues, there may be worse to come from this administration. After Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s recent warm meeting with Obama in Washington, he effusively praised the policy changes introduced by the president and hinted of further impending “positive” US initiatives.
There are also chilling predictions that without prior consultations with Israel, Obama intends to unilaterally submit a US plan for a comprehensive settlement at the UN or elsewhere. It is rumored that this plan would use as a starting point the irresponsible offers made to Abbas by Olmert during the death throes of his tenure – offers which would unquestionably have been repudiated by the Knesset and people of Israel in a referendum. Such a move would be an unprecedented betrayal of a long-standing ally.
UNTIL SUCH time as a genuine Palestinian peace partner emerges, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu cannot be expected to create a miraculous magic plan which would bring about a comprehensive final settlement. But his task now must be to preempt a disastrous imposed settlement by the Americans.
In doing so he must he speedily identify the red lines which his government, backed by the vast majority of Israelis, would never contemplate crossing.
To this end he should also marshal the support of the mainstream American Jewish leadership and encourage them to convey to their president that they too have red lines. They have already begun to signal that they will not remain passive if their government attempts to unilaterally impose a solution which could endanger the Jewish state.
iliebler@netvision.net.il
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post

________________________

Sack Consul General Nadav Tamir
by Isi Leibler
August 11, 2009
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=1741
 
Boston Consul General Nadav Tamir may be the most talented diplomat in the foreign ministry. He should nevertheless be dismissed forthwith, or at the very least carpeted and downgraded.
Even if the policy of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was flawed, Tamir’s outburst was inexcusable. A diplomat is appointed to serve the government elected by the people. If he feels that the policies he is obliged to present are so diametrically counter to his beliefs that he must publicly express his opposition, he has the choice of resigning and launching a political campaign against the government. Unfortunately Tamir acted as though he could have his cake and eat it too.
The role of a diplomat includes conveying – through discrete, appropriate channels – evaluations of the political situation in his region. Clearly the role of a local consul general is not to distribute memoranda providing his personal assessment of the government policies at the national level. That is the province of an ambassador (to whom Tamir should report) who would ensure that if appropriate, such reviews or assessments are channeled to the appropriate authority in Jerusalem.
But Tamir bypassed the ambassador and distributed his memo to a wide distribution list.
Were the Foreign Ministry to be transformed into an arena in which individual diplomats could freely and widely promote and distribute their political views or agendas it would become totally dysfunctional.
Tamir’s behavior has no bearing on his political outlook or the specific issues involved. As a civil servant, he breached the ultimate red line. No Foreign Ministry or State Department in any country would tolerate such behavior. Just imagine a United States Consul, without the approval of his Ambassador, distributing a memorandum containing wide-ranging criticisms of President Barack Obama’s Middle East policies and circulating such a document throughout the State Department. He would undoubtedly be terminated.
The Boston Jewish community leaders who are defending their consul general are doing everyone, including themselves, a disservice. Tamir’s abilities and track record has absolutely no bearing on this matter. What is at stake is the clear obligation of a civil servant, especially a diplomat, to recognize that his role is limited to representing his government. His irresponsibility is magnified by the fact that as he is a local diplomat, a consul general, giving national evaluations is totally beyond his area of responsibility. Even if is his evaluations were entirely correct, he was operating beyond his jurisdiction.
The call by the Israeli left-wing media to transform Tamir, an irresponsible junior diplomat, into a martyr for “daring to tell the truth” combines an ideological agenda with an extension of efforts to discredit Foreign Minister Lieberman. There is little doubt as to how the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and then-foreign minister Shimon Peres would have responded if a consul of Tamir’s caliber had circulated such a memorandum critical of the impact of the Oslo Accords. No government would tolerate such behavior.
The Foreign Ministry has regrettably not performed as well as one would have hoped in recent years. Today, in the midst of enormously challenging times, when the war of ideas has assumed a crucial role, the Foreign Ministry cannot tolerate diplomats who breach their public service obligations and feel they are entitled to indulge in personal diplomacy and political agendas. This must apply to all governments irrespective of political orientation.
ileibler@netvision.net.il____________

__________________________________

End the blood libels against Israel & the IDF
by Isi Leibler
August 4, 2009
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=1730

 
 
