Posted tagged ‘Donald Trump and Israel’

Watch: Mordechai Kedar destroys Arab claims to Jerusalem on Al-Jazeera TV

December 18, 2017

Watch: Mordechai Kedar destroys Arab claims to Jerusalem on Al-Jazeera TV | Anne’s Opinions, 18th December 2017

Watch Middle East scholar and expert Mordechai Kedar being interviewed – in Arabic – on Al-Jazeera TV about the reactions of the Arab “street” to Donald Trump’s declaration of recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Dr. Kedar utterly destroys the Muslims’ claims to Jerusalem. He then tops it off with a well-aimed swipe at the failed states of the Arab countries.

What a pleasure to watch! I wish I could find a link of the entire interview.

Update: Here is a link to the full interview (or at least the major part of it), but unfortunately it only has Hebrew subtitles. If I find an English-subtitled version I will update again.

White House “Champion” Blasts Muslims Who Talk to Any Pro-Israel Jews

December 7, 2016

White House “Champion” Blasts Muslims Who Talk to Any Pro-Israel Jews, Investigative Project on Terrorism, December 7, 2016


Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour took to Twitter Nov. 22 with a quick, venting post: “You know what I can’t stand? Bitter people. That’s all.”

Sarsour spoke at the annual American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) conference three days later. Evidently, she can’t stand herself.

Sarsour, who describes herself as a “racial justice and civil rights activist,” lashed out at Jews who extended a hand of friendship and solidarity over concerns that increasing hostility toward Muslims in America might lead to draconian government action. And she lashed out at fellow Muslims who accepted the gesture and joined in a new inter-faith dialogue.

Why the bitterness?

The Jews at issue support the state of Israel, support its existence and its vitality. Sarsour wants none of that.

“We have limits to the type of friendships that we’re looking for right now,” Sarsour told the AMP conference, “and I want to be friends with those whom I know have been steadfast, courageous, have been standing up and protecting their own communities, those who have taken the risk to stand up and say – we are with the Palestinian people, we unequivocally support BDS [boycott, divestment and sanctioning Israel] when it comes to Palestinian human rights and have been attacked viciously by the very people who are telling you that they’re about to stand on the front line of the Muslim registry program. No thank you, sisters and brothers.”

It’s a message that fit right in at the AMP conference. AMP claims its “sole purpose is to educate the American public and media about issues related to Palestine and its rich cultural and historical heritage.” But in practice, the group has defended Hamas and its leaders admit they seek “to challenge the legitimacy of the State of Israel.”


Sarsour, a media darling honored by the Obama White House as a “Champion of Change” and a high-profile surrogate for Bernie Sanders‘ failed Democratic presidential nomination campaign, seems to strike a different tone in public appearances. Her biography says she is “most known for her intersectional coalition work and building bridges across issues, racial, ethnic and faith communities.” That clearly wasn’t her intent at the AMP conference.

She acknowledges there’s a rift among Islamists about how hard a line to draw in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, yet she was intent on pouring gasoline on the fire.

The “cracks in our community” are so wide, she said, they’re visible to “right-wing Zionists, Islamophobes, white supremacists.”

“They know where we’re divided. They know that we’re segregated,” she said. “So they, we could easily be targeted when we’re a fragmented community. But if we were a strong, united, steadfast community that stood up for each other first and foremost, you’d better believe that no opposition would ever be trying to take us down, because we’d be too big, too strong and too united.”

Some of her comments likely were directed at Anti-Defamation League chief Jonathan Greenblatt. Should a Trump administration create a registry for Muslims, an idea that does not seem to be on the table, Greenblatt recently pledged that “this proud Jew will register as Muslim.”

Sarsour not only rebuked the gesture, she cast Muslims who might respond more positively as sellouts of the Palestinian cause. Cooperation and solidarity gestures should only be reserved for those who share the depth of her hatred toward Israel, she said.

“I am tired of Muslims working towards acceptance and not respect of our communities. And I’m also tired of the Muslims willing to sell Palestine just for a little acceptance and nod from the white man and white power in these United States of America,” Sarsour said.

1902Sarsour, in the red hijab, poses with others at the White House Eid celebration.

Despite this extreme stance, Sarsour is a rising star among American Islamist activists. She has been welcomed to the White House at least 10 times during President Obama’s tenure, most recently in July for a celebration of the Muslim Eid holiday. Last year, a glowing New York Times profile described her as “a Brooklyn Homegirl in a Hijab.”

“But the most apparent thing about her voice is that it is exceedingly Brooklyn,” the story said. “She says ‘swag’ instead of ‘charisma.’ (‘Mr. B. has swag …) She calls her father, a Palestinian immigrant in his 60s, ‘Pops.’ Like the actress Rosie Perez in a hijab, Ms. Sarsour has perfected her delivery of the head-swaying ‘Oh no you dih-int’ and pronounces the word ‘Latino’ like, well, a Latino.”

Sarsour also says “nothing is creepier than Zionism,” and all-but accused the CIA of faking an attempted terrorist attack.

Those statements didn’t make the Times profile. And they didn’t prompt the Obama administration to reconsider the wisdom of elevating Sarsour’s clout with repeated White House access.

In February, just over a year after terrorists massacred the staff at the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, saying they “avenged the Prophet,” Sarsour told a Council on American-Islamic Affairs (CAIR) banquet in Chicago that she would not stand with the victims. The magazine was “a bigot and a racist” for publishing caricatures of Islam’s prophet Muhammad, she said. The images served to “vilify my faith, dehumanize my community [and] demoralize my prophet.”

Building off Sarsour’s rejection of anyone who breaks bread with Zionists, former AMP New York President Raja Abdulhaq defined the BDS movement – not as a tool to lead to peaceful negotiations – but as way to break Israel into total surrender.

“The rights are non-negotiable. And that’s the whole point of BDS, is that we demand, we want to apply pressure,” Abdulhaq said, “not sit down in a negotiated setting and figure out what you can give up so that I can give up something in return, because what you’re essentially doing is you’re asking the other side – give up your illegality, stop your illegality and I will give up my rights. What kind of negotiation is that? No, I demand my rights, and you stop your illegality. And that’s the whole basis of BDS.”

Among the non-negotiable “rights” Abdulhaq says AMP and the BDS movement insist upon is the so-called “right of return” for Palestinians. That would lead to a huge influx of Palestinians into Israel, swamping the country demographically and ending its existence as a Jewish homeland.

That’s just fine with conference speaker Lamis Deek, an attorney and board memberfor CAIR’s New York chapter. She repeatedly described Israelis as “serial killers” intent on ethnic cleansing.

“There is a serial killer in our home,” Deek said. “And what do you do when you are confronted with a serial killer, right? You protect yourself. You protect your family. You scream for help. And you expect that when you scream for help from a serial killer everybody is gonna come to your aid, they’re gonna come protect and defend you. Right? You don’t expect somebody to intervene on behalf of the serial killer … and say ‘the serial killer has some rights, let us tell you about the rights the serial killer has’ as he begins to kill you. Right?”

Like Sarsour, Deek expressed frustration at Muslims who accept other viewpoints.

“Nothing has set back the Palestinian movement in the U.S. more than demands by people who want to work and focus their efforts on [Washington] D.C., by their demands that we tame our demands for Palestine,” she said.

Dawud Walid, CAIR’s Michigan director, echoed the message about Muslim groups who appear too accommodating. “If these organizations claim to represent the Muslim community,” he said, “then when we see them doing things that go outside of the mainstream of the (UI word) of our community, we need to hold them accountable, and if they continue to step outside of the boundaries, then we should withdraw our support and make that very public.”

Walid has acknowledged that his employer, which works hard to project an image as a civil rights organization, really sees itself as “defenders of the Palestinian struggle.”

Deek, meanwhile, spoke of the harm done to the Palestinian cause by the U.S.-brokered Oslo Accords. While that initiative may have given Palestinians autonomy, it came at the cost of unity, she said.

It’s not clear what she means. But, since 2006, the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority has governed the West Bank while Hamas controls Gaza.

Oslo also made it more difficult to engage in terrorism – what Deek calls “armed resistance.”

“Now armed resistance, self-defense, has been the only direct challenge to Zionist colonial expansion. Nothing else is a direct challenge,” she told the AMP conference. “Everything else is an indirect challenge, right? Pressure – economic pressure, diplomatic pressure. So this national united Palestinian body was able – by supporting the resistance – was able to be part of directly impacting and influencing Zionist policy.”

