Monday, December 28, 2015

US threatens Israel with "vindictiveness" over Iran

From JPost,

An IAEA report shows that Iran was lying about its military nuclear program, but the deal continues. US President Barack Obama (L) and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
US President Barack Obama (L) and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
(photo credit:REUTERS)
THE US administration is concerned about the possibility of a new confrontation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) latest report on Iran’s nuclear shenanigans.
“We hope it won’t happen,” [said] a senior US official ...“but if it does, it will be a completely different ball game. The administration ...will be vindictive.”

In November, the IAEA published a report on Iran’s past nuclear activities, also known as the “Possible Military Dimension” (PMD). The long-awaited report was supposed to determine and conclude whether Iran had been actively involved in acquiring and mastering the expertise to assemble a nuclear bomb.

The report, however, is somewhat inconclusive and leaves all the parties dissatisfied.

However, one thing is certain.

The process of further implementing the nuclear deal between Iran and the world powers signed in July will not be disrupted.

According to the agreement, also known as the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” (JCPA), Iran’s nuclear program will be scaled down, restricted and limited for 10 to 15 years.

Iran must, as soon as possible – around spring 2016 – dismantle uranium-enrichment sites in Natanz and Fordow, including 14,000 centrifuges, and remain with only 6,000 spinning machines. Iran is also required to dismantle and redesign its nuclear reactor in Arak, where it intended to produce plutonium, and to fully cooperate with the IAEA and to be under its intrusive inspection regime. Accordingly, the economic sanctions – the most crippling of which were imposed on Iran’s oil and gas sector ‒ will be gradually lifted.

An important aspect of the talks that led to the JCPA deal was the PMD issue. In fact, it was because of past suspicions that Iran had carried out illegal nuclear military activities and tried to deceive the world that the UN Security Council and subsequently the international community imposed in 2006 crippling economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

Iran has claimed all these years that its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes.

But the IAEA report’s findings show that Iran was lying. The report clearly states that Iran had a military nuclear program until 2003 and even probably beyond until 2009.

This included work in the field of “weaponization” – testing a chain reaction and detonation of explosives ‒ the last stage in assembling a nuclear bomb.

A KEY installation in the Iranian weaponization program was Parchin, a military base not far from Tehran. For years, Iran refused to allow IAEA inspectors any access to that base. Only after signing the agreement with world powers five months ago was partial and limited access permitted.

The IAEA arrived in Parchin and directed its Iranian counterparts on where and how to collect samples of soil, water and vegetation and how to seal them to prevent tampering. But the actual collection and sampling was carried out by Iranians with IAEA inspectors watching closely and filming the work.

Those who opposed the deal – Republicans in the US and Netanyahu in Israel ‒ argued that the sampling process would not be sufficiently reliable and leaves room for further Iranian cheating and deception. Yet, it turned out that, despite all that, the IAEA was not deceived and amassed enough evidence about Iran’s nuclear-military past.

... the report confirms Israeli intelligence assessments by the Mossad and Military Intelligence, as well as CIA estimates, that Iran was conducting weaponization tests.

Nevertheless, the IAEA report will not block implementation of the world powers’ nuclear deal with Iran. This is because the deal is not conditional on the IAEA report and doesn’t contain any clauses that categorically and unequivocally demand of Iran full transparency and revelation of its nuclear past, but only its present and future ones.

...The report disappoints Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and those in Iran who supported and pushed for the deal. They hoped that Iran would be given a clean sheet and the PMD “file” would be closed forever.

That didn’t happen.

...The report also seems to back up Netanyahu’s claim that Iran cannot be trusted and that the nuclear deal was a historic mistake.

This is the background to fears in the US administration that sooner or later – certainly before the final implementation of the JCPA next spring – Republican lawmakers will try, once again, to sabotage the deal.

And administration sources are expressing their concern that, once again, Netanyahu will jump onto the Republican bandwagon.

Last April, three months before the nuclear deal was signed, Netanyahu, in an unprecedented move, was invited by John Boehner, then the Republican speaker of the house, to address Congress. While the Republicans just wanted to embarrass the president, Netanyahu hoped to torpedo the deal. But by dancing to the tunes of the Republican Party – its major donor is casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, a friend of Netanyahu – the prime minister was thought to be interfering in US policy and siding with Obama’s opponents.

Both the Republicans and Netanyahu were outmaneuvered by Obama, who was determined to ensure that the nuclear deal happened. However, Netanyahu never publicly conceded defeat and he continues to describe the deal as a “bad” one.

IN NOVEMBER, Netanyahu met Obama in Washington and adopted a conciliatory tone, and the two seemed to mend their differences.

But “Obama didn’t forget and didn’t forgive,” US sources say. After Netanyahu’s partisan performance in Congress, Obama made a calculated decision not to retaliate against Netanyahu and Israel. Nevertheless, according to the sources, if Netanyahu repeats his anti-deal, anti-Obama behavior, “this time there will undoubtedly be a fierce reaction and retribution will follow accordingly.”

The US sources admit that even in such a worst-case scenario US military aid to Israel, currently $3.1 billion, will not be affected.

But, they point out that Netanyahu, in his meeting with Obama, asked for additional funds as “compensation” for the nuclear deal. Israel is concerned that once sanctions are lifted and money begins pouring in to revive the Iranian economy, some of it will be diverted to further sponsor anti-Israel terror groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and upgrade the Iranian armed forces.

The two leaders agreed to form a joint commission to discuss the Israeli request for additional aid. “In case Netanyahu goes wild again, we may stop or suspend or delay the talks,” the sources warned....

Jews and Christians are Partners

From Breitbart, 17 Dec 2015, by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.:

A group of prominent Orthodox rabbis in Israel, the United States and Europe have issued a historic public statement affirming that Christianity is “the willed divine outcome and gift to the nations” and urging Jews and Christians to “work together as partners to address the moral challenges of our era.”

“Jesus brought a double goodness to the world,” the statement reads. “On the one hand he strengthened the Torah of Moses majestically” and on the other hand “he removed idols from the nations,” instilling them “firmly with moral traits.”

This year 2015 marks the 50th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, the declaration issued in 1965 by the Second Vatican Council, which marked a watershed in Jewish-Christian relations.

In language unusual for its day, Nostra Aetate stated that “God holds the Jews most dear,” stressed the great “spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews,” and condemned “hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.”

Now, a group of Jewish leaders has responded in kind, expressing their desire to accept “the hand offered to us by our Christian brothers and sisters.”

“Christians are congregations that work for the sake of heaven who are destined to endure, whose intent is for the sake of heaven and whose reward will not denied,” the text reads.

The statement bears the title, “To Do the Will of Our Father in Heaven: Toward a Partnership between Jews and Christians,” and is signed by over 25 prominent Orthodox rabbis, who invite fellow Orthodox rabbis to join in signing the statement.

“Now that the Catholic Church has acknowledged the eternal Covenant between G-d and Israel, we Jews can acknowledge the ongoing constructive validity of Christianity as our partner in world redemption, without any fear that this will be exploited for missionary purposes,” it says.
Echoing recent words by Pope Francis, the document states: “We are no longer enemies, but unequivocal partners in articulating the essential moral values for the survival and welfare of humanity.”