The current global campaign accusing the IDF of “crimes against humanity” and “genocide” exceeds all the obscene libels that have ever been launched against the Jewish state.
One of Israel’s proudest achievements is the IDF code of conduct, which instills awareness that Israelis are obliged to act as role models of decency.
It is all the more impressive that such an ethical military code was implemented in Israel, the only country in the world which from its inception has been obliged to defend itself continuously from overt and terrorist onslaughts by neighbors who regard the elimination of Jewish sovereignty in the region as their primary objective.
In fact, in an age when millions of innocent civilians are being butchered during ethnic upheavals in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, one can only attribute dark motives to the shameful demonization of the Jewish state.
Equally indecent is the adoption of Israel as the bête noir of most “liberal” human rights organizations, which invest disproportionate efforts in defaming the region’s only democracy. Some of this can be attributed to the financial support they receive from foreign governments and organizations intent on undermining the Jewish state. The hypocrisy of these groups was exemplified when one of the principal NGOs – Human Rights Watch – recently raised funds in Saudi Arabia (a country hardly renowned for concern with human rights) to defeat “pro-Israel pressure groups.”
THE GLOBAL campaign against Israel is spearheaded by a United Nations subsidiary inappropriately titled the Human Rights Council. This body, headed by countries like Iran and Libya, makes a mockery of justice and human rights and concentrates primarily on bashing Israel. Hell bent on defaming the IDF, it formed a fact-finding mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone to review alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. The terms of reference did not mention Hamas, which publicly lauds the killing of Jewish civilians and had launched over 12,000 missiles against the Jewish state. The composition of the committee guarantees that the findings will be in sync with the bias of the parent body. Israel was thus absolutely justified in refusing to cooperate.
What Israel did to minimize civilian casualties during the Gaza operation was described by Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, as unparalleled in the history of warfare. The 160-page report issued by the Foreign Ministry noted that the same IDF accused of war crimes dropped 2.5 million leaflets and telephoned 165,000 civilians providing them four hours’ notice to evacuate areas in advance of airborne attacks. Missions were cancelled at the last moment after discovering that civilians had been placed as human shields next to ammunition dumps or rocket launchers. Efforts to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza were infinitely more wide ranging than those applied by American and European forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When one compares Israeli behavior to that of countries like Russia in Chechnya, the barbaric mass murders in Darfur (recently “justified” by the Islamic Conference), the genocide in the Congo and the brutal killing of Tamils in Sri Lanka, the concerted hatred directed against Israel by Western countries becomes mind boggling. It is as though we had reverted to the Dark Ages, when Jews were blamed for all the woes of mankind, from blood libels to poisoning the wells and spreading plague. This is borne out by the bizarre findings of European opinion polls which view Israel more negatively than such rogue states as North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Iran.
What makes this situation even more surrealistic is the behavior of a small but highly-vocal group of Israelis who endorse the despicable libels orchestrated by those seeking to defame their country’s acts of self-defense. The occasionally abused expression “self-hating Jews” best describes those academics, journalists and NGOs who collaborate with fanatic anti-Israel groups abroad. They have now stooped to even more unconscionable depths by trying to defame the noble youths who are willing to sacrifice their lives to defend their people and homeland.
They replicate the same disgusting behavior displayed a few months ago when Haaretz highlighted allegations accusing the IDF of Cossack-like killing sprees – allegations subsequently proven to have been based entirely on gossip and utterly without foundation. But by the time the fraud was exposed the damage was done, and Israel had been besmirched in papers throughout the world.
WITH MONEY from European governments and other foreign donors, the defamers have formed a new group called Breaking the Silence and once again quote unnamed soldiers who babble on anonymously about “war crimes.” They justify the anonymity by making the outrageous claim that whistle-blowers risk being punished, despite common knowledge that if the IDF ever behaved in such a manner the independent Israeli media would have a field day lambasting it. They have the gall to demand an independent investigation of the IDF – something that no country in the world has ever undertaken.
Needless to say, in any war, even with the greatest efforts to maintain moral standards, occasional individual breaches and malpractices are inevitable. The litmus test of a democracy is whether such cases are covered up or prosecuted. IDF Judge Advocate-General Brig-Gen. Avihai Mandelblit has systematically investigated every accusation, and if misconduct was discovered, the offender was punished. To date there has not been a single case of behavior that could be defined as a deliberate intention to kill civilians.
Stealing a credit card or looting an Arab home is despicable and must be severely punished, but neither compares to wanton killing or qualifies as a crime against humanity. Should further examples of individual malpractice be exposed, the parties involved will undoubtedly also be prosecuted.
War involves life-and-death situations; mistakes are made and innocents inevitably die. But in maintaining our moral standards, we are also obliged to ensure that we do not go to the other extreme and endanger the lives of our soldiers by preventing them from defending themselves.
NOT SO long ago, it would have been inconceivable for any sane Israeli to accuse our sons of war crimes. The public outcry would have been deafening and those defaming our soldiers would have been pariahs. There are laws in a democracy which protect an individual from defamation and punish those who besmirch the innocent. Israel is at war and the battle for minds is a key component. To besmirch a nation by falsely portraying its soldiers as wanton murderers is an act of infamy that would be treasonable in most countries. Allowing degenerate nihilists the right to promote outright lies not only undermines national morale, it also compromises our security.
Legislation should be introduced enabling the prosecution of those knowingly disseminating slanders and defaming the nation whilst endeavoring not to curtail freedom of expression and also to oblige groups obtaining funds from foreign governments to register as foreign agents.
The struggle to retain our reputation as a decent and moral people is a major component in our battle for peace. If we fail to clean up our domestic cesspool, we open the door for our enemies and the anti-Semites who seek to destroy us.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post

 ______________________________________________

American Jews: Stand up and be counted
by Isi Leibler
July 28, 2009
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=1710

 
 