Advocating more Palestinian violence is consistent for an AMP gathering. The organization’s message never mentions peaceful co-existence. An Investigative Project on Terrorism investigation found connections between at least five AMP officials and speakers and the defunct Hamas support network called the “Palestine Committee.”

During the 2014 war between Israel and Hamas, AMP’s then-National Campus Coordinator Taher Herzallah posted images of wounded Israelis, calling them “The most beautiful site (sic) in my eyes.” He defended indiscriminate Hamas rocket fire at Israeli civilian communities as “an audible cry for help” and “an act of resistance.”

Two clear messages emerged from the AMP conference. “Resistance” is better than renouncing violence and seeking peace. All Muslims who might disagree, even if they see eye-to-eye on other issues, are no longer welcome.

These extreme stands came from speakers who enjoy prominent political profiles and high-level contacts.

Sarsour is right about one thing. There is a rift in her community. She and her AMP panelists are the ones widening it.

The golden double standard

November 23, 2016

The golden double standard, Israel Hayom, Annika Hernroth-Rothstein, November 23, 2016

Benjamin Netanyahu, red-faced and happy, sits next to Donald Trump in a gold Roman-style litter. The ancient vehicle is being carried by big-nosed Orthodox Jews, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, a voluptuous woman and a few Israeli soldiers — marked with large Israeli flags on their chests. A speech bubble comes out of Netanyahu’s mouth, saying “Finally!”

The image I just described was published in Sweden’s largest-circulation daily paper, Dagens Nyheter, as a political cartoon, commenting on Trump’s victory in the American presidential election. It’s a bizarre mishmash of people and symbols, where IDF soldiers and a robed clansman are celebrating Trump side by side, and wildly stereotypical Orthodox Jews are hanging out with a pinup girl next to Israel’s security barrier. But the logical fail not withstanding, it reeks of anti-Semitic imagery and messaging, and it is the next step in normalizing something that has been underground for quite some time. One would assume the paper would realize this and issue a thorough apology. But that didn’t happen. Instead, the paper doubled down and defended the cartoon, saying that it was merited by the fact that Netanyahu celebrated Trump’s victory, despite Trump being supported by anti-democratic forces and white power movements. No mention of the fact that Netanyahu’s support of Trump extended only to the courtesy shown to a president-elect by any and every national leader or that Jews rarely stand shoulder to shoulder with the Klan, but just that Netanyahu “celebrated” Trump — as if the Israeli prime minister had thrown Trump an opulent party.

Dagens Nyheter calls itself an independent, liberal publication, and in the past year, it has taken a clear stand against Trump, saying he has made the world more extreme and xenophobic. Editor-in-Chief Peter Wolodarski has used his editorials to ride a very high moral horse, and his decision to run that particular cartoon is a fascinating portrait of the division between the right and wrong kinds of racism and bigotry.

What the cartoonist, known as “Bard,” is saying by this crude drawing is not only that the Jews and Israel orchestrated and celebrated the Trump win but also that the evil hook-noses side with anyone to get their way, including organizations known for wanting their annihilation.

Now, for the sake of entertainment and folly, let’s imagine another drawing: a cartoonish Barack Obama sitting in a golden carriage with a sweaty Mahmoud Abbas, being carried by big-nosed ISIS terrorists, voluptuous virgin brides and members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Imagine that it was published by a country’s most popular publication and that the editor-in-chief defended it by saying that Obama had been supportive of Abbas and therefore, the imagery was fair game.

Do any of you, dear readers, think this would happen? Does anyone think that if it did, it would be go largely unnoticed and accepted? No, me neither, and I know this because we have an example of this very thing. When Charlie Hebdo was attacked and journalists were murdered in cold blood over their criticism of Islam, people still said that the portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad was inexcusable and unacceptable, and remained on the fence after the very heart of freedom had been ripped to bits. Famous writers such as Joyce Carol Oates, Junot Díaz and Michael Ondaatje protested Charlie Hebdo receiving the PEN award, and were supported by a wide array of liberals all across the globe who called the French satirical magazine racist.

So what is really fair game — what racism is allowed and celebrated in today’s society? We know that portraying Israel as the leader of a Zionist conspiracy that elects presidents is fine, as is literally painting anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews side by side with white supremacists in a dog whistle loud enough to give you tinnitus. That elicits a few angry and summarily ignored letters from Jews, whereas similar imagery and messaging about any other group might close down the publication, if it were to survive the inevitable terrorist attacks.

Some of my friends filed a complaint against Dagens Nyheter, but I didn’t bother, as it is the activist equivalent of drawing a picture of a sandwich to feed the starving. Our voices mean little when others stay silent, and it is because of this silence that the largest paper in the land can go full Der Sturmer and no one even bats an eye.

The Trump revolution, Israel and American Jews‎

November 22, 2016

The Trump revolution, Israel and American Jews‎, Israel Hayom, Isi Leibler, November 22,2016

The most bizarre aspect of this election result is the almost hysterical reaction by liberal ‎segments of the Jewish community. That 70% of Jews supported Hillary Clinton is not ‎surprising and consistent with their long-standing obsession with liberalism. But the ‎manipulation of Jewish issues as a political vehicle by some American Jewish leaders to oppose ‎Trump will be recorded as an act of infamy. ‎


The victory of Donald Trump in the U.S. presidential elections will have long-term global ‎repercussions at many levels. It represents a revolt against extreme postmodernism which has ‎undermined the moral fiber of the West and its willingness to defend itself, facilitating the ‎emergence of brutal Islamic terror throughout the world.‎

Many, if not most, of those who voted for Trump were offended by his vulgarity and ‎aggressive language and did not support all aspects of his policies. They voted for him because ‎they regarded him as the only opportunity to break with the status quo.‎

The refusal of his antagonists — the self-styled liberal guardians of democracy — to accept the ‎outcome of the election was despicable and unprecedented and contrasts with the ‎acquiescence of the defeated Republicans when Barack Obama won both of his elections.‎

Whether or not Trump will succeed in restoring America’s former global and political status ‎remains to be seen. We should bear in mind that when Ronald Reagan was elected, the media ‎and much of the “intelligentsia” described him as an idiot and predicted disaster. But he ‎proved to be one of the greatest American presidents.‎

Trump’s victory could have dramatic ramifications for Israel. Of course, pre-election ‎undertakings are never fully implemented, but it is historically unprecedented for Israel to ‎enjoy such a committed pro-Israel incoming president together with massive support from ‎both houses of Congress. ‎

Trump, who literally gushes over Israel, has always been closely associated with Jews in ‎business and politics. Aside from his family, his senior advisers include committed devotees of ‎Israel.‎

He has repeatedly praised Israel and refers to us as America’s greatest ally; he has endorsed ‎Israel’s position on defensible borders and stated that he has no objection to construction in ‎the major settlement blocs and Jerusalem; he called on the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a ‎Jewish state and is opposed to imposed solutions, insisting that the only way to peace is by ‎direct negotiations between the parties; and most importantly, he has made it clear that he ‎totally repudiates President Obama’s criticism of Israel for failing to make progress in the ‎peace talks and his application of moral equivalence between Israelis and Palestinians.‎

Trump committed to moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — although that is ‎an unfulfilled pre-electoral promise made by many of his predecessors, both Democrat and ‎Republican. ‎

He has also undertaken to confront the Iranian terrorist regime and either terminate the bogus ‎nuclear deal or at least pressure the Iranians to adhere to their commitments. ‎

His vice president-elect, Mike Pence, is a passionately devoted Christian friend of Israel and a ‎seasoned politician who Trump has announced will be his major adviser and policy formulator.‎

And whatever tensions exist between Trump and both of the Republican-controlled houses of ‎Congress, the one issue that they share in common is support of Israel.‎

However, none of this should be misinterpreted to mean that the Trump administration will ‎favor annexation or a one-state policy. Trump has made it clear that he still endorses a two-‎state policy but, in contrast to Obama, he stipulates that it cannot be imposed without ‎providing Israel with defensible borders and all of the security guarantees it requires — an ‎unattainable objective and at present, not even on the horizon. ‎