“Neither of us can achieve G-d’s mission in this world alone,” it says.

According to Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, one of the statement’s initiators, the “real importance of this Orthodox statement is that it calls for fraternal partnership between Jewish and Christian religious leaders, while also acknowledging the positive theological status of the Christian faith.”

“This proclamation’s breakthrough is that influential Orthodox rabbis across all centers of Jewish life have finally acknowledged that Christianity and Judaism are no longer engaged in a theological duel to the death and that Christianity and Judaism have much in common spiritually and practically. Given our toxic history, this is unprecedented in Orthodoxy.” said Rabbi Dr. Eugene Korn, Academic Director of CJCUC.

Israel 'has no choice' but to expose foreign-funded NGOs

From A7, 27 Dec2015, by Ari Soffer:

...Knesset gears up for vote to force foreign-funded NGOs to reveal source of funds ...[because] EU [is] subverting Israeli democracy.

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked proposed the bill
Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked proposed the bill
Miriam Alster/Flash 90

European states' underhanded funding of radical-left Israeli NGOs, with the express purpose of undermining Israeli government policy, necessitates legislation to force those NGOs to reveal the sources of their funding...

Just hours before a Ministerial Committee on Legislation vote on a bill to force NGOs funded by foreign states to declare their sources of income, the NGO Monitor watchdog - which previously opposed such measures - has now said the initiative may be necessary.

In a statement Sunday morning, NGO Monitor said that
"legislative proposals, such as the one introduced by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and discussed today (Sunday) by the government, might be unavoidable if European countries continue to fund anti-peace groups through secretive processes."
The bill in question is the latest incarnation of a string of failed initiatives - staunchly opposed by Arab and left-wing parties - to legally require NGOs that receive funding from foreign governments to register as "foreign agents."

...NGO Monitor has consistently opposed such measures, arguing instead in favor of a campaign - which it has been leading - to convince European officials to recognize that funding such organizations actually undermines the possibility of peace in the region.

But the group's head now says it has become clear that EU states have no intention of ending funding of extreme anti-Israel groups, regardless of the ultimate consequences.

"I have previously opposed various proposals to penalize Israeli political NGOs that receive millions of shekels from foreign governments (a total of 135 million NIS has been reported, January 2012-August 2015) for use in promoting false allegations of war crimes and fueling boycotts," said Professor Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor.  

"My hope was that the public debate and exposure of the facts, both in Israel and among the European governments, media, and parliaments that provide the money, would lead to changes in policy. But without action by European funders, the Israeli government may have no choice but to act."

While opponents of the bill claim it amounts to an attack on freedom of speech, supporters note it does no such thing; the bill would not ban any NGO or limit their activities, but would merely bring transparency levels for state-funded NGOs in-line with those for privately-funded ones.

"Unlike private funding for NGOs, which is generally transparent to comply with regulations in the donors’ home countries, foreign government processes which fund NGOs are often secret and violate national sovereignty," NGO Monitor further noted.

"Israel cannot legislate rules for Europe, but it can regulate Israeli NGOs, and demand foreign donations be made public and known – without limiting such donations or impeding freedom of speech."

"The real problem is in Europe, with irresponsible funding practices, not in Israel," continued Steinberg. "When European governments try to short-circuit Israeli democracy, they should not be surprised when there is pushback."

...and from The US Department of Justice:

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was enacted in 1938.

FARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities. 

Disclosure of the required information facilitates evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons in light of their function as foreign agents.

The FARA Registration Unit of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD) is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Act.

It is time for donors to the New Israel Fund to stop funding the enemies of the Jewish state.


...There is room for views on the Left and the Right, whether we agree or not, as long as those ideals are rooted in loyalty and fairness.

There are certain opinions, however, that we cannot accept: those rooted in deception, intended to cause harm, yet presented under the guise of legitimate concern. Views that lead to actions which undermine the safety and security of Israel and the Jewish people cannot be welcomed, nor given credence, much less financial support, by those who believe in Israel as a Jewish nation.

Actions that seek to undermine the men and women who serve in the IDF; ones that would have Israeli citizens arrested in foreign countries and charged with war crimes; ones that would see Israel brought before the International Court of Justice at The Hague, are unacceptable.

Additionally, those who would encourage and support a boycott of Israel, painting the country and its people as an apartheid nation and people, cannot be seen as beneficial in any way, as they only help to make Israel appear illegitimate to world bodies and the court of public opinion.

This, of course relates to the ongoing debate in Israel about the NGO Shovrim Shtikah – Breaking the Silence, and its primary benefactor in the United States, the New Israel Fund. Breaking the Silence it has recently been revealed is simultaneously funded by Palestinian entities opposed to the existence of the Jewish state.
In May 2015, Breaking the Silence provided 57 testimonies against IDF soldiers for a report intended to prove that Israel not only used excessive force during the 2014 Operation Protective Edge, but callously targeted Palestinian women, children and non-combatants.

It has also been revealed that report was partly commissioned by the Palestinian foundation The Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat, operating in Ramallah. The Secretariat noted in a report published in 2015 that it paid Breaking the Silence to bring it testimonies against the IDF.
Additionally, Hamas, at no less than nine events it held worldwide, used the Breaking the Silence report to promote the idea of bringing Israelis up on war crimes charges. Two were held in Scotland, under the auspices of MAP (Medical Aid for Palestine) and the anti-Israel Scottish National Party. Other events took place in Zurich, Luxembourg, Madrid, and in several places in the United States, under the banner of the New Israel Fund.
Following the intense advocacy of the Hamas-backed groups, last month an IDF reservist who served in the Operation Protective Edge was detained over accusations of war crimes after landing in Britain on a business trip. He was released after Israel’s embassy intervened, but it confirmed that groups are working hard to expose individual Israeli citizens to international scrutiny.

Last week, 20 IDF combat soldiers began a campaign to urge donors to groups opposed to the IDF – and funded by the New Israel Fund in America – to recognize the damage their money is causing. Letters were delivered to more than 100 major donors to the New Israel Fund, including Barbara and Eric Dobkin, Murray Koppelman, the Leichtag Foundation, the Jewish Communal Fund, and Rabbi Gordon Tucker of Temple Israel of White Plains, New York.

Offering the benefit of the doubt, the letter stated, “The goal that you sought to achieve with your donation was to support Zionism and support organizations working for human rights and against anti-democratic activities. You support organizations that you believe work towards creating a better, saner, more democratic, and more moral Israel.”

They called on these donors to use their clout to “[d]emand that the New Israel Fund cease and desist from supporting organizations that defame IDF soldiers, in Israel and around the world. These include organizations such as Breaking the Silence, B’Tselem, Yesh Din, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI), Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, and Machsom Watch.”
It cannot be ignored that Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon forbade the entrance of Breaking the Silence to all IDF bases, and Education Minister Naftali Bennett announced that he forbade the entrance of Breaking the Silence to all schools.

Within the US Jewish community there is no shortage of opinions. There are issues of religion which our rabbis and leaders argue over.