This column is a sequel to The case against Obama
Ignore the soothing denials; the reality is that the crucial Israeli-US relationship is at stake.
Over the years, American Jews have established remarkably sophisticated agencies to advance the Jewish/Israeli cause. The pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, helped create a bipartisan pro-Israel environment in Congress. American Jews (until recently) had no qualms in criticizing their own government when they felt it was behaving unjustly toward the Jewish state. Nor were they intimidated by accusations of dual loyalties. Indeed, they took pride in contrasting their assertiveness to that of European Jews, whom they frequently dismissed as “trembling Israelites.”
Nevertheless, to this day American Jews cringe when they recall the behavior of their forbears in the 1940s. Fearful of an anti-Semitic backlash and mesmerized by the popularity and perceived moral infallibility of Franklin Roosevelt, the Jewish establishment, to its eternal shame, remained silent when their president refused to act on behalf of the doomed Jews of Europe.
However, in the post-war era, aside from Dwight Eisenhower’s brutal threats in the wake of the 1956 Suez Campaign and a few brushes with presidents George H. W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, American-Jewish supporters of Israel were usually in sync with the White House. They certainly never encountered anything comparable to the confrontation looming with the Obama administration.
The current situation is especially sensitive because it is commonly believed that Barack Obama’s strategy relating to Israel is being orchestrated by two key Jewish members of his administration, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. Worse still, they may have succeeded in dividing the Jewish leadership.
American-Jewish lay leaders are basically unknown to the general public.
The three principal agencies promoting Jewish interests to the public are directed by civil servants – Malcolm Hoenlein of the Presidents’ Conference, Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League and David Harris of the American Jewish Committee, all of whom are dedicated professionals.
THE ADMINISTRATION is now seeking to exploit the weakness of the lay leadership. In line with established practice, as political tensions intensified, the Presidents’ Conference (representing 52 major Jewish organizations) requested a meeting with the president. The White House agreed, but insisted on determining who would participate. Without consultation, critics like Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America were excluded while Israel-bashing groups like J Street and US Peace Now were invited. The administration thus not only provided equal status to fringe groups, it obliged mainstream organizations to share a platform with groups whose raison d’être is to force Israel to make additional unilateral concessions. During Operation Cast Lead, J Street even publicly condemned Israel’s campaign against Hamas.
The reluctance of the Presidents’ Conference to reject this arrangement may be a major strategic blunder. It enables the White House to determine who represents the Jewish community, and apply divide-and-conquer tactics against them. In short, it provides a mechanism by which the Obama administration can create an “amen” environment free of troublemakers.
AMERICAN JEWS face a watershed. Nearly 80 percent of them voted for Obama. That surely strengthens their right to convey concerns to the president. However, many of the lay leaders are wealthy philanthropists unaccustomed to political confrontations. Moreover, fearful of jeopardizing donations from Obama acolytes, organizations are reluctant to adopt controversial positions. This in turn makes it extraordinarily difficult for Jewish civil servants to carry the brunt of initiating opposition to a highly popular president.
That mainstream American-Jewish leaders lack a strategic plan at such a time is disconcerting. At the meeting with Obama, most participants appear to have been overwhelmed. Press reports suggest that most lay leaders remained silent, with some even expressing support for Obama’s policies. “It was a wonderful exchange,” gushed Andrea Weinstein, chair of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
“I believe the president got the impression that there is broad support for his policies and some difference on tactical levels… I am willing to give this president an opportunity to try his strategy,” proclaimed Conservative Rabbi Steven Wernick. Reform leader Rabbi Eric Yoffie pointed out that “when it came to substance, not a single participant told the president: ‘You’re wrong.’”
No one raised concerns about the manner in which their president had embraced the Arab narrative and expressed moral equivalence between both parties. No one responded to Obama’s outrageously patronizing remarks about the need for Israelis to “engage in serious self-reflection.” No one pointed out that it was especially incongruous for the first African-American president to deny Jews the right to take up residence in Jerusalem, the cradle of Jewish civilization. Nobody suggested that by distancing the US from Israel, Obama was effectively discouraging the Palestinians from making peace.
However there is a ray of light. The statement recently released by Alan Solow and Malcolm Hoenlein, chairman and executive vice president of the Presidents’ Conference, condemning the administration for its heavy-handed treatment of Israel in relation to Jerusalem may be significant. For Solow, until now a dedicated Obama supporter who had originally requested the meeting with the president, to publicly express such views may signal that Obama’s negative attacks on Israel are at last beginning to affect his Democrat supporters. Similar remarks by David Harris of the American Jewish Committee criticizing Obama to a congressional group also reflect rising distress among Democrats as they begin to absorb the hollowness of the president’s stated concern for the welfare of Israel.
A public campaign must be launched. It is crucial that the case for Israel not rest exclusively with Jewish Republicans or Christian evangelicals. Jewish Democrats must be at the forefront if the bipartisan approach which for decades has been the hallmark of US policy toward Israel is to be retained.
Democrat champions for Israel like Alan Dershowitz should explain to Obama why employing so-called “tough love” against Israel is both immoral and counterproductive.
The burden rests on American Jews. Hopefully they will succeed in persuading Obama that if he seeks to ‘engage’ with tyrants and enemies of freedom, he can do no less than behave likewise to the only democratic state in the region and stop bombarding them with diktats. They must stand up and be counted. Jewish activists should make Obama understand that if he continues to appease Arabs by distancing the US from Israel and reneging on prior American commitments, the Jewish community, including many of his most devoted followers, will conclude that he betrayed them.
ileibler@netvision.net.il

_______________________________________________

The case against Obama
by Isi Leibler
July 16, 2009
OBTAINED BY EMAIL
also in Jerusalem Post:

 
Prior to the election, many traditional Jewish supporters of the Democratic Party were apprehensive of Barack Obama’s initially negative attitude to Israel and his troubling association with people like PLO ideologue Rashid Khalidi and the anti-Semitic Rev. Jeremiah Wright. However after aggressively repudiating his earlier policies, Obama convinced most Jews that he would never abandon the Jewish state. Alas, recent developments suggest otherwise.
 President Obama is adept at warming the cockles of the hearts of his Jewish constituents, many of whom seem as mesmerized by him as their forebears were by Franklin D Roosevelt. He repeatedly articulates his commitment to the welfare of Israel and admiration for American Jewry.
Yet if one probes beneath the veneer of bonhomie and analyzes the substance of his policies, they reflect an unprecedented downturn in relations towards Israel with hints of worse to come. This was reaffirmed by Obama in the course of his recent meeting with Jewish leaders (which included representatives of extremist fringe groups like Peace Now and J Street but excluded those likely to be critical of his approach). In an extraordinary patronizing manner with his Jewish aides beaming at him he told Israelis to “engage in self reflection” and made it clear that he believed he had a better understanding of what is best for them than their democratically elected government. Alas, with the exception of Malcolm Hoenlein and Abe Foxman, it appears that the majority of the others endorsed his position or remained silent. Yet only a few days earlier even a passionate Democrat like Alan Dershowitz had expressed concern “that the coming changes in the Obama administration’s policies could weaken the security of the Jewish state”.
THIS COLUMN is a response to American Jews devoted to Israel who remain under the charismatic spell of their president and challenged me to demonstrate how his policies are harming Israel.
President Obama’s keynote Cairo address included effusive praise for Islam, highlighted Western shortcomings but omitted mention of global jihad and Islamic fundamentalism. It also legitimized the Arab narrative including its malicious and false historical analogies. By alleging that the State of Israel was a by-product of the Holocaust, the president of the United States denied 3,500 years of Jewish history and the central role of Jerusalem in Judaism. He endorsed the Arafat mantra that Israel had been inflicted upon the Arabs by the Europeans to compensate for the Holocaust, even hinting at equivalence between Jewish and Arab suffering. Obama ignored the rejectionism, ongoing wars and waves of Arab terror directed against the Jewish state since the day of its creation. He also compared the Palestinians to the US civil rights movement. When the president of the world’s greatest superpower provides an imprimatur for such a false narrative it represents a major breakthrough for those seeking to delegitimize Israel.
Obama’s Cairo address should be viewed as an extension of a calculated policy designed to appease the Arab world by playing hardball with Israel. Obama’s response to the brutal Iranian regime’s thuggish clampdown on its own people was inordinately restrained. He bowed and scraped to the Saudis, unconditionally renewed diplomatic relations with the Syrians and failed to respond to the latest brazen North Korean missile launches. His “engagement” and benign relationship with corrupt and despotic Arab regimes contrast starkly with the tough diktats conveyed to Israel.
The confrontation with Israel goes far beyond the vexed settlement issue which was wrongly linked with curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and has been exaggerated totally out of proportion.
Israel endorsed the road map and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu unequivocally undertook to freeze settlement expansion in areas other than within the settlement blocs which the Bush Administration had implicitly agreed should remain under Israeli sovereignty. Even in these areas Netanyahu undertook to limit growth to “enabling normal life.” But either disregarding or cynically abrogating understandings by the former administration, Obama’s demands exceeded even those of Arafat’s when the 1993 Oslo Accords were negotiated.
Today, no city outside the Islamic world denies Jews the right of residence. Yet Obama is demanding that for the first time since 1967 Jews will no longer be entitled to build a single home beyond the old armistice lines, including Jewish sections of Jerusalem and adjacent areas like Ma’aleh Adumim. No Israeli government of any political composition could conceivably accept such a demand which even opposition Kadima spokesmen condemned as outright “extortion.”
NOT SURPRISINGLY, the Palestinians and Arabs are delighted with Obama’s humiliation of Israel. Saeb Erakat, the chief PA negotiator, proclaimed that the Palestinians need make no concessions because the longer the process extended, the more they would benefit from further unilateral Israeli concessions. Washington Post journalist Jackson Diehl, not renowned as a pro-Israel supporter, observed, “[Obama] revived a long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud.”
The reality is that Arab concerns are not related to settlements or boundaries. Both Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas rejected offers to return virtually all territories Israel gained in the 1967 war – a war initiated by the Arabs to destroy the Jewish state. “The gaps were too wide” said Abbas, after Olmert offered him the equivalent of all territories beyond the Green Line, including joint control of the Temple Mount. They adamantly demand the right of return for Arab refugees, which would effectively bring an end to the Jewish state. Clearly, the overriding objective for the PA, no less than Hamas, remains, not two states but two stages leading to the demise of the Jewish state. In recent weeks there was a spate of Fatah statements on official PA-controlled media brazenly describing the negotiations as a vehicle to destroy Israel. “Peace is a means not a goal. Our goal is all Palestine,” said Fatah activist Kifah Radaydeh on PA TV and also affirmed that “armed struggle” is still on the cards.
If Obama was genuinely even-handed, he would urge the “moderate” Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He would make it clear that the US would never support the repatriation of the descendents of the Arab refugees to Israel. Obama would call on Abbas to stop sanctifying martyrs and naming streets, sports teams and other projects (some of which are sponsored by the US) after Palestinian suicide killers and murderers and would monitor anti-Semitic incitement in PA media, mosques, schools and kindergartens. And most importantly, before demanding that Israel remove barriers and downgrade security in Judea and Samaria, the US would insist that the PA curb its military wings and cease all acts of terror.
But as of now, Obama’s policy can be summarized as “Israelis should give and Palestinians should take.” It amounts to appeasing the Arabs, humiliating Israel and in the process, undermining the security of the Jewish state.
ISRAEL IS not a superpower and needs to retain the support of the United States, in the absence of which the United Nations, Europeans and the entire international community would gang up against the Jewish state. It is no coincidence that Javier Solana, the retiring EU foreign policy chief, has urged the UN to determine the final borders, the status of Jerusalem and resolution of the refugee problem and impose their solution. That the British government has just announced what amounts to a partial arms boycott against Israel is another example.
Netanyahu is doing his utmost to achieve a compromise and has already offered to totally freeze all settlement activity beyond Jerusalem and the major settlement blocs, which the vast majority of Israelis agree must be retained. But if the Americans remain bloody-minded and refuse to compromise, Netanyahu will stand firm on this issue and will be overwhelmingly supported by the people who are outraged by the double standards applied against them.
In the meanwhile, the public reprimands and humiliations already underway are eroding the US-Israel relationship and impacting on American public support for Israel, which polls indicate is plummeting.
American Jews who voted overwhelmingly to elect Obama should not remain silent. They are entitled to press him to adhere to his commitment and treat the Jewish state in an even-handed manner. Together with other friends of Israel they should discourage their president from offering Israel as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of Arab appeasement. In urging Obama not to abandon Israel, they would also be promoting the US national interest. History cannot point to a single instance in which appeasement of jihadists or tyrants has ever borne fruit.

____________________________

submitted by AVI RUDOFSKY FOR YOUR OPINIONS

The question is this:

So I live in the time of imminent redemption and am a “fairly” Observant Jew. It seems that the time for Teshuva is upon me and yet I feel the past has shown me that perhaps each generation before me, there were many Jews who felt that there’s was the time of imminent redemption.

Do I feel pressure from the condition of Israel, the timing of many world events that seem to show an unusual retribution for some anti-Israel acts or words? Yes, I do!

Do I feel pressure from Obama and his Anti-Israel/Semitic behavior? Yes, I do!

I am studying and trying as fast as I can. I have children and family that feel I am off base and that it is not that serious etc.
How do I justify the increased pressure to be more Observant even more quickly than I may be capable of?
To make aliyah before I planned. It will be a rocky road with many sessions to convince the Family.

In other words I believe in HaShem and the letters and words of Torah. I understand that only some will be in the redemption and many who don’t believe etc…will not.

What is the deciding mark? What makes me give up a rational well timed plan to make Aliyah and to push further, faster even at the expense of the co-operation of family etc. And then I ask can this be what HaShem wants?
I guess I will just know….