For this reason, the bombastic declarations by the Israeli Right and particularly Habayit ‎Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennett’s calls for annexation in the wake of the election results ‎are irresponsible and could be highly counterproductive. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ‎should tell his coalition members to zip their mouths shut and enable him to move forward by ‎engaging in silent diplomacy with Trump, who has already extended a warm invitation to meet ‎with him.‎

One of the negative repercussions of the Trump victory is the accelerated erosion of ‎bipartisanship and the growing influence of the radical anti-Israel wing of the Democratic ‎Party. Nothing exemplifies this more than the likelihood of the anti-Israel Muslim Congressman ‎Keith Ellison — who was initially funded by the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic ‎Relations — assuming the role of chairman of the Democratic National Committee, supported ‎by leading Jewish Senator Chuck Schumer. The post was formerly held by pro-Israel ‎Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Simultaneously, anti-Israel Jewish Senator Bernie ‎Sanders is emerging as one of the most powerful forces in the defeated radicalized ‎Democratic Party.‎

The most bizarre aspect of this election result is the almost hysterical reaction by liberal ‎segments of the Jewish community. That 70% of Jews supported Hillary Clinton is not ‎surprising and consistent with their long-standing obsession with liberalism. But the ‎manipulation of Jewish issues as a political vehicle by some American Jewish leaders to oppose ‎Trump will be recorded as an act of infamy. ‎

The trailblazer was Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, who shamelessly uses ‎this once-venerable organization as a mantle to promote his radical liberal agenda. ‎Commissioned to combat anti-Semitism, he had the chutzpah to harness the ADL to condemn ‎the Republicans as “anti-Zionist” because they failed to relate to a two-state solution in their ‎Middle East policy platform.‎

He condemned Trump for “tolerating” anti-Semites because he declined to dignify the Ku Klux ‎Klan by responding to their expressions of support for him. In fact, thanks to the ADL’s anti-‎Trump hysteria, anti-Semites and scum like David Duke were brought to the forefront of the ‎mainstream media, a goal which they had sought unsuccessfully to achieve over the past ‎decades. It also encouraged racists and anti-Semites to emerge from their closets.‎

This contrasts starkly with the muted response to by liberals to Obama’s relationship with Rev. ‎Jeremiah Wright, a paranoid anti-Semite. Not only did Obama attend his sermons with his ‎family, but Wright actually officiated at his wedding and was appointed by him in 2007 to the ‎African American Religious Leadership Committee. He only dissociated himself from Wright’s ‎views after media exposure but refused to disown him personally, relating to him as “an old ‎uncle.” Not even the fiercest critics of Trump can suggest any comparable relationship with ‎Duke or any other identifiable anti-Semite. But his critics continue defaming him as a promoter ‎of anti-Semites.‎

Clearly motivated by a very partisan agenda, they take this to insane levels. A star motif used in ‎Trump’s election propaganda was pounced upon by the ADL, claiming that it was a Star of ‎David employed to inflame Jew-hatred. The frenzied ADL also suggested that Trump’s ‎condemnation of the power of the international banks (also promoted by Bernie Sanders) was ‎a subtle means of promoting “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” One has to be either a ‎paranoid delusional or an anti-Semite to genuinely believe that any reference to international ‎banks is a reference to Jews. And to top this, a negative reference to the anti-Israel George ‎Soros — which most Jews would endorse — was also alleged to be anti-Semitic.‎

Not surprisingly, the hysteria impacted on Jews at the grass roots. ‎

Yet in the wake of the election of a most pro-Israel U.S. government, in which Jews and ‎staunch friends of Israel are likely to assume key positions, with the president’s daughter ‎having converted to Judaism and observing an Orthodox religious lifestyle, many Jews have ‎simply lost the plot. A number of Reform and Conservative synagogues actually held special ‎mourning services to bewail the advent of fascism in America. One prominent Conservative ‎rabbi in New York even made a shocking analogy between the Trump victory and the rise of ‎Nazism prior to the Holocaust.‎

The ultimate obscenity was the hysterical attack on Trump’s appointment of the controversial ‎right-wing media executive Steve Bannon as his strategic adviser. Without any credible proof, ‎the ADL accused him of being an anti-Semite who would pave the way for a return to anti-‎Semitism and white supremacy.‎

It so happens that Bannon is surrounded by Jews in his media company, Breitbart News. He is ‎known for his fervent support for Israel and his condemnations of the boycott, divestment and ‎sanctions movement, anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism on campus. One can disagree with ‎Trump’s selection of Bannon, but for Greenblatt and the ADL to smear him as an anti-Semite is ‎beyond the pale. The uproar following this was so great that Greenblatt was ultimately obliged ‎to whisper a withdrawal of this false allegation. ‎

The double standards applied by the ADL is exemplified by the fact that despite the outright ‎anti-Semitism and promotion of BDS against Israel promoted by the Black Lives Matter ‎movement, Greenblatt does not call for Jews to boycott the organization and still refers ‎approvingly to the “positive” aspects of its work, suggesting that only a “small minority” ‎imposed the anti-Semitic aspects of its program. Apparently the ADL adopt very liberal ‎standards to real anti-Semitic groups if they come from the Left.‎

Greenblatt’s use of a revered body created to combat anti-Semitism to promote his own ‎partisan political agenda and even stooping to use allegations of anti-Semitism to slander his ‎opponents is scandalous. He has no place in a mainstream Jewish organization.‎

American Jewry today stands at a crossroads. Ironically, at a time when possibly the most pro-‎Israel U.S. administration in history is about to take office, significant sectors of the Jewish ‎community are falsely accusing its leaders of promoting anti-Semitism. It should be noted that ‎other mainstream Jewish bodies, like the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish ‎Organizations, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the American Jewish Committee, ‎did not engage in this campaign and merely called for unity. But the Zionist Organization of ‎America was the only significant Jewish organization protesting against this partisan ‎defamatory campaign.‎

However, it is obvious that increasing numbers of Reform, Conservative and secular Jews ‎consider Israel low among their priorities and confuse liberalism or “social justice” as a ‎universalist basis for a Jewish commitment with no Jewish content or values. In all likelihood, ‎they will become even more estranged from Israel as they seek to further ingratiate ‎themselves with their liberal friends. ‎

Fortunately, this will be compensated by the intensified support for Israel from committed ‎Jews and Christian friends.

Jewish Leftists Choose Hamas Over Trump

November 16, 2016

Jewish Leftists Choose Hamas Over Trump, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, November 16, 2016

(Caution: Democrats may consider this article “antisemitic” and “racist.” — DM)


The Islamic Society of North America was named by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in funding Hamas. It was linked to two Hamas funding fronts, the Holy Land Foundation and KindHearts. ISNA’s checks were made payable to the “Palestinian Mujahadeen” or “Holy Warriors” which was a name used by Hamas.

ISNA’s co-founder Sami Al-Arian was the local head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Mousa Abu Marzook, a top Hamas official listed by the Treasury Department as a Specially Designated Terrorist, received tens of thousands of dollars from ISNA.

This should have come as no surprise as both ISNA and Hamas are arms of the Muslim Brotherhood.

But the American Jewish Committee has decided to team up with the financiers of the murder of Jews to oppose Trump. The left wing Jewish group and an Islamist organization that wrote out checks to Islamic terrorists enabling them to kill Jews have formed the “Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council”.

Statements from both ISNA and the AJC made it clear that this was a reaction to Trump’s win.

“We are uniting to help the administration navigate in the proper constitutional manner, to uphold freedom of religion and constitutional rights for all American citizens,” Eftakhar Alam of ISNA said.

“It is a reaction to some of the bigotry and hate speech that came out of the campaign,” Robert Silverman, the AJC’s director of Muslim-Jewish relations said. “We’re concerned about the public discourse in the whole country. We’re also concerned about messages that originated within the two communities. The Trump phenomenon is only going to make it come together more quickly.”

The love affair that birthed the Wolf-Sheep Advisory Council is mostly unrequited. While the AJC loudly trumpets its new friendship, as of this writing ISNA has yet to inform its brethren of the alliance with the sons of apes and pigs in its news section. ISNA’s list of interfaith partners doesn’t even mention the AJC.

But appeasing those who hate you wins more enthusiasm from the appeasers than the appeased.