When it comes to the State of Israel, however, the Israel Defense Forces must be a holy entity for our people. When work delegitimizes the State of Israel, seeks to have it citizens threatened as they travel around the world, and causes the military to be anything less than a force of strength and security against Israel’s enemies, it harms the Jewish state.

It is time for donors to the New Israel Fund to stop funding the enemies of the Jewish state.

*George Birnbaum is a former chief of staff to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

**Hank Sheinkopf, CEO of Sheinkopf Communications, is a political strategist who has worked on campaigns in four continents. His clients have included former president Bill Clinton.

***Ronn Torossian is CEO of a top 20 US PR agency, and author of For Immediate Release.

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Egyptian expert says Muslim claims over al-Aksa mosque are baseless.

Egyptian philosopher, expert on Arabic and Islamic studies, says Muslim claims over al-Aksa mosque are baseless.


Dr. Youssef Ziedan was insistent on pronouncing the words "Beit Hamikdash," or, Temple in Jerusalem, clearly and in Hebrew.

An Egyptian philosopher and expert on  Arabic and Islamic studies,  Ziedan sat in the Egyptian CBC studios and explained at length to his host why, in his opinion, Muslim claims over al-Aksa mosque in Jerusalem are baseless. The CBC interviewer, Khairy Ramadan, challenged Zieden while taking in his words eagerly.

..."Beit Hamikdash is a Hebrew term," Ziedan insisted in his interview. "Hence, in my opinion, the al-Aksa mosque isn't legitimate. Al-Kuds, the temple, is an ancient Hebrew word, and Muslims adopted the word." He turned to his Muslim brethren and said: "You're annexing the city, annexing the word, and claiming that it is holy to you. But from where exactly? Can you tell a Jew that Jerusalem is not his?"

... Youssef Ziedan, [is] a Muslim from birth, who has never been to Israel or been a particular fan of the Jewish nation, and remains one of the most important researchers on religions in Egyptian academia.

Jerusalem is not explicitly referenced in the Koran. In their claims on the Temple Mount, Muslims reference the term "Al-Aksa Mosque," which does appear in the holy book, sans a geographic pinpoint. Ziedan claims that interpretation claiming that the mosque is situated precisely in Jerusalem, is baseless.

The Muslims base their claims on the first verse in chapter 17 of the Koran, titled, "The Night Journey," which reads: "Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque to the Further Mosque."

Based on the Muslim faith, the verse speaks of a miracle bestowed on Muhammad by God, in which the messenger (Muhammad), was led in the middle of the night from the mosque in the city of Mecca (the "Holy mosque) to a mosque in another city (the "further mosque), further away, believed to be al-Aqsa mosque, which, for generations, was interpreted as having been located in Jerusalem.

Ziedan however, has his own, alternative theory. He claims that the phrase "Al Aksa" refers to a mosque on the outskirts of the city of Ta'if, west of Mecca. He bases his hypothesis on the teachings of the ancient Muslim historian Al-Waqidi, born 100 years after the appearance of Muhammad, who made similar claims.

"Al Aksa mosque didn't exist back then," said Ziedan, "there was no city named al-Quds and modern teachings claiming this are disastrous."

Khairy Ramadan challenged Ziedan, and asked him why he believes Muslims today insist on the holiness of Jerusalem. Ziedan attributed the stubbornness to politics.

"The religious aspect in the Arab-Israeli conflict is intentionally political."
Ziedan claimed that Al-Aksa mosque in Jerusalem was built by Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, the 5th caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty in Damascus, 73 years after the founding of Islam. If this is true, then Al-Aksa could not have been in existence when Muhammad made the overnight journey in the Koran's 17th chapter. Ziedan said that Marwan built al-Aksa in order to infringe on the prestige of Mecca, which at the time was controlled by his political enemies.

"Al-Aqsa mosque was a pawn in a political game, led by ibn Marwan," said Ziedan.

Ziedan's controversial interview surfaced at a sensitive time - a time when Palestinians and Israelis are engaging in violent confrontations in the West Bank, while the Muslim world is echoing cries of concern over Al-Aksa, claiming that it is in danger due to Jewish presence on site.

In his CBC appearance, Ziedan went further, clearing the Israeli government of responsibility from Palestinian claims that it was at fault for the 1982 massacres in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. Ziedan said that, since the massacre was carried out by the Kataeb Party, also known as Phalange - predominantly Christian Lebanese and right-wing - there is no reason to blame Ariel Sharon, Minister of Defense at the time.

The Egyptian newspaper, Al-Dustour, mocked Ziedan for these comments and coined him as the "occupation's defense attorney."

A Regular Critic

Dr. Youssef Ziedan, 57, a lecturer at the University of Alexandria, is a philosopher and expert in Arabic and Islamic studies. He is secular and outwardly opposes the Muslim Brotherhood. Ziedan has written a number of novels in the past decade, many of which have been best-sellers in the Arab world. His most known work, titled Azazeel, has been translated into 16 languages and has awarded Ziedan international recognition.

His most recent CBC interview is not the first instance at which he speaks up against mainstream Islam.

In a televised interview a year ago, Ziedan proposed that Egypt reevaluate its relationship with the Jewish nation. He explained that a historic rivalry with Judaism negatively influenced Muslims, and, in modern days, is used by politicians as a means of manipulation in order to seed provocation. "Whoever wants to win over the public, must curse Israelis" Ziedan said, "but after they rise to power, they treat them nicely."

"It's idiotic," he explained, "and exploits the ignorance of the public."

Reactions to Ziedan

The Egyptian public remained relatively calm and unmoved following Ziedan's claims.

...Despite harsh criticism, no one demanded that Zeidan face extreme, harsh repercussions for his statements - such as revoking his position at the university, or inflicting physical punishment on him. No court complaint was filed against him, and should one be filed, it is likely that it will mysteriously disappear.

Translated by Coral Braun.

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

IDF Soldiers ask NY Jews: Don’t aid terror supporters

From Behind the News (Blog), 21 Dec 2015:

img645740 (1)

An unusual letter from 20 IDF reservists, including officers, was delivered Monday to Rabbi Gordon Tucker and the Leadership of Temple Israel of White Plains, New York, regarding the community’s donations to the New Israel Fund. Similar letters were sent to 100 other NIF donors.

The letter notes that the community donates significantly to the New Israel Fund, and asks that the community demand that the New Israel Fund cease supporting organizations that defame IDF soldiers, in Israel and around the world, and protect terrorists....