Tovia Singer told me not to make any sacrifices that could my family.
On the other hand I am feeling the utz of Redemption5768 very hard.
So the decision remains and I guess when my faith is strong enough…I will push forward.

I hope there is enough time…..

Avi
Upstate NY
The Galut in every way

–
Refuah Shleimah, a total and speedy recovery for all the wounded, soldiers and civilians.
  
Numbers 33:55

But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the Land from before you, then those whom you leave over will be as spikes in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they will harass you in the land in which you settle.

Deut. 20:16-18

But from the cities of these peoples that HaShem, your G-d, gives you as an inheritance, you shall not allow any person to live. Rather you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite, the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite, as HaShem, your G-d has commanded you, so that they will not teach you to act according to all their abominations that they performed for their deities, so that you will sin to HaShem, your G-d.

http://www.jewish1.blogspot.com/

_____________________________

The Wedding Gown That Made History

 Lilly Friedman doesn’t remember the last name of the woman who designed and sewed the wedding gown she wore when she walked down the aisle over 60 years ago.  But the grandmother of seven does recall that when she first told her fiancé Ludwig that she had always dreamed of being married in a white gown he realized he had his work cut out for him.
 
 
For the tall, lanky 21-year-old who had survived hunger, disease and torture this was a different kind of challenge.  How was he ever going to find such a dress in the Bergen Belsen Displaced Person’s camp where they felt grateful for the clothes on their backs?
 
 
 
Fate would intervene in the guise of a former German pilot who walked into the food distribution center where Ludwig worked, eager to make a trade for his worthless parachute.  In exchange for two pounds of coffee beans and a couple of packs of cigarettes Lilly would have her wedding gown.
 
 
 
For two weeks Miriam the seamstress worked under the curious eyes of her fellow DPs, carefully fashioning the six parachute panels into a simple, long sleeved gown with a rolled collar and a fitted waist that tied in the back with a bow. When the dress was completed she sewed the leftover material into a matching shirt for the groom.
 
 
 
 
A white wedding gown may have seemed like a frivolous request in the surreal environment of the camps, but for Lilly the dress symbolized the innocent, normal life she and her family had once led before the world descended into madness.  Lilly and her siblings were raised in a Torah observant home in the small town of Zarica, Czechoslovakia where her father was a melamed, respected and well liked by the young yeshiva students he taught in nearby Irsheva.
 
 
He and his two sons were marked for extermination immediately upon arriving at Auschwitz .  For Lilly and her sisters it was only their first stop on their long journey of persecution, which included Plashof, Neustadt, Gross Rosen and finally Bergen Belsen .
 
 

 
Lilly Friedman and her parachute dress on display in the Bergen Belsen Museum
 
 
Four hundred people marched 15 miles in the snow to the town of Celle on January 27, 1946 to attend Lilly and Ludwig’s wedding.  The town synagogue, damaged and desecrated, had been lovingly renovated by the DPs with the meager materials available to them.  When a Sefer Torah arrived from England they converted an old kitchen cabinet into a makeshift Aron Kodesh.
 

 
“My sisters and I lost everything – our parents, our two brothers, our homes. The most important thing was to build a new home.”  Six months later, Lilly’s sister Ilona wore the dress when she married Max Traeger.  After that came Cousin Rosie.  How many brides wore Lilly’s dress? “I stopped counting after 17.” With the camps experiencing the highest marriage rate in the world, Lilly’s gown was in great demand.
 
 
 
 
In 1948 when President Harry Truman finally permitted the 100,000 Jews who had been languishing in DP camps since the end of the war to emigrate, the gown accompanied Lilly across the ocean to America .  Unable to part with her dress, it lay at the bottom of her bedroom closet for the next 50 years, “not even good enough for a garage sale. I was happy when it found such a good home.” 
 
Home was the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington , D.C. When Lily’s niece, a volunteer, told museum officials about her aunt’s dress, they immediately recognized its historical significance and displayed the gown in a specially designed showcase, guaranteed to preserve it for 500 years.
 
 
 
But Lilly Friedman’s dress had one more journey to make. Bergen Belsen , the museum, opened its doors on October 28, 2007.  The German government invited Lilly and her sisters to be their guests for the grand opening. They initially declined, but finally traveled to Hanover the following year with their children, their grandchildren and extended families to view the extraordinary exhibit created for the wedding dress made from a parachute. 
 
 
 
Lilly’s family, who were all familiar with the stories about the wedding in Celle , were eager to visit the synagogue.  They found the building had been completely renovated and modernized.  But when they pulled aside the handsome curtain they were astounded to find that the Aron Kodesh, made from a kitchen cabinet, had remained untouched as a testament to the profound faith of the survivors.  As Lilly stood on the bimah once again she beckoned to her granddaughter, Jackie, to stand beside her where she was once a kallah.  “It was an emotional trip.  We cried a lot.”
 
 
 
Two weeks later, the woman who had once stood trembling before the selective eyes of the infamous Dr. Josef Mengele returned home and witnessed the marriage of her granddaughter.
 
                                                                                                                 
 
The three Lax sisters – Lilly, Ilona and Eva, who together survived Auschwitz, a forced labor camp, a death march and Bergen Belsen – have remained close and today live within walking distance of each other in Brooklyn.  As mere teenagers, they managed to outwit and outlive a monstrous killing machine, then went on to marry, have children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren and were ultimately honored by the country that had earmarked them for extinction.
 
As young brides, they had stood underneath the chuppah and recited the blessings that their ancestors had been saying for thousands of years.  In doing so, they chose to honor the legacy of those who had perished by choosing life.
 
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
In Memoriam
 
 

 
 
IN MEMORIAM – 63 YEARS LATER
 
 
It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian peoples looking the other way!
 
 
Now, more than ever, with Iraq, Iran, and others, claiming the Holocaust to be ‘a myth,’ it’s imperative to make sure the world never forgets, because there are others who would like to do it again.