Farooq Kathwari, the Muslim co-chair of the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council, had his name on a report by the American Muslim Task Force which defended Muslim donations to Islamic terrorist groups including Hezbollah. “It was difficult for Muslim Americans… to ease the plight of Lebanese civilians without risking scrutiny by the U.S. government for aiding organizations connected with Hezbollah,” the report complained.

The Muslim council members include ISNA’s Imam Mohamed Magid who gave a diversity award to a CAIR official who had declared that Jews had incurred the wrath of Allah. Magid had called for an end to Israel’s blockade of Hamas in Gaza and the ISNA statement it was appended to had decried that Islamic terrorists had not been consulted in ceasefire negotiations.

Also on the Council is ISNA’s Sayyid Syeed who had declared, “Our job is to change the Constitution of America”. He had formerly headed up the Muslim Students Association and worked in a senior position at the International Institute of Islamic Thought, another unindicted co-conspirator in funding Hamas whose ranks included a number of Islamic terrorists fighting against Israel.

But it’s more interesting to note who in ISNA’s leadership isn’t on the Council.

There’s Iqbal Unus whose home had been raided in connection with an investigation into Hamas and Islamic Jihad funding. There’s also the co-founder of ISNA, Muzammil Siddiqi, who hosted and translated a speechby the infamous Blind Sheikh, linked to the World Trade Center bombing, in which he declared, “If you are not going to the jihad, then you are neglecting the rules of Allah.”

Siddiqi predicted the Islamic conquest and destruction of Israel. “In a few years we will be celebrating with each other the victory of Islam in Palestine. Insh’allah, we shall be celebrating the coming of the Masjid al-Aqsa under the Islamic rule. We shall be celebrating insh’allah the coming of Jerusalem and the whole land of Palestine insh’allah and the establishment of the Islamic State throughout that area.“

It would be a little awkward to have the man who praised suicide bombers and called for the destruction of the Jewish State on the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council.

But no doubt a way could be found to finesse the problem.

Siddiqi is still a prominent figure in ISNA. The Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council is a sick sad joke in which Jewish lefties ally with Jihadists against a pro-Israel administration while claiming that they share goals.

Which goals exactly does the American Jewish Committee share with Siddiqi? Is the AJC also anticipating the creation of an Islamic State in Jerusalem?

Instead of representing the needs of the Jewish community, the AJC has dived into the left-wing gutter, wailing against Trump and making alliances with the enemy to protect them from Trump.

Heading up the AJC’s effort is Robert Silverman. Silverman is a State Department veteran with plenty of experience in the Muslim world. From the start he seemed far more intent on agitating on behalf of Muslims and against the critics of Islam than for Jews.

His pitch to Jews was collaborate now and perhaps our new Muslim overlords will be grateful.

“Showing support at this critical time will lead to good results for the Jewish people down the road,” Silverman said. It didn’t work with Mohammed or in Israel or Europe. But it’s bound to work this time.

He warned American Jews not to complain about the risk of Muslim migration. “American Jews should be careful not to add to a climate of fear that exists in our country regarding immigrants.”

The joint group will, among other things, lobby for refugees. The remaining Jewish refugees are fleeing Muslim violence and hate in Europe. If America is swamped by Muslim migrants the way Europe was, where will American Jews flee all these “refugees” to?

Meanwhile Silverman retweeted a message of approval from Glenn Greenwald who had criticized theinclusion of Hamas and Hezbollah on the terror list and described them as being “dedicated to protecting their citizens against the State of Israel.” He complained, “and yet it is criminal in the United States to do anything that is deemed to be material support for Hamas and Hezbollah.”

Greenwald had also spoken of “the role Judaism plays in the decades-long oppression by the Israelis of Palestinians.”

Instead of fighting anti-Semitism, the American Jewish Committee was allying with anti-Semites.

While Muslim hate groups supported by ISNA terrorize Jewish students on campuses, the AJC expressed concern about “hate” against Muslims on campuses.

The media and left-wing groups are bombarding Jews daily with alarmist warnings about Trump while urging them to ally with our Muslim “friends”. Here’s what an alliance with those friends looks like.

Left-wing groups like the AJC have sold out the Jewish community by taking the side of Muslims over their Jewish victims. They have allied with Islamic hate groups supportive not of Jews, but of the murder of Jews.

And now they are screaming their heads off about Donald Trump.

Their Muslim friends, whether it’s Keith Ellison or ISNA, have defended anti-Semitism and attacked the Jewish State. American Jews have a choice between trying to appease Hamas or fighting against it.

The AJC has chosen its side. It has sided with the financiers and inciters of the murder of Jews.

American Jews have a simple choice to make. They can either believe the lies or hear the truth. They can either side with their killers or resist.

The AJC has made the choice very clear and simple. It’s either Hamas or Donald Trump.

Possibly the most pro-Israel president ever

November 3, 2016

Possibly the most pro-Israel president ever, Israel National News, Michael Green, November 3, 2016

Last week, Donald Trump’s supporters held a rally in Jerusalem, during which, a short, taped message from Trump was shown.  In it, Trump said he loved Israel – but of course, he says he loves everyone – and that he would work to bridge the gap between Americans and Israelis and help restore security to both countries. 

The question is, can we really trust that Donald Trump will be pro-Israel? Have we not seen past Presidential candidates make pro-Israel declarations only to change their tune once elected? Furthermore, it seems that Trump has flip-flopped on some of his statements about Israel. 

What makes a pro-Israel President?

First, a President who respects Israel’s strategic predicament in the Middle East and allows Israel to make its own decisions –  regarding peace and war –  without putting undue to pressure on it.

Second, a President who sees Israel as a strategic asset and thus pursues opportunities for joint cooperation and increased cooperation in various areas.

Third, a President who stands by Israel diplomatically at the UN and in other international forums.

If elected, Donald Trump might be the most pro-Israel President in US history, and this assessment has virtually nothing to do with anything he has said about Israel. It is based on his character traits and the central message of his campaign – both of which bode well for Israel.

Donald Trump appreciates strength, distinguishes between the bad guys and the good guys, loves to enjoy life, and is frugal with his money.    Trump has spoken often about the need for strength, for a strong military, for toughness against US enemies, even his wife talks about the need to be strong. Trump understands who the good guys and bad guys are.  He isn’t confused by certain ideologies which justify terrorism or even give it some credence due to socio-economic or other conditions.  He understands the connection between Islam and terror and their hatred for people who are not like them.

This bodes well for Israel since he will appreciate the strength of the Israeli army in dealing with all of its enemies, and the resolve of the Israeli people not to be affected by terrorists trying to destroy their lives.  He will appreciate the valuable assets that Israel provides as a strategic ally, and understands that a strong Israel not only makes the U.S safer, but allows for the U.S. to have a reduced footprint in the Middle East.  Furthermore, his sense of right and wrong allows him to correctly understand the fundamental difference between Israel trying to defend itself and the Palestinians who educate their children to hate while training them to be terrorists.

Trump’s love of life and its pleasures makes him particularly averse to terrorists and criminals.  For him, not only are they bad people, but they disturb people who want to enjoy life.  This is why one of Trump’s strong messages throughout his campaign has been restoring law and order, so everyone can enjoy life.

Trump comes to political life without a set ideology.  While some parts of his character are more conservative, others are more liberal, but in general he is a problem solver.  Thus, he has no preconceived notions about the Middle East nor is he obligated by how past US Presidents have viewed the Middle East.  He is not bound by the idea of land for peace, or a two state solution, he calls the Middle East as he sees it, which is that there are lot of ‘bad dudes’ and there is one normal, peaceful democratic country in the whole area.

Piers Morgan once commented that Trump looks at everything in life like a deal, and he likes to make good deals as he said thousands of times throughout the campaign. Part of his ‘deal-making’ is paying as little as possible and getting maximum returns.  Throughout the campaign he has bragged about spending so much less than his opponents but still winning. He has managed to spend less money on buying media coverage by noting that he receives so much free media.  The fact that he is raising most of the money for his campaign from small donors only reinforces this notion of trying to spend as little money as possible. Additionally, he has attacked NATO partners for not paying their fair share, and explicitly criticized the US for defending other nations without receiving anything in return.

If Israel looks to take the lead as a regional power in the Middle East, Trump will have no objection.  He will also not object to Israel doing what is necessary to make itself safer, which for Trump means reducing the power of the bad guys.  Trump will be more than happy to save American money and lives while letting Israel advance its agenda.  Moreover, in the event of an attack on Iran, Trump would be more than happy to let Israel take the lead.