The full text of the letter follows:
“In recent years, you have donated significantly to numerous Israeli organizations and associations. The goal that you sought to achieve with your donation was to support Zionism and support organizations working for human rights and against anti-democratic activities. You support organizations that you believe work towards creating a better, saner, more democratic, and more moral Israel.
“The reason why you donate funds is not in doubt, nor has it ever been. However, the funds you donate are not being used to serve the purpose for which you donated them. We also know that you donate to the New Israel Fund and we wholeheartedly believe that you love the New Israel Fund, support its activities, and want to strengthen it. We won’t argue the point.
“However, there is one thing we ask, and, as active-duty and reserve soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces, we feel it is our right to ask.
“Please demand that the New Israel Fund cease and desist from supporting organizations that defame us IDF soldiers, in Israel and around the world.  These include organizations such as Breaking the Silence, B’Tselem, Yesh Din, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI), Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, and Machsom Watch.
“Please demand that the New Israel Fund cease and desist from supporting organizations which protect terrorists who have attacked and stabbed Israelis, even in the current wave of terror which has been plaguing Israel for over a year. These organizations, which are supported by the New Israel Fund, include: B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual, Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, Bimkom – Planners for Planning Rights, Ta’ayush, Adalah, Physicians for Human Rights – Israel (PHR-IL), and Rabbis for Human Rights.
“Just this week, Israel’s Minister of Defense, Moshe Ya’alon, forbade the entrance of Breaking the Silence to all IDF bases. This is an extraordinary move expressing how deeply Israeli society perceives that is has been hurt by this organization. Israel’s Minister of Education, Naftali Bennett, announced that he forbade the entrance of Breaking the Silence to all Israeli schools.
“Those same organizations are delegitimization organizations. Their purpose is solely to defame the soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces and the State of Israel around the world. The activities of Breaking the Silence are extremely anti-Israeli and are perceived as such by the majority of Israeli society.
“The organization works in various ways against Israel: They lie both within Israel and around the world, claiming that many IDF soldiers are ‘war criminals.’ Several of these organizations deal with promoting lawsuits against IDF soldiers and officers in Israel and around the world. They hold events at the United Nations and participate in conventions held by the European Union, where they falsely present the State of Israel as an apartheid state, a state that practices ethnic cleansing, and other horrifying lies. In interviews to the international media they claim that the soldiers of the IDF are war criminals, that the State of Israel is a war criminal. They defend terrorists in court, even those who were caught in the act, and file petitions for their release and against revoking their Israeli citizenship. These organizations take legal action to prevent the destruction of terrorists’ houses by the state, and defame the state of Israel in every arena possible.
“Their actions, the things they say and write against the State of Israel and IDF soldiers in the foreign press feeds anti-Israel and anti-Zionist campaigns, and even terror organizations such as Hamas quote from things Breaking the Silence say during Hamas actions against the State of Israel on the international stage.
“The worst of it is not that you support and fund these organizations, but that so do European countries and Palestinian foundations. Palestinians fund their actions.  The question is whether you, dear donor, knew of this activity. Does it reflect your values and do you agree that this is the use for the money which you donate to these organizations?
“Dear lover of Israel – don’t let these Foreign Agent organizations, funded by foreign governments, tear away at Israeli democracy. Don’t let them tamper with the State of Israel.
“With regards,
Sergeant Bar Shalev, Judea and Samaria Division
Air Force Officer Daniel Salame
Lieutenant Ofir Levine, Engineering Corps
​Staff Sergeant Ori Moskovich, Unit 926
Sergeant Major Matan Milles, 3 Squadron, The Navy
Staff Sergeant Chaim Prince, Engineering Corps
Staff Sergeant Aviad Harush, Unit 7002
Staff Sergeant Ilana Valdman, The Home Front Command
First Sergeant Hanani Ladel, Regiment 188
Staff Sergeant Almog Qashty, The Military Police
​Sergeant Major Ze’ev Lev, Unit 7012
Staff Sergeant Eli Baraz, Regional Brigade Binyamin
Staff Sergeant Matan Haratz, Unit 710
Sergeant Major Lev Liberman, Central Command
Sergeant Major Matan Arad, Supply Unit 91
Staff Sergeant Naama Carmel, Intelligence
Staff Sergeant Tzur Ofir, Unit 9135
Staff Sergeant Ariel Iskov, Unit 868
Staff Sergeant Uria Peled, Air Defense Forces
Sergeant Major Nadav Simantov, Unit 43

Fatah Hails Terror Master Samir Kuntar

From Algemeiner, 21 December 2015, by :

The video clip of a speech Samir Kuntar gave in Lebanon, posted on Fatahs off
The video clip of a speech Samir Kuntar gave in Lebanon, posted on Fatah’s official Facebook page on the day of his funeral. Photo: Screenshot.
The official Facebook page of the Fatah political faction, headed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, on Monday lauded Hezbollah official and arch-terrorist Samir Kuntar, assassinated on Saturday night in Damascus...

Fatah uploaded a video clip of a speech Kuntar gave in Lebanon, to coincide with his funeral there on Monday.

In the video, Kuntar says,
“I returned today from Palestine, but believe me… I am prepared to go back to Palestine.”

Among the comments below the posting are sentiments such as, “Allah rest his soul.”

...this honoring of Kuntar – whom Israel is accused of assassinating – comes not from terrorist organizations, such as Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, but rather from Fatah, considered by the international community to be moderate, two-state-solution-seekers.

“This is an extreme case where every civilized person must be appalled by a terrorist who took credit for killing a four-year-old child,” said Dr. Dan Schueftan, director of the National Security Studies Center at Haifa University.

Schueftan, an expert on Mideast affairs, was referring to Kuntar’s particularly heinous slaughter of an Israeli family in Nahariya in 1979, when he was 16 years old.

But, Schueftan told The Algemeiner,
“It turns out that nothing is too low or too barbaric — even for the mainstream of the Palestinian national movement — to adulate when it comes to killing innocent Jews. Though Fatah at the moment is reluctant to use massive terrorism, for fear of Israeli counter-measures, it still educates its public to call a child-murderer a hero and a saint.”

Kuntar served 30 years in an Israeli jail, until his release in 2008, as part of a prisoner swap with Hezbollah, which returned the bodies of IDF reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, kidnapped and killed during the 2006 Second War in Lebanon, in exchange for five Palestinian terrorists.

Both Shi’ite and Sunni jihad are on the march

From JPost, 17 Dec 2015, by Caroline Glick:

For the first time in a decade, Americans are beginning to think seriously about foreign policy

 At some point between 2006 and 2008, the American people decided to turn their backs on the world. Between the seeming futility of the war in Iraq and the financial collapse of 2008, Americans decided they’d had enough.