 

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371106463&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Jun 15, 2009 -  The coming storm: Obama and American Jewry

By SHMULEY BOTEACH

There’s a storm coming.  It will pit a well-organized community of
substantial resources but also substantial insecurity – particularly when it
comes to charges of dual loyalty – against a popular president of
considerable eloquence but misguided policies that identify Israeli
settlements as the main obstacle to Middle East peace.  The inevitable clash
will separate sunshine Jewish patriots who back Israel when convenient
against those who stand with Israel even when it means losing their
invitation to the White House Hanukka party.
The bogus issue of settlements is already being swallowed whole by many
well-meaning Jews. Last week Dan Fleshler, a leader of Americans for Peace
Now, wrote in the New Jersey Jewish Standard that Obama has no choice but to
pressure Israel because “it is fruitless for a well-armed, occupying power
to negotiate the terms of a viable settlement with an almost defenseless
occupied people unless a third party mediates and presses both sides.”

In reading Fleshler one wonders whether he has been himself occupied with
building a settlement on the moon with no knowledge of events on Earth.  Is
he seriously suggesting that the thousands of Katyusha rockets and nonstop
suicide bombers that have killed more than a thousand Israelis (the
equivalent of 30,000 dead Americans) have come from a “defenseless” foe?
Would Fleshler likewise argue that the US ought to have pressure from, say,
Russia or China to make peace with the terrorists in Afghanistan, seeing
that America now represents a “well-armed, occupying power” against the
comparatively defenseless Taliban?  Or is it only Israel that is forbidden
from defending itself.

Sorry Mr. Fleshler, but Jewish values do not dictate that the only moral Jew
is a dead one who refuses to fight in the face of a 60-year terror
onslaught.
Any return to the 1967 borders, which is what Obama’s attack on the
settlements represents, is simply suicide for Israel.  The borders are
utterly indefensible. The Arabs know it, which is why they press for it.
Had Israel not dismantled its settlements in Gush Katif, Gaza would not have
become a terrorist state ruled by Hamas, an organization that kills even
more Palestinians than it does Israelis.

BUT MISGUIDED Jewish apologists aside, are the rest of us prepared to speak
up against the policies of the administration?  By this I do not mean the
drunken racist rants of the American Jewish hooligans who got attention
disgracing themselves on YouTube last week; their bigoted drivel against our
democratically elected president represents an abomination to Judaism.  I
have already written several columns lamenting how a small minority of the
large and praiseworthy contingent of Jewish youth who go to Israel from the
US after high school ostensibly to study in yeshivot end up instead hanging
out on Rehov Ben Yehuda making asses of themselves.  That they have no
proper supervision and that they are allowed to go through their year in a
drunken stupor is an outrage that must be finally addressed by the
institutions which host them.

Rather, I mean courageous and intelligent criticism that accepts the
president’s praiseworthy efforts in making peace but decries his soft
posture on tyranny when he bows to an Arab potentate who oppresses women and
warmly embraces the dictator of Venezuela.
Asher Lopatin was one of the first students I met at Oxford and the
university’s first Orthodox Rhodes scholar. Today he is the successful rabbi
of one of Chicago’s most youthful congregations. He is also Rahm Emanuel’s
rabbi. But that did not stop him from criticizing the White House chief of
staff in Newsweek for his unfair pressure on Israel. Lopatin could easily
have basked in the aura of being rabbi to one of the most influential men in
the world. Instead, he spoke truth to power.
In promoting the new translation of his Hebrew prayer book, British Chief
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks constantly reminds us that he studies Bible with the
prime minister of the United Kingdom. That’s nice. But a few years ago Sacks
spoke out publicly against Israel, telling London’s Guardian newspaper,
“There are things that happen on a daily basis which make me feel very
uncomfortable as a Jew.”
Sacks is a brilliant man but with a long history of pandering to whatever
audience he happens to be addressing. He would do well to remember the
admonishment of Mordechai to Esther on the responsibility of being close to
political power: “If you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance
will arise for the Jews from another place.”
But while Europe and the UK are significant, the main battle lines will be
here in the US and now is the time for American Jewry to organize. From
schools to universities to synagogues and JCCs, we must make it clear that
when 78 percent of Jews voted for Obama and filled his campaign coffers with
cash it was not in the expectation of biased policies against Israel. We’re
upset, disappointed and we won’t take it.  We’ll march in the streets, write
op-eds and blogs, and publish ads making it clear that America should be
standing with the Middle East’s only democracy and America’s most reliable
ally.
As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, our president undermines his moral
authority when he pledges that henceforth America will “forge partnerships
as opposed to simply dictating solutions,” but then only applies that pledge
to Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, but not to Israel.

Last year, right after Obama captured the democratic nomination, I received
a phone call from his campaign asking if I would serve as one of the
national chairs of “Rabbis for Obama.” It was a tempting offer. I was moved
by the candidate’s remarkable personal story, his iron discipline, his
soaring oratory and, most of all, the fact that his victory would be the
culmination of my hero Martin Luther King’s dream of a man being judged by
the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. In the end I
declined because I feared that Obama would draw a moral equivalence between
Israel and the Palestinians and pressure the former to appease the latter.
But even I never suspected that it would happen so quickly and so
lopsidedly.
What do you think? Are you surprised?

The news is not good. Will Bibi yield to pressure?

Avi

______________

 

By Chana Weisber

We are walking together. Hand in hand. Me and my youngest daughter.

A forty-something year old and a four year old.

It’s Shabbat morning and we’re walking from our home towards our synagogue. The walk is about ten minutes, but the heavy snow slows us down. A new thick layer has just fallen last night. Both of us are bundled up warmly.

We have begun from the same point and we’re heading to the same destination, but along the way our routes are diverging.

I am determined to choose the fastest, easiest course to our location. She chooses the most enjoyable one, relishing in every nuance along the way.

I stride purposefully and quickly, huddled in my coat, impatiently asking her to hurry along. She is delaying, frolicking, jumping and giggling. She savors the outdoors and experiments with the snow with her gloved hands and booted legs. Time constraints are clearly not a part of her agenda.