Trump is running for President to make America great by focusing on America’s issues.  Trump’s only interest in foreign policy is to protect America from those whom he believes rip off the US in trade, bombing ISIS and stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.  Therefore, Trump will not be embarking on adventures worldwide for world peace and certainly will not be wasting his time forcing Israel into negotiations, or into deals that it is uninterested in.

In short, because of his character traits and his central agenda, Trump will allow Israel to make its own decisions, while simultaneously understanding there is much to gain through increased partnering with Israel.  He will back Israel unwaveringly at the UN since he understands that Israel and America have shared goals and interests, and because of his common sense approach, he really has no problem with Israel building on whatever land is under their control, especially since he is aware that the land that has been given up by Israel has been used as a launching pad for attacks.

But its not only his character traits and campaign themes which signal a stronger relationship in the next 4 years, it’s also his many advisers – VP Pence, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Dr. Walid Phares, Michael Flynn, who are all either outright pro-Israel or who understand the realities of the Middle East in the sense that the Middle East is laced with problems and the central issue is radical Islam and not the Palestinian Arabs.

A Trump Presidency will be a time where Israel becomes stronger and expands its partnership with America, and a time where Israel and the US will stand shoulder to shoulder facing the many evils of the world.

And as Mike Pence has said many times: “If the world knows nothing else, let it know this – America stands with Israel.”



If you love America and Israel, vote against the system

October 31, 2016

If you love America and Israel, vote against the system, Israel National News, Naomi Ragen, October 31, 2016

I can certainly see why women, including Jewish women, would prefer a seemingly well-spoken, mature senior stateswoman, to a brash, loud-mouthed political neophyte who has made so many off-handed offensive locker-room comments about women.

This would be your instinct.

How lovely, how easy, it would be then, to vote in a woman running against a man like that.

And how disastrously wrong.

I’ll give you the facts, but honestly, past experience does not leave me hopeful. Eight years ago, to tried to deter people from following their instinct
and voting in Barack Hussein Obama, the most anti-Israel president in U.S. history. But even after I made people aware he spent twenty years in an
anti-Semitic church, and was being advised by the likes of Rashid Khalidi, Zbigniew Brzezinski (Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor), pro-Hamas negotiator Robert Malley, UN Ambassador Samantha Power (who once suggested using American troops to guard Palestinians from Israelis), most Jews still voted for Obama.

Why? because they were brainwashed by lying, anti-Israel media to the extent that their instinct told them that what was important above all else was to elect a Black man: Their “instinct” told them how noble, how liberal to cast that vote! And if they didn’t, they were racists. In fact, many people lambasted me for writing “Barack Hussein Obama”. “Hussein,” why did you write that!!

Because it was his name, I answered.I wonder how that worked out for them. I can tell you how it worked out for us in Israel: our biggest enemy and the world’s foremost supporter of terror is now unimpeded in its rush towards nuclear weapons to destroy the next six million Jews.

I wonder sometimes, how these voters live with these consequences.  And now, Barack Hussein Obama and all the EXACT SAME PEOPLE are urging you to vote for Hillary Clinton, who proudly bragged online that she was the true author of the Iran deal, making you feel like a racist, a woman-hater, an idiot, and worse if you don’t.

Repentance is being in exactly the same situation and acting differently. For those who continue down the same road, there is no hope.

So, I’m going to give you some reasons to take a different path. For the sake of the safety and security of the State of Israel, and for the love of what was once the world’s greatest democracy, our beloved United States of America, I hope to change your mind from  possibly making the biggest mistake of
your life.

Hillary Clinton isn’t a friend of Israel

In November 1999, Clinton publicly appeared with Yasir Arafat’s wife Suha and listening quietly while the token bride of the world’s biggest terrorist scumbag accused Israel of using poison gas and chemical contaminants on the water supply wells against Palestinians. In response, Clinton hugged and kissed Suha. Days later, after outraged fallout, Clinton called ‘FOR ALL SIDES to refrain from ‘INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC.”Although Clinton had to please pro-Israel voters when running for the Senate in New York, hints about her real mindset can be gleaned from a careful reading of her book Hard Choices: “When we left the city and visited Jericho in the West Bank, I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted. [p.302] …There has been nearly a decade of terror, arising from the second intifada…Three times as many Palestinians were killed and thousands more were injured in the same period [as Israelis].”

This equating of murderers and murderees, victims and perpetrators has long been the code speak of The New York Times and other anti-Semitic and anti-Israel bigots.

And before you point to this or that pro-Israel thing she said, please check the dates: Was it, by chance, between 2001-2009 when she needed the votes of New York Jews?

Because when she left the Senate and became Secretary of State for the most anti-Israel President in the history of our country, the façade got dropped like a hot potato. The first thing she did was throw out an agreement with Israel during the Bush administration, calling for new restrictions on building Jewish homes in existing neighborhoods in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

Hillary Clinton is funded by Israel-haters.

But like the chicken and the egg, what came first, Hillary’s anti-Israel perspective, or the money that Israel-haters have been pouring into Clinton Foundation coffers? Or perhaps, she and her husband will take money from anyone, and it was just a lucky coincidence her funders shared
her views?

Saudi Arabia donated ten million dollars to the Clinton Library in 2007 and another $25 million to the Clinton Foundation in June 2016, while individuals close to the Saudi family Nasir Rashid and Friends of Saudi Arabia donated millions more. Clinton’s State Department approved a $29 billion sale of fighter jets to Israel’s enemy Saudi Arabia against Israel’s vociferous objections. Coincidence?

Dubai – The Clinton Foundation has established Dubai Study departments in major U.S. and British Universities.Qatar gave millions to the
Clinton Foundation.In 2014, President Shimon Peres accused Qatar of being “the world’s largest funder of terror: Qatar does not have the right to send money for rockets and tunnels which are fired at innocent civilians,” Peres told UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in Jerusalem. Just this past August, Qatar pledged and additional $31 million to Gaza.

On August 15, 2016 Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to the Attorney General Loretta Lynch revealed that Qatar was the recipient of approximately $271 million in military related export deals. During Clinton’s tenure Qatar was the recipient of approximately $4.3 billion altogether – a 1,482 % increase [in military exports] while Saudi Arabia saw a 97% increase in military exports.

In August 2014 Hillary Clinton wrote to her campaign manager John Podesta that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been “providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL [ISIS] and other radical Sunni groups in the area.”

Clinton advisors are anti -Israel

Clinton’s advisors, like Obama’s, have always been uniformly and virulently anti-Israel. They have her ear.

Sidney Blumenthal, Observer’s Ken Sliverstein, wrote recently, is the “ most dishonest, amoral political hatchet man of modern political times.” He is also one of Hillary’s closest friends and a highly paid advisor to her about Israel.

In 2010 he wrote her to “hold Bibi’s feet to the fire….” He told Clinton to “remind AIPAC…that it does not have a monopoly over American Jewish opinion.” Soros-funded anti-Israel J Street should be praised, he offers. In May Blumenthal wrote her, hinting that the raid on the Gaza flotilla was
deliberately organized to kill the peace process and embarrass Obama. Hillary forwarded this message with the words: “FYI and I told you so,” to her deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan at the State Department.

Blumenthal’s son Max is an even more self-hating Jew. In 2013, Max appeared in ninth place on that year’s Simon Wiesenthal Center list of
anti-Semitic and anti-Israel slurs, for equating Israel with the Nazi regime and “approving characterizations of Israeli soldiers as ‘Judeo-Nazis.’” This is what Hillary had to say in e-mails about Max and his work:

8.17/2010  Pls congratulate Max for another impressive piece. He’s so good.”

4/7/2011  Will Max’s piece be posted anywhere else? It is powerful and touching.”

9/13/2012  “Your Max is a mitzvah.”

This is what the “mitzvah” wrote when Elie Wiesel died:  “Elie Wiesel went from a victim of war crimes to a defender of those who commit them. He did more harm than good and should not be honored.”

As most of you know, because even the mainstream media couldn’t hide it, Hillary Clinton deliberately ignored her responsibility and the rules, and created a private e-mail server that left highly sensitive, classified security documents vulnerable to hacking by America’s enemies.

But Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal wrote something which has mostly been overlooked: “The Democratic nominee obviously didn’t set up her server with the express purpose of exposing national secrets – that was incidental. She set up the server to keep secret the details of the Clinton’s private life – a life built around an elaborate and sweeping money-raising and self-promoting entity known as the Clinton Foundation. Had Secretary Clinton kept the Foundation at arm’s length while in office –as obvious ethical standards would have dictated – there would never have been any need for a private server or even private email.”

She had much to hide. Other leaked emails make it clear that under Hillary, the State Department took SPECIAL CARE OF DONORS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION. In 2010 a senior State Department aide to Clinton asked a Foundation official to let her know which groups offering assistance with Haitian earthquake victims were FOB (Friends of Bill) or WJC VIPS (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs) “Those who made the cut appear to have been teed up for contracts. Those who weren’t? Routed to a standard government website,” Strassel concludes.

Trump is the only one with the guts to have publicly stated she should be in jail for these things.

We could forgive Mrs. Clinton many things, though, if we were convinced she had any core values at all. As she cheerfully admitted in a paid speech to Goldman Sachs, she takes two positions, public and private, on every issue, depending on her audience. She is for and against trade agreements that will lose Americans jobs. She is for and against Wall Street corruption.

Hillary’s Immigration Policy endangers your family

Hillary Clinton supports unlimited immigration of unvetted Muslim immigrants, which will fundamentally change the character of the US, and will endanger Jews, Christians, and ordinary citizens by exposing them to increased levels of anti-Semitism, ethnic hatred, and acts of random, hate-based violence.

All you need to do to verify that statement, is to study the statistics of other Western countries that have allowed themselves to accept a huge influx of Muslim immigrants.

In the British capital alone, anti-Semitic incidents increased by more than 60 percent over the past year, while worldwide anti-Semitism was up by 40%.

“Many refugees come from countries where Israel is an enemy; this resentment is often transferred to Jews in general,” a delegation of German Jews told Chancellor Angela Merkel late last year.For American Jews, who have much to fear both as an individual community, and as part of the larger American population, this is the last chance to actually influence this process. As an Israeli who got brainwashed by progressives to paint doves and let Arafat arm “police” and pull down border checks, and then almost got blown up during the Passover Seder at the Park Hotel, I am telling you this is a life or death issue for you and your families. If you let yourself become brainwashed and complacent, which is what we Israelis did, and vote for this policy and this politician with her appalling track record, the consequences could be horrible. Believe me, I know.

Hillary Clinton is part of an immoral establishment that is destroying America and endangering Israel

Let me admit upfront: I loathe and mistrust The New York Times, NPR, CNN, LA Times, Washington Post Politico, etc. all of whom have lied about Israel, lied about terrorism, lied about Wall Street, lied and covered up Barack Hussein Obama’s incompetence.

A victory for Hillary Clinton is a victory for them and the system they support and the America they’ve created: a weak, bankrupt, racially divided nation of too many homeless, jobless, hopeless people, weighted down by bureaucracy, preyed upon by white collar criminals, unsafe in their cities and homes and schools and unprotected from brazen murdering, raping thugs and terrorists – both homegrown and imported.

It has become a place where veterans are neglected and police are attacked and hounded by the country they give their lives to protect every day. A place where health care is endangered for all by a system that simply doesn’t work.

The establishment that created this chaos would like nothing better than a citizenry that is complacent and stupid, easily swayed by epithets and ugly but irrelevant sound bites .

I prefer Trump because he has never been part of that system. He isn’t a politician. He isn’t afraid to say the things we all believe about the rigged
media, the backroom money deals, the pay for play, Islamic terrorism, unvetted immigration, a border wall, and despicable late term abortions.

A vote for him is a vote against what has happened to America under Barack Hussein Obama and against the political, corporate, and media empires that backed him and brought him to power and want Hillary to take his place.

Look at the facts. Don’t be part of the Punch and Judy show, manipulated by the puppet-masters. Vote against the system. Vote against corruption. Vote for real democracy and real, not fake, change.

Hillary Clinton is not a friend of Israel

September 27, 2016

Hillary Clinton is not a friend of Israel, Israel National News, Aviel Shewin-Stevens, September 27, 2016

Hillary Clinton is campaigning on the basis that she is a friend of Israel, just as she did in the Senate, and Obama did twice for the presidency. As Secretary of State, she was the architect of the policy of the most anti-Israel president since the rebirth of Israel in 1948. It was a policy which reflected views she has held her entire life, with the exception of the nine-year period when she ran for and held the office of U.S. Senator from New York State. American voters should not let her get away with hiding her true self. Israel-focused Americans should vote for Republicans in Senate and congressional races, as well as for Donald Trump as president. Hillary Clinton has collapsed her election.


Hillary Clinton has a lifetime of anti-Israel positions. She said she was a big supporter of Israel when she was in the U.S. Senate, when she needed campaign contributions from American Jews and New York’s Jewish voting bloc. She has not been pro-Israel since her resignation from the Senate to become Secretary of State in January 2009.

When Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State, she helped Barack Obama craft his anti-Israel positions. Like other presidents, Obama made his own policy; he fundamentally transformed America’s foreign policy. He reoriented America’s Middle East policy in favor of the ayatollahs, to make Iran the regional superpower, disadvantaging America’s traditional allies: Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Arab monarchies. Like other secretaries of state, Hillary had the option of resigning if she did not agree with the foreign policy, but she shared the same flawed vision of the world as Obama.

Hillary Clinton made an official visit to the Middle East in November 1999, when her husband was the president. During the visit, Suha Arafat, the wife of Palestine leader Yasser Arafat, made slanderous allegations in her presence: “Our [Palestinian] people have been submitted to the daily and intensive use of poisonous gas by the Israeli forces, which has led to an increase in cancer cases among women and children.” Suha Arafat also accused Israel of contaminating the water sources used by Palestinians with “chemical materials” and “poisoning Palestinian women and children with toxic gases.”

Hillary listened to a real-time translation of the accusations without objections. She also hugged and kissed Suha Arafat when she finished speaking. Twelve hours passed without a word from Hillary. Only when she saw the public outcry did she call Suha Arafat’s words “inflammatory.” She also called on all sides to refrain from “inflammatory rhetoric and baseless accusations,” including Israel, whose leaders made no such accusations.

Then Hillary did what she and her husband often do when they mess up: She blamed others. First she blamed the translator, though the Palestinians would have assigned one of their most capable translators to handle a major speech by the wife of the Palestinian leader. She then tried to blame the Americans traveling with her, who, she said, told her that Suha Arafat’s remarks were “not worthy of any particular comment.” She also blamed her husband: If she were not the First Lady, she could have spoken up sooner.

Hillary should not have been there. Her advisers told her that traveling to the Territories in the middle of a difficult peace process and her own Senate race was to court disaster. Perhaps the sumptuous trappings of overseas travel as First Lady won out. When Republicans questioned her actions, she responded with arrogance: “It is unfortunate that there are any questions about what was a very straightforward occasion.” Most Americans would not agree that public accusations that an American ally was engaging in chemical genocide make for a “straightforward occasion.” Till now, Hillary Clinton has not specifically contradicted nor denounced the lies uttered by Suha Arafat in her presence.

Hillary Clinton became a supporter of Israel in her Senate years because she needed the Jewish vote and campaign contributions. After becoming the Secretary of State, one of her first actions was to call for the end of construction of new homes for Jews in existing neighborhoods in Jerusalem and the Territories, contravening an existing U.S./Israel agreement made during the Bush administration. This was a major error by the Hillary Clinton State Department, compounded by the inclusion of Jerusalem. Elliot Abrams, who negotiated the agreement for the U.S., stated that the agreement was valid.

In early 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanded the “settlement” freeze and was quickly supported by Obama. The Palestinians seized upon the Hillary-created settlement issue as an opportunity to avoid negotiations. They used the demands for a “settlement” freeze a precondition to further talks, even though there were negotiations and construction going on simultaneously before she became Secretary of State.

In August 2009 Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced a ten-month “settlement” freeze. It was approved by the Israeli cabinet and implemented on November 25, 2009 and was to run till September 25, 2010. Despite pressure from America, the Palestinians refused to join any talks the first nine months of the freeze; they did not come to the negotiation table till September 2010, three weeks before the freeze ended.