In Barack Obama, they found a leader who could channel their frustration. Obama’s foreign policy, based on denying the existence of radical Islam and projecting the responsibility for Islamic aggression on the US and its allies, suited their mood just fine. If America is responsible, then America can walk away. Once it is gone, so the thinking has gone, the Muslims will forget their anger and leave America alone.
Sadly, Obama’s foreign policy assumptions are utter nonsense. America’s abandonment of global leadership has not made things better. Over the past seven years, the legions of radical Islam have expanded and grown more powerful than ever before. And now in the aftermath of the jihadist massacres in Paris and San Bernadino, the threats have grown so abundant that even Obama cannot pretend them away.
As a consequence, for the first time in a decade, Americans are beginning to think seriously about foreign policy. But are they too late? Can the next president repair the damage Obama has caused?
The Democrats give no cause for optimism. Led by former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential hopefuls stubbornly insist that there is nothing wrong with Obama’s foreign policy. If they are elected to succeed him, they pledge to follow in his footsteps.
On the Republican side, things are more encouraging, but also more complicated.
Republican presidential hopefuls are united in their rejection of Obama’s policy of ignoring the Islamic supremacist nature of the enemy. All reject the failed assumptions of Obama’s foreign policy.
All have pledged to abandon them on their first day in office. Yet for all their unity in rejecting Obama’s positions, Republicans are deeply divided over what alternative foreign policy they would adopt.
This divide has been seething under the surface throughout the Obama presidency. It burst into the open at the Republican presidential debate Wednesday night.
The importance of the dispute cannot be overstated.
Given the Democrats’ allegiance to Obama’s disastrous policies, the only hope for a restoration of American leadership is that a Republican wins the next election. But if Republicans nominate a candidate who fails to reconcile with the realities of the world as it is, then the chance for a reassertion of American leadership will diminish significantly.
To understand just how high the stakes are, you need to look no further than two events that occurred just before the Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate.
Iran enters the home straight.
On Tuesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency voted to close its investigation of Iran’s nuclear program. As far as the UN’s nuclear watchdog is concerned, Iran is good to go.
The move is a scandal. Its consequences will be disastrous.
The IAEA acknowledges that Iran continued to advance its illicit military nuclear program at least until 2009. Tehran refuses to divulge its nuclear activities to IAEA investigators as it is required to do under binding UN Security Council resolutions.
Iran refuses to allow IAEA inspectors access to its illicit nuclear sites. As a consequence, the IAEA lacks a clear understanding of what Iran’s nuclear status is today and therefore has no capacity to prevent it from maintaining or expanding its nuclear capabilities. This means that the inspection regime Iran supposedly accepted under Obama’s nuclear deal is worthless.
The IAEA also accepts that since Iran concluded its nuclear accord with the world powers, it has conducted two tests of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons, despite the fact that it is barred from doing so under binding Security Council resolutions.
But really, who cares? Certainly the Obama administration doesn’t. The sighs of relief emanating from the White House and the State Department after the IAEA decision were audible from Jerusalem to Tehran.
The IAEA’s decision has two direct consequences.
First, as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Wednesday, it paves the way for the cancellation of the UN’s economic sanctions against Iran within the month.
Second, with the IAEA’s decision, the last obstacle impeding Iran’s completion of its nuclear weapons program has been removed. Inspections are a thing of the past. Iran is in the clear.
As Iran struts across the nuclear finish line, the Sunni jihadists are closing their ranks.
Hours after the IAEA vote, Turkey and Qatar announced that Turkey is setting up a permanent military base in the Persian Gulf emirate for the first time since the fall of the Ottoman Empire a century ago. Their announcement indicates that the informal partnership between Turkey and Qatar on the one side, and Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic State on the other hand, which first came to the fore last year during Operation Protective Edge, is now becoming a more formal alliance.
Just as the Obama administration has no problem with Iran going nuclear, so it has no problem with this new jihadist alliance.

During Operation Protective Edge, the administration supported this jihadist alliance against the Israeli-Egyptian partnership. Throughout Hamas’s war against Israel, Obama demanded that Israel and Egypt accept Hamas’s cease-fire terms, as they were presented by Turkey and Qatar.

Since Operation Protective Edge, the Americans have continued to insist that Israel and Egypt bow to Hamas’s demands and open Gaza’s international borders. The Americans have kept up their pressure on Israel and Egypt despite Hamas’s open alliance with ISIS in the Sinai Peninsula.

So, too, the Americans have kept Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi at arm’s length, and continue to insist that the Muslim Brotherhood is a legitimate political force despite Sisi’s war against ISIS. Washington continues to embrace Qatar as a “moderate” force despite the emirate’s open support for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and ISIS.

As for Turkey, it appears there is nothing Ankara can do that will dispel the US notion that it is a credible partner in the war on terror. Since 2011, Turkey has served as Hamas’s chief state sponsor, and as ISIS’s chief sponsor. It is waging war against the Kurds – the US’s strongest ally in its campaign against ISIS.

In other words, with the US’s blessing, the forces of both Shi’ite and Sunni jihad are on the march.

And the next president will have no grace period for repairing the damage.

Although the Republican debate Wednesday night was focused mainly on the war in Syria, its significance is far greater than one specific battlefield.

And while there were nine candidates on the stage, there were only two participants in this critical discussion.

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz and Marco Antonio Rubio

Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz faced off after weeks of rising contention between their campaigns.

In so doing, they brought the dispute that has been seething through their party since the Bush presidency into the open.

Rubio argued that in Syria, the US needs to both defeat ISIS and overthrow President Bashar Assad.
Cruz countered that the US should ignore Assad and concentrate on utterly destroying ISIS. America’s national interest, he said, is not advanced by overthrowing Assad, because in all likelihood, Assad will be replaced by ISIS.

Cruz added that America’s experience in overthrowing Middle Eastern leaders has shown that it is a mistake to overthrow dictators. Things only got worse after America overthrew Saddam Hussein and supported the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak.

For his part, Rubio explained that since Assad is Iran’s puppet, leaving him in power empowers Iran. The longer he remains in power, the more control Iran will wield over Syria and Lebanon.

The two candidates’ dispute is far greater than the question of who rules Syria. Their disagreement on Syria isn’t a tactical argument. It goes to the core question of what is the proper role of American foreign policy.

Rubio’s commitment to overthrowing Assad is one component of a wider strategic commitment to fostering democratic governance in Syria. By embracing the cause of democratization through regime change, Rubio has become the standard bearer of George W. Bush’s foreign policy.

Bush’s foreign policy had two seemingly contradictory anchors – a belief that liberal values are universal, and cultural meekness.

Bush’s belief that open elections would serve as a panacea for the pathologies of the Islamic world was not supported by empirical data. Survey after survey showed that if left to their own devices, the people of Muslim world would choose to be led by Islamic supremacists. But Bush rejected the data and embraced the fantasy that free elections lead a society to embrace liberal norms of peace and human rights.

As to cultural meekness, since the end of the Cold War and with the rise of political correctness, the notion that America could call for other people to adopt American values fell into disrepute. For American foreign policy practitioners, the idea that American values and norms are superior to Islamic supremacist values smacked of cultural chauvinism.

Consequently, rather than urge the Islamic world to abandon Islamic supremacism in favor of liberal democracy, in their public diplomacy efforts, Americans sufficed with vapid pronouncements of love and respect for Islam.

Islamic supremacists, for their part stepped into the ideological void without hesitation. In Iraq, the Iranian regime spent hundreds of millions of dollars training Iranian-controlled militias, building Iranian-controlled political parties and publishing pro-Iranian newspapers as the US did nothing to support pro-American Iraqis.

Although many Republicans opposed Bush’s policies, few dared make their disagreement with the head of their party public. As a result, for many, Wednesday’s debate was the first time the foundations of Bush’s foreign policy were coherently and forcefully rejected before a national audience.

If Rubio is the heir to Bush, Cruz is the spokesman for Bush’s until now silent opposition. In their longheld view, democratization is not a proper aim of American foreign policy. Defeating America’s enemies is the proper aim of American foreign policy.

Rubio’s people claim that carpet bombing ISIS is not a strategy. They are right. There are parts missing from in Cruz’s position on Syria.