I direct my daughter to a well trodden path. I am looking to follow in other’s footsteps—to trace the paths that those ahead of me have already tried and tested. She, on the other hand, delights in stepping where the snow has just fallen and is freshest. She is intrigued by her unique imprints and by forging her own new path where no one has stepped.

As we turn the bend, I ask her to join me along the cleared sidewalk, where the trek is least taxing, where the path is smoothest. Yet she is determined to climb the highest mountains and snow beds along the way. She embraces the exertion with joy. And the victory of reaching the peaks and standing tall in victory is a sufficiently intoxicating reward.

As we walk, ever so slowly, she points out to me the many sparkles in the snow. To her, these are precious gifts to behold, diamonds glistening in the sunlight. To be honest, I have barely noticed these shimmers. They have disappeared in my view of the encompassing dull whiteness, as I stride quicker and quicker.

We are walking along the very same route, my young daughter and I. But our paths are diametrically divergent.

Not literally but figuratively.

Maybe it’s the four decades that are between us that cause each of us to veer towards a different direction, and to see reality through a different lens. Or maybe she is experiencing the joy and challenge of life while I am merely trudging through it.

It was a relatively short walk.

But maybe along the way, there was something that a forty-something year old learned from the innate wisdom of a four year old.
–

______________

What I Learned at Duke University’s ‘Gaza Teach-In’
by Jay Schalin
The American Thinker
February 28, 2009
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/what_i_learned_at_duke_univers.html
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6976
 Send RSS

I attended a “teach-in” about Israeli-Palestinian relations at Duke University the other night. Part of my job is to attend college lectures and report on them, in order to provide the public with some idea of who is being invited on to the American campus and what ideas they present.

As I entered the lecture hall, I saw a stack of blank Amnesty International petitions, asking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to support a U.N. investigation into the commission of war crimes by the Israel during the recent Gaza conflict.
The lecture was attended by perhaps 50 people, mostly young, and mostly of Middle Eastern descent (head scarves outnumbered yarmulkes by about six-to-one). There was also a smattering of American students.
Before the event, I was curious whether any of the four “teachers” would give a balanced presentation, or whether the affair would be totally one-sided.

The two main speakers were young pro-Palestinian activists: Laila El-Haddad, a former Al-Jazeera journalist, and Duke graduate student Rann Bar-On. There was little reason to expect much ideological balance from them, given descriptions of their activities on the Web. I particularly expected Bar-On, who has been active in such organizations as the International Solidarity Movement, which used foreign college students to disrupt anti-terror activities in Israel, to make a few inflammatory statements.

.
Bar-On did not disappoint: as if on cue he proclaimed that Zionism is inherently racist. He also said that acts of violence are the only way Palestinians can get attention in the Western media: “Without the actions of the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) and others in the sixties, the hijackings of airplanes…Palestine would not be in the world’s awareness today.”

.
“I am not advocating violence,” he continued, “but what I am saying is that it is both a legal and occasionally necessary tool in the long-term struggle for the end of oppression.”
El-Haddad offered perhaps the most profound insight into the conflict’s causes. While Israel insists that the Palestinians recognize its right to exist before negotiations, she said that, “The Palestinian response is, what borders do we recognize, and why do you not recognize the Palestinian state?” Such intransigence toward the existence of Israel makes any mutually acceptable peace agreement unlikely.

.
She also taught the following:
“Israel was actually the one that broke the cease fire,” she stated, suggesting that Gazans therefore had to resume firing rockets across the border. “In summer, there were almost no Palestinian rockets. The moment that Israel assassinated six Palestinians and killed a farmer, there was a new volley of rockets.”

.
Firing rockets into Israeli towns is not the real cause for Israel’s recent military action (“they’re just an excuse they’re using”). She said the objection of the Israelis that the “rockets don’t discriminate” between civilians and soldiers is justified by the Palestinians because “neither does the Israeli occupation discriminate, neither does the Israeli military might discriminate.” She defends such actions by the Palestinians because, “They are a stateless people and international law gives them the right or obligation to resist with whatever means possible.”

.
The Palestinian use of “human shields” (armed combatants hiding behind civilians, particularly women and children) is unavoidable “given Gaza’s crowded nature,” while the Israeli army intentionally “used Palestinian women and children as shields by asking them to search homes and by using the homes as sniper positions.”
This is merely a local conflict, and the Palestinians are not connected to other Islamic extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda.

.
All this teaching by Bar-On and El-Haddad left me rather confused, for I have seen videos (here and here) on the Web of Hamas leaders proudly proclaiming their use of women and children as human shields. I have seen footage of armed Palestinian combatants grabbing small children and forcing them to act as shields while firing guns and rockets behind them (here and here). This didn’t look very unavoidable to me.

.
I have also seen Palestinian babies dressed up as suicide bombers, and schoolchildren dressed in camouflage and holding guns, performing military exercises at school. And I have seen a Mickey Mouse-like character on Al-Aqsa, the Hamas-run television station, sing songs about AK-47s and exhort children to devote their lives to holy war. I have heard children profess their desire to kill all the Jews, and to call the Jews “animals.”
But none of this was taught at the teach-in.

.
I have read about the ties between the Hamas and Al Qaeda-both of them offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood. And while the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah has different origins, it often shares training, funding and tactics with Hamas in their mutual struggle against Israel.
Yet the participants at the teach-in denied these links. And, because so many things countered what I had seen with my own eyes, or had read in credible news sources, I didn’t trust anything that was said.

.
Another speaker, Miriam Cooke, (or miriam cooke, as she prefers), a professor of Middle Eastern studies at Duke, was more restrained and kept her comments brief. A scholar of Islam, she had previously claimed that the brutal treatment of women in the Middle East is the result of European imperialism, and that Islam’s one-sided polygamy laws are liberating for women. But she said nothing of the sort at the teach-in, and I was pleasantly surprised when she concluded her brief remarks with an off-hand suggestion that there was “plenty of blame on both sides.”