As the end of the “settlement” freeze approached, the U.S. asked Israel to extend the freeze. Israel demanded that any proposal be presented in writing, based on their experience with Hillary denying the deal negotiated by Elliot Abrams during the Bush Administration. The written offer never came; Hillary was not negotiating in good faith.

In 2011, speaking at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the left-wing Brookings Institution, Hillary Clinton attempted to delegitimize Israel as a free nation by expressing concern for Israel’s social climate in the wake of limitations regarding female singing in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and gender segregation on public transportation. Both were accommodations made to the Orthodox communities in Israel. She said the decision of some IDF soldiers to leave an event where female soldiers were singing reminded her of the situation in Iran. Whereas, in Iran the women would have been lashed or executed. In Israel the women sang, but some people, exercising their personal freedom, felt it was against their religious beliefs and were allowed to walk out. In the IDF, most senior officers supported the women’s right to sing.

Hillary Clinton also spoke of her shock that some Jerusalem buses had assigned separate seating areas for women, at the request of both men and women who are stringently Orthodox, and compared it to the segregation era in America. She said “it’s reminiscent of Rosa Parks.” Her statement was part of the continued attempt to de-legitimize Israeli democracy by the Obama administration.

In the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s email scandals, the media coverage of her emails from her close friend Sidney Blumenthal has mostly been about his recommendations about Libya; however, he also sent many emails about Israel. Some of them consisted of forwarding articles from his anti-Semitic son, writer Max Blumenthal, but others were recommendations of policies describing Israel as the oppressor.

As reported by the National Review Online: Blumenthal sent dozens of e-mails advising Clinton on Israel in 2010. Before her March speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Blumenthal sent Clinton an article from left-wing Israeli writer Uri Avnery accusing the Netanyahu government of “starting a rebellion” against America and defending interests that diverge from America’s. Clinton responded: “I have to speak to AIPAC tomorrow…How — and should I — use this [sic]?” Blumenthal said he will send another memo the next day.

In that memo, he told Hillary to “hold Bibi [Binyamin Netanyahu]’s feet to the fire” on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process: “Perhaps most controversial would be to remind [AIPAC] in as subtle but also direct a way as you can that it does not have a monopoly over American Jewish opinion. Bibi is stage managing US Jewish organizations (and neocons, and the religious right, and whomever else he can muster) against the administration. AIPAC itself has become an organ of the Israeli right, specifically Likud.” Whereas, AIPAC favors Israel’s left-wing parties, and is becoming more so in reaction to J-Street, the group formed to give political cover to Obama among liberal Jews. J-Street professes to be pro-Israel, and pro-peace, but its public pronouncements regularly attack the policies of the Israeli government, and back all pressure Obama directs at Israel.

On May 17, Blumenthal forwarded Hillary an article on the Israeli government’s decision to deny pro-Palestine activist Noam Chomsky access to the Territories. Blumenthal wrote that: “Barring him for his political opinions has created a needless PR disaster. The US should not be a passive onlooker…The US effort on his behalf to gain entry should be part of the story.” Hillary forwarded the memo to her staff with instructions to “pls print 3 copies.” Chomsky is anti-Israel and has been fierce in his opposition to Israel’s right to defend itself from terrorism, and had been banned from the country since 2010.

In an e-mail from May 31 entitled “Several observations on the Israeli raid,” Blumenthal blamed Netanyahu’s family “inferiority complex” for his decision to launch a raid on the “Gaza Flotilla,” a group of ships seeking to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza: “Bibi desperately seeks his father’s approbation and can never equal his dead brother.” Blumenthal then hinted that the raid was deliberately orchestrated to kill the peace process and humiliate Obama before his scheduled visit with the prime minister. Hillary forwarded the message to Jake Sullivan, her deputy chief of staff at the State Department, and she wrote: “FYI and I told you so.”

On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks published a collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails leaked to WikiLeaks. The DNC is the governing body of the United States’ Democratic Party. The leak caused the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda. The leak revealed attempts to smear Bernie Sanders, a candidate in the Democratic Party presidential primaries, with information that might damage him. Wasserman Schultz called Jeff Weaver, manager of Bernie Sanders’ campaign, a “damn liar.” The Washington Post reported: “Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.”

The DNC wanted to use Sanders’s Jewish heritage and lack of religious belief against him. In one of the email chains, Marshall told Dacey that someone should ask Sanders if he is an atheist: “Get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God [sic]. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.” The DNC announced Wasserman Schultz would not gavel open the Democratic Party’s convention. Hillary subsequently appointed Wasserman Schultz chair of Hillary’s presidential campaign’s “50 state program.”

There is nothing in Hillary Clinton’s history that would qualify her for the presidency, and much that should disqualify her. The most important job she ever held was as the Secretary of State, heading the U.S. Department of State, principally concerned with foreign affairs. Under her watch as Secretary of State, American foreign policy had one setback after another, separated by disasters. She orchestrated the U.S. intervention in Libya and Egypt, undermining governments that were no threat to American interests, which led to terrorist chaos in Libya and Islamic extremists taking over in Egypt.

Under Hillary’s watch as Secretary of State was the radical transformation of American foreign policy and the historic catastrophe — permitting Iranians to develop nuclear  weapons while making it difficult for Israel to stop them. Obama’s years-long negotiations with Iran allowed time to multiply, disperse, and fortify Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Obama administration’s leakage of Israel’s secret agreement with Azerbaijan, allowing Israeli warplanes to refuel if attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, sabotaged any Israeli attempt to destroy Iranian facilities.

In the 2009 Iranian Green Movement, in which protesters demanded the removal of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from office, Hillary Clinton was intent on “engagement” with the world’s most dangerous regime and vilest state-sponsor of terrorism. She cut funding to organizations supporting Iranian human rights, then sat by as thousands of Iranians were imprisoned, tortured and executed. She repeatedly watered down sanctions against Iran, and it was during her tenure that negotiations began with the Ahmadinejad regime, culminating in the Iranian deal, which she supported, and still supports: Iran could develop nuclear weapons and the ayatollahs get $150 billion.

Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, Islamic State, Libya, Syria and Yemen are the dark forces in Israel’s neighborhood. They could have looked different today had Hillary not betrayed America’s democratic values with her “smart power.” Hillary, as well as Obama, sought to put distance diplomatically between America and Israel.

She berated Netanyahu publicly for announcing Jerusalem home building, compared Israel to an apartheid regime, correlated the status of women in Israel to that in Iran, demanded reckless concessions from Israel to promote “peace talks” while never making serious demands of the Palestinian Authority or ever holding it accountable, granted legitimacy to George Soros-sponsored J Street, made a false equivalency between terrorist attacks on Israel and Israel’s attempts to defend itself, questioned Israel’s commitment to its American alliance, rejected the legitimacy of all Jewish construction across the Green Line including Jerusalem neighborhoods, etc.

Netanyahu infuriated the Obama administration when he talked about the truth of the internationally supported Palestinian Arab demand that Israel must transfer control over Jerusalem and the Territories to the Palestinians Jew-free. From its first days in office, the Obama administration rejected the civil rights of Jews as Jews in these areas and seeks the complete negation of their rights through destruction, mass expulsion, and property seizure: ethnic cleansing. So if Hillary were elected president, her administration could be an Obama third term: the American people could be left unprotected from Islamic terrorists, and Israel could face unprecedented pressure to submit to Palestinian Arab terrorists.

The Republicans have become the pro-Israel party. Democrats talk about their commitment to Israel, but when Hillary and Obama were abusing Israel diplomatically, there was no pushback from congressional Democrats. Even the Jewish Democrats in Congress always stood with the administration. Whereas, Republicans have stood up for Israel unapologetically, and just passed the most pro-Israel platform in American history.

The blatant anti-Semitism displayed at the 2016 Democratic National Convention merits a mention: Booing any mention of Israel, chanting “Intifada”, burning the Israeli flag, etc. The Democrats do not even try to disguise their disdain for Jews any more. Nevertheless, a vast majority of American Jews could still vote for Hillary and other Democrats.
Hillary Clinton is campaigning on the basis that she is a friend of Israel, just as she did in the Senate, and Obama did twice for the presidency. As Secretary of State, she was the architect of the policy of the most anti-Israel president since the rebirth of Israel in 1948. It was a policy which reflected views she has held her entire life, with the exception of the nine-year period when she ran for and held the office of U.S. Senator from New York State. American voters should not let her get away with hiding her true self. Israel-focused Americans should vote for Republicans in Senate and congressional races, as well as for Donald Trump as president. Hillary Clinton has collapsed her election.