But then again, although still not comprehensive, Cruz’s foreign policy trajectory has much to recommend it. First and foremost, it is based on the world as it is, rather than a vision of how the world should be. It makes a clear distinction between America’s allies and America’s enemies and calls for the US to side with the former and fight the latter.

It is far from clear which side will win this fight for the heart of the Republican Party. And it is impossible to know who the next US president will be.

But whatever happens, the fact that after their seven-year vacation, the Americans are returning the real world is a cause for cautious celebration.



Tuesday, December 22, 2015

US lawmakers condemn EU labelling of settlement products

From The Times of Israel, 17 Dec 2015, by Rebecca Shimoni Stoil:

Bipartisan resolution accuses Europe of encouraging boycott of Israel, setting back prospects for peace

Palestinian workers on November 11, 2015 at a date packaging factory in the Jordan Valley in the West Bank. This produce will be labeled if exported to the EU as "Product of the West Bank (Israeli settlement)." (Melanie Lidman/Times of Israel)
Palestinian workers on November 11, 2015 at a date packaging factory in the Jordan Valley in the West Bank. This produce will be labeled if exported to the EU as "Product of the West Bank (Israeli settlement)." (Melanie Lidman/Times of Israel)
WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of Congress members introduced a resolution Thursday expressing staunch opposition to guidelines issued recently by the European Union mandating the labeling of products manufactured in Israeli West Bank settlements and in the Golan Heights.
Democratic representatives Eliot Engel and Nita Lowey, and Republicans Peter Roskam and Ed Royce – all legislators with strong pro-Israel records – co-authored the resolution. In a statement released after the resolution was submitted, the four accused the EU of advancing a general boycott of Israel.
The guidelines, they said, “only encourage and prompt consumers to boycott all Israeli goods.”
“This is counterproductive to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, harmful to U.S. national security interests, and contributes to the deeply misguided anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement,” the four complained. “Boycotts chip away at economic integration, which negatively affects Israelis and Palestinians alike. The establishment of the European Economic Community was predicated on the notion that peace and security are achieved through trade, economic cooperation, and job creation – not boycotts and isolation. The same is true for Israelis and Palestinians.”
The resolution itself expresses alarm that “politically motivated acts of boycott, divestment from, and sanctions against Israel represent a concerted effort to extract concessions from Israel outside of direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, and undermines efforts to achieve a negotiated two-state solution,” a position that the sponsors wrote was itself in contravention of longstanding US policy.
“The United States has long opposed efforts to impose solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict outside of direct negotiations between the two parties,” they noted, adding that “the United States has historically been at the forefront of combating economic pressure against Israel and has enacted legislation to counter both the Arab League Boycott of Israel and the BDS movement.”
The resolution also cited recent legislation – at both the federal and state levels — that discourage support for BDS actions, and even call for US negotiators to discourage potential trading partners from engaging in such actions.
It noted a law passed earlier this year as part of a trade negotiating package states that the United States should discourage potential trading partners from adopting policies to limit trade or investment relations with Israel when negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with European countries.
At the same time, multiple state legislatures – including Tennessee, Indiana, Illinois, South Carolina and New York — have passed laws and resolutions rejecting BDS practices, and in some cases, divesting state funds from any body that engages in BDS.
The text of the resolution itself calls upon all of the European governmental bodies “to oppose any boycott, divestment, or sanctions initiatives aimed at singling out Israel, to refrain from actions counterproductive to resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and to work on bringing the parties back to the negotiating table.” It also encourages EU states “to exert prudence in the implementation of the European Union labeling guidelines.”
The legislators noted that the European Union is Israel’s largest trading partner, arguing that as such, “the European Union should play a constructive role to help bring the parties back to the negotiating table and resolve their differences, not try to extract one-sided concessions and feed into politically-motivated acts to boycott Israel.”
The resolution is included as part of the omnibus funding package, and is set to go through its first rounds of voting on Friday. The package is considered must-pass legislation in order to stave off the risk of a government shutdown – and has been hammered out in a series of bipartisan trade-offs.
If the resolution stays in the package, its chances of passing are considered good, since Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and the Obama administration both have indicated that they hope to see the omnibus spending bill’s speedy passage.
Left-wing groups, such as Americans for Peace Now, have complained that throughout the past year, there has been an increase in Congressional moves that they say violate longstanding US policy differentiating between the legal status of lands claimed by Israel after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and lands within Israel’s pre-1967 boundaries.
This resolution’s sponsors noted in their statement that when it came to boycott, divestment or sanctions actions, they did not in fact make any differentiation. “This resolution expresses our opposition to the EU labeling decision and all other boycott, divestment, and sanctions efforts directed against Israel or Israeli-controlled territory,” the four noted.
At the same time, the text of the resolution “reaffirms” Congress’s “strong support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states, a democratic, Jewish State of Israel and a viable, democratic, Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition.”

Hamas and ISIS cooperating to fight Egypt

gaza salafists
Salafists in Gaza fly ISIS ( Islamic State) flags. 
(photo credit: REUTERS)
Hamas and Islamic State in Sinai have been cooperating in the smuggling of weapons, demonstrating that while Hamas is a nationalist Islamist movement, it also has common roots from which to build a functioning relationship with jihadists.

“Over the past two years, IS Sinai helped Hamas move weapons from Iran and Libya through the peninsula, taking a generous cut from each shipment,” according to a Washington Institute for Near East Policy report on Tuesday by Ehud Yaari, a Lafer international fellow at the think tank.

Yaari, a Middle East commentator for Channel 2, points to a secret visit by Islamic State in Sinai’s military leader, Shadi al-Menai, to Gaza this month to hold talks with Hamas’s military wing.

Both Hamas and Islamic State trace their origins to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Sheikh Hassan al-Banna.

Hamas is a direct offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and until its official founding in 1987, it ran its activities through the Islamic Association founded in the mid-1970s and headed by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

It was the first intifada that led the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza to embark “upon a direct and violent confrontation with Israel,” as explained in detail by Anat Kurz and Nahman Tal in a 1977 article for the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies titled, “Hamas: Radical Islam in a National Struggle.”

“The operational turn was marked by an organizational change – the establishment of Hamas,” they wrote.

While all Islamist movements, including Islamic State and al-Qaida, are offshoots from the more pragmatic Muslim Brotherhood, they have no patience and use violence to seek immediate results to achieve their goals.

Despite some shared goals between Salafist jihadists and Hamas, such as wanting to establish a caliphate to rule the world, they go about it in different ways.

Islamic State, for example, totally rejects the modern concept of nationalism, while Hamas, and its mother movement the Muslim Brotherhood, accept the reality in order to build its power base in each state over time.

In addition, “Hamas rejects the Salafi jihadist concept of declaring Muslims as apostates (takfir), if they fail to follow the strict Salafi interpretation, and the declaration of jihad against irreligious Muslim rulers,” says Prof. Meir Litvak, the director for the Alliance Center of Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University in a journal article “‘Martyrdom is Life’: Jihad and Martyrdom in the Ideology of Hamas.”

Litvak, an expert on Hamas, told The Jerusalem Post that while Hamas and Islamic State have ideological differences, they have a common enemy now, which is the Egyptian government.