.
I’d placed my greatest hope for hearing a balanced presentation on Abdullah Antepli. Surely, I thought, Duke would not hire as its first Islamic chaplain a man who would support apologists for Hamas’s culture of death. (Not that anybody at the teach-in specifically defended children dressed as suicide bombers, of course; such unpleasant details were simply ignored.) Moreover, Antepli portrays himself as somebody “in the Muslim community who [has] been trying to build bridges between Jews and Muslims.”

.
Alas, I was wrong. Behind the charm and ecumenical collegiality, Antepli appeared fully complicit with the views of Bar-On and El-Haddad. He did little to disguise his animosity toward the state of Israel, which, he said, “has been very destructive in many, many aspects…from its very beginning.”

.
He employed Jewish teachings to attempt a critique of Israel: “Gaza,” he said, “is another very fine example of Israel…failing miserably to project Jewish compassion” and “failing miserably to uphold Jewish ethical law standards.” He continued, “As a state, Israel is shooting herself in the foot and pumping into the hearts and minds of millions of people anti-Semitism.”
Antepli added that Israel’s policies of “destruction” have caused the Muslim world to view the Palestinian situation as “hopeless,” and that such hopelessness is why “throughout history, people shed blood.”

.
When such a man provides legitimacy to the obfuscation and truth-twisting of El-Haddad and Bar-On, puts all of the blame for the breach between the Jews and Muslims on the state of Israel, and does not denounce, at the very least, the more depraved activities of Hamas, then one wonders whether he accepts other aspects of the world-wide Islamic Jihad.
So what I really learned at the teach-in is that universities like Duke are creating potential incubators of jihad on American soil while posturing as open-minded and morally superior centers of disinterested learning.
Jay Schalin is Senior Writer at the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy. He wrote this for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

____________________

 

Can you be Jewish and not believe in Hashem?

Are Jews that do not believe in Hashem the major cause of Assimilation. They would have the least ties to Judaism. Why would it matter if the Male non-believer wanted to marry a Gentile Woman if he did not believe in Hashem. He would then not believe in or follow Torah law. So what would stop Moishe from marrying Mary? Why would Moishe care about the chain of generations and what his ancestors maintained for him and themselves? 

Does he want to fit in? Does he put Gentile events ahead of Temple Events?
Does he Destroy the Temple as the central part of life and make it a social obligation to be fulfilled.

Is Assimilation all its cracked up to be? Is it as dangerous as it sounds?
Are there only supposed to be a small percentage of believers for Moshiach anyway?

How many societies have tried to destroy Judaism by created voluntary and forced Assimilation?
Meir Kahane said :

Thou shalt melt, thou shalt integrate, thou shalt amalgamate, thou shalt be an American as all others. They beat the drums for interfaith, exchanging pulpits with ministers enthusiastically, in a frantic effort to prove to Christian and Jew alike that there is essentially no difference between them. They were partially successful – the Christians were not convinced but the Jews were.

They want to be accepted above all else. If this Israel’s cry also?

For one to trust in Hashem, you must first believe in the existence of Hashem.
To a believer, no evidence is needed and to a disbeliever, no evidence is sufficient. If one is inclined to believe and wants evidence, the evidence exists.

The nature of Hashem is one of the few areas of abstract Jewish belief where there are a number of clear-cut ideas about which there is little dispute or disagreement.
Hashem Exists

The fact of Hashem’s existence is accepted almost without question. Proof is not needed, and is rarely offered. The Torah begins by stating “In the beginning, Hashem created…” It does not tell who Hashem is or how He was created.

We Jews view the existence of Hashem as a necessary prerequisite for the existence of the universe. The existence of the universe is sufficient proof of the existence of Hashem.

Rambam’s thirteen principles of faith, <span style=”font-weight:bold;”>which he thought</span> were the minimum requirements of Jewish belief, are:

   1. Hashem exists
   2. Hashem is one and unique
   3. Hashem is incorporeal
   4. Hashem is eternal
   5. Prayer is to be directed to Hashem alone and to no other
   6. The words of the prophets are true
   7. Moses’ prophecies are true, and Moses was the greatest of the prophets
   8. The Written Torah and Oral Torah were given to Moses
   9. There will be no other Torah
  10. Hashem knows the thoughts and deeds of men
  11. Hashem will reward the good and punish the wicked
  12. The Meshiach will come
  13. The dead will be resurrected

The Rambam lived a long time ago and Reform had not occured…had it?
Who decides how literally to accept the Torah?
If it is the Sages…are they Reform, Conservative Sages?
One of the primary expressions of Jewish faith, recited twice daily in prayer, is the Shema:

   1. There is only one Hashem. No other being participated in the work of creation.
   2. Hashem is a unity. He is a single, whole, complete indivisible entity. He cannot be divided into parts or described by attributes. Any attempt to ascribe attributes to Hashem is merely man’s imperfect attempt to understand the infinite.
   3. Hashem is the only being to whom we should offer praise.

Everything in the universe was created by Hashem and only by Hashem.
Judaism completely rejects the dualistic notion that evil was created by Satan or some other deity. All comes from Hashem. As Isaiah said, “I am the L-rd, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil. I am the L-rd, that does all these things.” (Isaiah 45:6-7).

Mandatory Jewish Education needs to be provided for every Jewish Child.
Each child needs to be educated in Torah.

Avi

____________________

The concept of a Secular Jew. It is like Jumbo Shrimp ( A Treif Joke)

I have a good friend who has lead our Temple Membership etc and she said
“Why can’t someone be an Observant Reform Jew”?
The Reform Jew is free to be as Observant as he/she wants to be.
She is Observant On Shabbat, she does not drive, lights etc.
I asked her why she stayed in a Reform Temple and she said
“We are all Jews, not Reform or Conservative etc”  We only have to answer to Hashem!
She does not believe that the Torah is letter for letter the word of Hashem.
She believes in the sage construction theory.

But for a Reform congregation she pulls them towards being Observant.
She does really good things.

Avi