Trump Really Would Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital

September 26, 2016

Trump Really Would Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital, PJ Media, Roger L Simon, September 26, 2016


Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton met with Benjamin Netanyahu Sunday.  Interestingly, Trump was with the Israeli prime for nearly ninety minutes, Clinton for less than an hour.

The Republican candidate obviously had more of substance to discuss with Netanyahu – the efficacy of security walls and their mutual distrust of the Iran nuclear deal being two obvious examples.  For Hillary, the encounter was more of a quick check on her bucket list, and probably an uncomfortable one.

After his meeting, Trump’s people made clear that Donald had pledged that, if elected president, he would formally recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state.

This has been a bone of contention (to put it mildly) from, we could almost say, time immemorial, because the Jewish claim on the city dates from at least the construction of Solomon’s temple, estimated to be 832 BCE. (Actually, there’s lots of earlier evidence of Jewish presence in Jerusalem, including the extensive excavations of David’s City, but I’m keeping it simple here.) Islam, currently occupying Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, has its origins in the beginning of the 7th Century CE, over 1400 years after Solomon, and in Mecca and Medina (not Jerusalem).  No one sane disputes this.

Several American presidential candidates – when running for office – have made pledges similar to Trump’s, then, upon election, basically reneged, usually by ignoring the situation or telling the Israelis to wait until the Palestinian question is resolved.  That gave those presidents a fair amount of cover because it would take Solomon himself to tell us when that would be – and even in his case I’m not sure.

So it’s natural that Trump’s pledge would be met with some skepticism.  On Twitter Sunday night, several Republican stalwarts attacked a tweet I had written in support of Trump on this matter, implying (or even stating) that I was promoting a lie.  The candidate would never go forward with the recognition.

While I think these attacks were basically masked, last-ditch NeverTrumpism, this would be a significant decision on Trump’s part with great international ramifications and I owe my critics a bit longer response than I could give in 140-character tweets.

To begin with, Trump attended the meeting Sunday in the company of his son-in-law Jared Kushner.  Kushner – a real estate investor himself and publisher of The Observer who has emerged as one of Trump’s key advisers – is an Orthodox Jew and therefore takes the Jerusalem issue quite seriously, far more than almost any politician or political professional would.  This could only signal to Netanyahu – and should to all of us – that Trump was not taking the meeting, or anything he said in it, lightly.

Yes, he could have been using Kushner as an emblem of some sort, but I suspect Kushner himself would have been unhappy about that.  So I further suspect the reverse was true here.  This was a gesture meant to say to the Israelis – I’m with you in the deepest sense.  (Clinton was accompanied in her meeting by Jake Sullivan, who has been frequently besmirched by the email scandal.)

More importantly, Trump, not being a lifetime politician, would be the first president, basically ever, well-positioned to follow through on the pledge. He has never participated in the seemingly endless rounds of Middle East negotiations.  The ins-and-out of the increasingly dubious Oslo Accords were not his doing.  He can come to all of this fresh, with, let’s hope, common sense.

Recognizing  Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is just the kind of action I think Trump would enjoy taking because, after the initial brouhaha, everybody would realize that nothing really had changed.  The facts on the ground would be the same, Israel would still be allowing Muslim worship at Al Aqsa, and the absurdity of Jerusalem not being recognized as the capital of Israel when it really is would be unmasked.

Most of all, it would be a sign that Western Civilization is not prepared to give up its dominant role in the future of humanity – something, at this moment, that is sorely needed.

On Israeli TV, Hillary makes the choice for Trump clearer than ever

September 12, 2016

On Israeli TV, Hillary makes the choice for Trump clearer than ever, Jerusalem PostDavid Friedman, September 11, 2016

hilclintHillary Clinton. (photo credit:REUTERS)

Hillary Clinton appeared on Channel 2 News late last week. She had the opportunity, once and for all, to distance herself from the views of Max Blumenthal, George Soros and her other far-left anti-Israel supporters, and to offer a change of course from President Barack Obama. Needless to say, she didn’t.

Clinton did little more than repeat her often-mentioned but even more often-violated platitude regarding the unbreakable bond between the United States and Israel. She failed to note how she single-handedly broke that bond in 2009 when she took office as US secretary of state and unilaterally ripped up the written commitment of George W. Bush – a promise made by the president to prime minister Ariel Sharon in connection with Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza – recognizing that the US no longer expected Israel to contract to the indefensible armistice lines of 1949.

She also failed to note how she broke that bond again just a few months later when she demanded that Israel immediately freeze any and all construction within Judea and Samaria, notwithstanding that the Palestinians were offering nothing in exchange for such a drastic concession. Oddly enough, she took great credit in the interview for implementing this freeze, something even Democrats now consider to be a mistake.

Clinton did not, because she could not, attempt to defend her well-established record of favoring the Palestinians against the Israelis. Clinton offered no explanation for the receipt of massive payments from theocratic Arab nations by the Clinton Foundation and herself personally, and did not attempt to distinguish her policies and practices from those of Barak Obama. Indeed, she hailed those policies and promised to continue them.

Clinton took great pride in her role in achieving a nuclear agreement with Iran. Notwithstanding her acknowledgment that Iran is the world’s chief state sponsor of terrorism, she inexplicably proclaimed that the world is a safer place now that Iran has been enriched by billions of dollars, has acquired sophisticated anti-ballistic missiles and has been granted an unrestricted runway to nuclear capability.

According to Clinton, we are all better off for having traded billions of dollars and crippling sanctions for a piece of paper adopted by a rogue nation that, even if fully complied with, makes Iran a nuclear power in a decade.

Ironically, as Clinton was speaking, Iranian military boats were provoking US warships in the Persian Gulf.

Because she has no record of achievement on Israel, her remarks to Yonit Levi, by necessity, focused on her criticism of Donald Trump. If there is still a line that can be crossed in American politics, she crossed it. Clinton accused a full half of Donald Trump’s supporters – roughly a quarter of the population of the United States – of being “deplorable.”

With no substantiation, she attributed to these unidentified people the ugliest of motives, from bigotry to misogyny to anti-Semitism. What a horrible thing to say about the nation she hopes to lead. The truth is that the fringe elements that support Trump are minuscule and unequivocally disavowed by the candidate. Clinton cannot say the same of the agitators on the Left who are rabidly anti-Israel and who form a core constituency within her campaign. In keeping with the Democrat playbook of the modern era, Clinton reflexively plays the “race card” whenever the questioning gets tough.

But of all the dumb things said by Clinton on Channel 2, her explanation for refusing to acknowledge the enmity of radical Islam takes the prize. Even though the word “Islamic” forms a part of the name of Islamic State, she won’t refer to Islamic terrorism by its name. Like her former boss, Barack Obama, she posits that identifying the enemy provides them with a means to recruit more terrorists. Perhaps if we just call them something else, maybe something flattering, we will have them on the run.

Can you imagine Winston Churchill or FDR refusing to identify the Nazis by name for fear of bolstering their recruiting? And yet in this world war of the 21st century, Clinton is falling right in line with the failed approach of Obama – the Neville Chamberlain of our time. Clinton even went so far as to say that jihadists are “praying” for Trump to win (as if she were privy to jihadi prayers). What complete nonsense.

Jihadists seek to impose Sharia law on the entire world and their greatest fear is someone like Trump – a leader who would seek the immediate destruction of ISIS with overwhelming force, not politically correct speech or psychological babble.

In contrast to many other nations who seek from America unbalanced trade, open borders or US troops for their defense, Israel doesn’t ask much of the US: support at the UN Security Council, military cooperation and related strategic aid (very much a two-way street), no public airing of disagreements, no attempts to impose a settlement of the Palestinian issues against Israel’s will and recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s eternal capital. Trump emphatically endorses all these points, and other pro-Israel measures, as being in the collective best interests of both Israel and the US. Hillary Clinton is at best adrift on these issues, and, in all likelihood, just Barak Obama 2.0.

Many thanks to Channel 2 and Yonit Levi for helping to clarify the stark differences between the candidates.