“Hamas needs the Salafi jihadists to break the Egyptian siege on Gaza. The Salafists need Hamas’s technical know-how to produce short-range rockets and other weapons,” he said. “Hence, they ignore their ideological differences for the time being and cooperate.”

Jonathan Schanzer, vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, told the Post, “Hamas has always been part of the global jihad movement, despite persistent claims that it is a nationalist terrorist group with strictly nationalist aims.”

Hamas and al-Qaida trained together in Sudan during the early 1990s and the two terrorist groups maintained close ties for more than a decade, said Schanzer, a former terrorism finance analyst at the US Department of the Treasury.

Furthermore, Hamas also cooperates with other Shi’ite terrorist supporters and is plugged into the Iran-sponsored terrorist network, he commented.

The Gaza-based group’s “deep ties to Hezbollah have yielded finance and operational gains over the years,” added Schanzer.

“It is further instructive to note that illicit channels of finance are often shared by multiple actors."

In this case, Islamic State and Hamas appear to be sharing the same channels for weapons smuggling and perhaps other financial means.

“In some cases, this is simply a marriage of convenience. In others, it is a deeper strategic cooperation,” continued Schanzer, adding that in the case of these two terrorist groups, the shared disdain for Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s government could be an indication of the latter.

Most Israelis want the New Israel Fund banned

From A7, 17 Dec 2015:

Poll conducted Tuesday shows 53% support a law preventing the radical [New Israel Fund] from operating in Israel...

NIF's CEO, Daniel Sokatch
NIF's CEO, Daniel Sokatch
A poll conducted Tuesday shows that 53% of the Israeli public support a law that would prevent the New Israel Fund (NIF) from operating in Israel, while 24% oppose it, and the rest have either not heard of the NIF or have no opinion.
A much larger majority – 67% – said that they support Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon's (Likud) recent decision to ban the ultra-leftist Breaking the Silence from entering IDF bases.

A full 58% of the public said that Breaking the Silence should be outlawed, while 31% opposed this and 11% had no opinion on the matter.

Two thirds of the Israeli public – 66% – support outlawing B'tselem. A whopping 80% of respondents from the religious sector supported the change.

The NIF is an ultra-leftist fund that has been accused of attempting to subvert Israeli society by supporting hostile organizations like Adalah and B'tselem. NIF-funded organizations provided 92% of the Israeli quotes in the infamous Goldstone Report that followed Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008-9. The Fund has also set up a network of women's organizations whose opponents accuse them of fomenting strife between women and men, encouraging divorce and encouraging a breakdown of the family.

Breaking the Silence has been accused of inciting against Israel on the global stage by accusing it of "war crimes."

The organization was banned earlier this week by Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon from entering IDF camps and engaging with IDF soldiers, and Education Minister Naftali Bennett (Jewish Home) later banned the extremist organization from operating within Israel's school system.

Arabs living in the West: no morals and no excuses

From The Times of Israel, 18 Dec 2015, by Fred Maroun:

Anti-Semitism has reached nauseating levels, and while some Western politicians recognize this, they have done little to address the problem. The world is highly biased against the one and only Jewish state, non-Israeli Jews are increasingly victims of violence, and Israeli Jews are under threat from multiple fronts while the criminals attacking their civilians are called a “resistance” movement.

A terrorist attack on French civilians raised the world’s ire, but almost daily stabbings of Israeli civilians over weeks and months go practically unnoticed. In fact, Jews are blamed for defending themselves. We live in an age of heightened human rights awareness, but human rights abuses against Jews are considered unimportant.
There are three parties mainly responsible for this anti-Semitism:
  • The Arabs who refused to accept the 1947 UN partition plan, fought over a dozen wars trying to destroy Israel, and continue to promote hatred against Jews.
  • The Muslims who blindly support anti-Zionism while using Israel as an excuse for their own crimes.
  • The modern West that has allowed anti-Semitism to disguise itself as anti-Zionism and infect its universities and much of its media and political class.

  • As an Arab immigrant in the West, I am implicated twice in this crime, first as an Arab and then as a citizen of the West. It is my duty to do my part in reversing the anti-Semitism that is promoted in my name.
    But only tiny minorities of Arab and Muslim immigrants are doing their part. The guiltiest are those who advocate anti-Zionism, and the slightly less guilty are those who remain silent and let the haters, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, speak in their name.
    While Jews in the West spontaneously help us when we need help (such as with the Syrian refugee crisis), we Arabs do less than nothing for the Jews. We in fact maliciously battle against Israel’s right to exist, and we threaten the security of Jews in the West.
    While Jews endorse a two-state solution, lobby the Israeli government, and denounce the slightest ethical transgression by Israel, we Arabs routinely lie about Israel and about Palestinian terrorism, and we demand nothing less than the end of the Jewish state.
    If we Arab immigrants were not morally bankrupt, we would demand that Palestinians work genuinely towards a viable two-state solution, we would support peace by supporting Israel, and we would fight the BDS movement.
    If we Arab immigrants told the truth openly and without fear, the anti-Semitism of so-called “pro-Palestinian” organizations would be exposed. We have the power to do great good, but we choose to do great harm.
    When I note that Israel has many organizations promoting peace with the Palestinians while the Palestinians have zero organizations promoting peace with Israel, I am told that Palestinians are afraid to create such organizations because their society is controlled by thugs. But what about us, Arab immigrants? What is our excuse?
    We Arab immigrants are the accomplices and the enablers of the crime of anti-Semitism. We lament our wars and dictators, but then we move to the West and we support both while enjoying the West’s economic opportunities and freedoms.
    This is absolutely disgusting, and we should be ashamed of ourselves.

    From Toronto 1991 to San Bernardino 2015

    by Norman L. Roth, Toronto Canada

    The conventional media, inclusive of Canada’s “official” Jewish branch, have air-brushed out of existence, a methodically planned 1991 Islamic terror plot, targeting 4,500 people in the Toronto metropolitan area. In retrospect, It can now be viewed as part of a deeply ingrained pattern of high-frequency behaviour, that has since been expanded to a global scale.

    In 1991, five “Black Muslim” followers of the Pakistani based Jamaat Al Fuqra, stood accused of conspiring to blow up, simultaneously, two buildings in  Toronto’s Greater Metro Area.

    If successful, the superbly organized cross-border operation would have resulted in the mass-murder and horrendous injuries  to as many as 4,500 Hindu Canadians. At the time, these events seemed isolated criminal activity. Now it is clear that they are structurally  linked to other events: Beads in a  quarter century  time-line  of well-planned, organized Jihad terror; Arising from the very core of Islamic practice and belief. Not the actions of a ‘small minority’ of misguided and deviant individuals, who are “unrepresentative of the overwhelming majority of peaceful Muslims”.

    The target sites were:
    1. The India Center Cinema, capacity 500 plus staff, on Gerard St. East in downtown Toronto.
    2. The VISHNU Temple [capacity about 4000 worshippers] in Richmond Hill.
    The attacks were timed diabolically  for the ancient  Festival of Lights, Diwali, when both sites are usually filled to capacity.

    At the end of the trial in 1993 the presiding judge addressed the guilty parties:
    “...A cold blooded conspiracy....Your actions are despicable; and represent a challenge to the fabric of our society”
    The plot was enabled locally, on the Canadian side, by one “Glenn Wesselle Ford” a native of Trinidad, who described himself as a convert to the Muslim faith. He immigrated to Toronto and founded a branch of the Jamaat Al Fuqra movement founded by Sheikh Mubarik Ali Gilani headquartered in Lahore Pakistan - the very same individual whom Daniel Pearl was to have met before he was kidnapped and murdered in 2002.
    “Our mission” declared Sheikh Gilani, “is to lead Muslims to OUR final victory over Communists, Zionists, Hindus and deviationists” [from his published book, “MOHAMMEDAN REVELATIONS”].

    The book was taken as evidence at trial by Toronto’s Police Services. At trial it was revealed that “Glenn W. Ford” had travelled at least twice to Lahore Pakistan {which figured strongly in the infamous assault on Mumbai in 2008}. There he “studied” at the INTERNATIONAL QUARANI OPEN UNIVERSITY, whose staff included ‘teachers’ from Pakistan’s various security & intelligence services...Just like those who trained the “Shaheeds” who attacked Mumbai in 2008. 

    “Ford”, whose capabilities should not be demeaned, imported three American “Soldiers of Allah” from Texas: Tyrone Cole, Albert Wesley and Caba Jose Harris. Purely by chance, the three were apprehended by alert American border staff at the Niagara Falls crossing. The evidence they found was shocking at the time. But is now anticipated as “the usual” ...especially the instructions on how to install military grade explosives around  natural gas lines, so as to maximise casualties and carnage.

    Another document led to an address in Brooklyn New York, where a cache of assault rifles, seven hand guns and 2000 rounds of ammunition was stowed for pick-up by the three “Texans”.

    But the outcomes of the trials were disappointing when viewed in retrospect. Five of the culprits “beat the big rap”....Conspiracy to commit [mass] murder. The three “Texans”, all members of Louis Farrakhan’s NATION of ISLAM, were convicted of the much lesser charge of “conspiring to commit mischief endangering life”. Each was sentenced to 12 years. And subsequently released and deported to the United States in 2006. 

    Al Fuqra’s {Lahore Pakistan} superior planning skills, were subsequently linked  to the first assault on the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers in 1993, casualties, six dead and 1042 wounded.


    Thursday, December 17, 2015

    Be Fooled by Iran

    Sixty-seven years have passed since the founding of the State of Israel, 67 years of continuous security and diplomatic challenges stemming from a vehement opposition to our very existence by our neighboring Arab states and their supporting organizations. In the past, the flagbearers of this opposition fueled the conflict with nationalistic pan-Arab ideology (Nasserism, Ba'athism, pan-Arabism). Their use of conventional armed forces to attack Israel was defeated time and again, as the Israel Defense Forces increasingly gained a substantial military advantage based on advanced technology and professional abilities. This, in turn, led the Arabs to focus on achieving non-conventional capabilities — challenging Israel with rockets, missiles, guerilla warfare and terror.
    As the star of pan-Arabism/Arab nationalism faded, radical Islam (both Shia and Sunni) rose in its place. This new ideology is driving the current wave of terror that aims to harm Israel and its citizens, in various ways — within Israel, along its borders and across seas. This wave of terror, be it sponsored by Palestinian Islamic organizations like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad or sponsored by regional/international radical forces like Hezbollah and Global Jihad (Daesh and al-Qaida), has turned Israel into the front line of the free world in the battle against this murderous terror that aims to kill as many infidels as possible — which is how they view citizens of democratic, free countries.
    The battle against radical Islamic terror will be the greatest challenge facing the family of nations, under the leadership of the United States, in the coming years. Israel, the sole democracy in the Middle East, is an inseparable part of this family of nations and will push for greater cooperation, in both intelligence and operational capacities, among the free world's countries. If the terrorists and their operators will not be stopped at their points of origin, where they are indoctrinated with murderous ideology and receive vigorous training, they will reach the capitals of every nation in the free world where they will brutally murder citizens, exporting their reign of terror. This is what happened in Paris and what can easily happen in other global cities.
    The ability of the free world's intelligence organizations to effectively cooperate is crucial to the success of the war on terror. The ability of every nation to contribute intelligence information is a major factor in foiling terror attacks and destroying the terror infrastructure. Israel will continue to support these efforts to the best of its abilities and will continue to share all intelligence information it has in this regard, as well as its significant operational experience.
    This is a war over our core values and our way of life. This is a war of cultures. On one side is a culture that values death and destruction and kills hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, including women and children — a culture that conducts cruel suppression of ancient Christian communities, stages public hangings of homosexuals and holds a complete disregard for women's basic rights. On the opposing side, there is our culture — that of the Western world that places highest value on freedom and equality for all, regardless of religion, race, gender or sexual orientation.
    The driving force behind this opposing, evil culture is Iran. To clarify, the nuclear agreement signed with Iran will not reduce the threat of this regime on the entire free world. On the contrary. The merciless Iranian regime, who typifies Israel as the "Little Satan" and threatens to obliterate it from the map, holds equal discontent toward the United States, termed the "Great Satan." As Iran gains power in the post-agreement era, Israel is faced with an additional substantial challenge.
    Iran is the chief instigator of terror and instability in the Middle East, employing Hezbollah, the Quds Forces of the Revolutionary Guards and its support of a variety of terror organizations to this end. However, one would be mistaken to think this is the extent of Iran's evil aspirations and activities. Currently, Iran operates dormant and active terror cells throughout Europe, the Americas, Africa and the Far East. Its proxies are busy planning vicious attacks, collecting intelligence on Western targets and stockpiling arms in various hideaways scattered throughout global capitals.
    The agreement with Iran and the lifting of sanctions enable Iran to continue to sponsor, train, arm and operate terror organizations in the Middle East and across the world. Thanks to this agreement, Iran is able to do so without the heavy weight of the sanctions — while it continues to aspire toward nuclear capabilities, even if they remain 10 to 15 years in the future. This is a huge danger to the Western world and an immediate challenge during the coming year. It is essential to say, in the most clear-cut manner, that Iran is completely and utterly on the dark side. Not only that, but they sit at the helm of the forces of evil. We should not be fooled by their deceitful charm offensive. Iran remains a huge threat on the Western world and the security of its citizens.
    The coming year, especially, and the years to follow, are crucial for Israel and the Israel Defense Forces. We continue to build and strengthen our defenses while keeping an open eye on the dramatic changes transpiring throughout the Middle East. The IDF in the coming years will be a very different force, compared with that of 20, 30 and 40 years ago. It will be, and I may say it already is, a force that combines tremendous firepower coupled with the ability to mobilize and operate elite forces on land, in the air, at sea, and even underground. The IDF also employs super advanced war machinery that can suddenly strike at any point in the Middle East, supported by highly sophisticated cyber and intelligence capabilities.
    Our closest ally and greatest friend, the United States, is providing essential support — both quantitatively and qualitatively — to this reshaping of the IDF. The unusually close relationship between the defense establishments, militaries and intelligence corps of the United States and Israel serve as the cornerstone of our national security.