Exciting news for those wishing to join AFSI on the Chizuk mission to Israel this May 5-14, 2013. Visit the www.afsi.org website for an outline of the trip. More details to follow.
El Al is having a special $999 sale that includes our dates. You must do your booking today, Jan. 22. Please do not miss out on this opportunity to join us at this great sale price. See the www.elal.com website.Once you book your flight, call Helen at AFSI: 212-828-2424 or email firstname.lastname@example.org to register for the mission.
Exciting news for those wishing to join AFSI on the Chizuk mission to Israel this May 5-14, 2013. Visit the www.afsi.org website for an outline of the trip. More details to follow.
“On the plains of hesitation,” the English poet George Cecil Ives observed, “bleach the bones of countless millions who at the dawn of victory sat down to wait…and in waiting, died.”
Benjamin Netanyahu was at the dawn of victory six months ago when he set September 4th as the date for Israeli national elections and his own third run for the premiership of the Jewish state. Smith Research, the most respected of Israel’s polling organizations, was predicting 37-40 Knesset mandates for his Likud party, on its own, up from 27 in 2008. Netanyahu could have coasted to victory against a Left and Center-Left divided, demoralized and in disarray. Instead of moving in for the kill, he ”sat down to wait,” fomenting an ill-conceived Likud electoral list partnership with the Yisrael Beyteinu party of soon to be indicted former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and a 71-day mock marriage with Shaul Mofaz and a virtually comatose Kadima . Finally getting to elections in late January, he instigated a costly campaign feud with Naftali Bennett and his Ha’Bayit Ha’Yehudi (“The Jewish Home”) party.
It speaks to the anomaly of the Israeli political system that despite a 30 percent haircut to 31 mandates from the 42 they received as independent entities four years earlier, Netanyahu and Likud-Beyteinu are neither dead nor on life-support. Rather, in some critical respects, including his further dealings with Barak Obama, the prime minister may have emerged from the ordeal strengthened. Assuming he can clear his mind of “governments of national unity” and other oxymoronic notions, the prime minister’s future could still be a work in progress. That will depend on his ability to get Bennett, the 40 year- old former software tycoon who propelled Bayit Yehudi from 3 to 12 mandates, and ex-TV journalist Yair Lapid, who at 49 created Yesh Atid (“There is a future”) and turned it into Israel’s second largest political entity (19 mandates) around the same table. If he can manage it, his dream of creating a governing coalition unlittered with factional splinters and their extortionist demands may finally be realized.
The math certainly works. Likud-Beyteinu, Yesh Atid and Bayit Yehudi command a 62-seat majority in the 120-seat Knesset. They could without much risk raise it to 64 by accessing Shaul Mofaz and his two-seat Kadima faction. The politics work too. “Nonsense,” is Michael Widlanski’s response to the characterization of Yesh Atid as a “Left- leaning” party. “Lapid is not on the Left,” asserts the author of Battle for Our Minds: Western Elites and the Terror Threat (Simon & Schuster), “neither politically nor economically.” Markedly uninterested in associating Yesh Atid with Meretz’s and the Tzipi Livni Party’s regurgitated pleas for unrequited concessions to Mahmoud Abbas in the pursuit of “peace,” Lapid’s election campaign focused on the equalization of the burden of national military service within the larger context of integrating Israel’s 800,000 ultra-Orthodox population into the Israeli economic and educational mainstream. Though not a Right-wing party, approximately half the votes that rocketed Yesh Atid to second place in the Knesset count came from people who describe themselves as rightist, according to pollster Mina Tsemah.
In his total rejection of the “two-state” paradigm as the solution to the Arab-Israeli impasse, Naftali Bennett and Bayit Yehudi are clearly to the right of Lapid and Yesh Atid, who regard it as unrealistic under present conditions. They are pretty much on the same page, however, in respect to the equalization of the burden of military service, the haredi integration into the economy and the conviction that it has to be an “evolutionary” process . Both are staunch promoters of a strengthened middle class as the cornerstone of sustained economic health.
Bringing Yesh Atid, a secular party headed by a mainstream TV news personality with a large national following into the coalition, should, if nothing else, blunt the Obama administration’s charge that Netanyahu- led Israel’s sole support for an end to further concessions to the Palestinian Authority stems from the “far- Right.” Yesh Atid’s input in Israel’s decision-making process should also temper to some degree the European Union’s warped conception of Netanyahu as the leader of a war-obsessed garrison state.
Rael Jean Isaac is on vacation. these entries are from Ruth King
WHY THE SURPRISE AND OUTRAGE NOW? BY RUTH KING
Please note that Rael Jean Isaac is on vacation this month.
Why is anyone surprised by President Obama’s choices of Chuck Hagel and John Kerry and John Brennan? Where have they been during the past four years?President Obama, in his first speech to the United Nations in 2009 made his sentiments very clear.
He ignored, as he always has, the terrorism and barbaric human rights violation in the Moslem world, stating that “Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world….protracted conflicts that grind on and on; genocide, mass atrocities, more nations with nuclear weapons; melting ice caps and ravaged populations; persistent poverty and pandemic disease.”
Well, some of those very deep pockets of the world are in Saudi Arabia where the President of the United Nations bowed to the tyrant who promotes and funds and enables genocide and terror.And, let’s face it there are no “melting ice caps” in Saudi Arabia or those Moslem nations he is so eager to avoid dissing.
Then after platitudes upon platitudes he segued into the Middle East and mentioned his “special Czar for Middle East Peace- George Mitchell, a Chuck Hagel In John Kerry clothing.
And what did he promise his Czar would do to end the Israel/Arab conflict? He evoked a Mitchell engineered settlement based on “….security for Israelis and Palestinians….two states living side by side in peace and security- a Jewish Stqte of Israel…..and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. “
Contiguous territory? I hereby offer a free lifetime subscription to OUTPOST to anyone who can figure out how to make Gaza and the West Bank contiguous without strangling Israel.
Then the man who has Israel’s back added “ The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate
claims and rights of the Palestinians.”
There are four people who share those thoughts….Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Brennan and Chuck Hagel.
Where was the outrage in 2009? 2010? 2011? And 2012?
AFSI NOTES WITH GREAT SADNESS THAT RON NACHMAN THE MAYOR OF ARIEL DIED ON JANUARY 18TH, OF THIS YEAR. RON WAS OUR FRIEND AND INSPIRATION. THIS COLUMN BY DR. MOSHE DANN SUMS UP THE LIFE OF A GREAT ZIONIST
Ron Nachman, mayor of Ariel, had a vision. “I want to build a city here that will be the center of a regional area, not a satellite of some larger place, an independent city of thirty or sixty thousand Jews, that will offer services to everyone – Jews and Arabs from the Jordan Valley to Petach Tikvah. And I want peace, real peace; coexistence, not separation.”
Nachman, a fourth generation Israeli, came from a long tradition of builders and public figures. His grandfather helped establish Nes Ziyyona, near Rehovolt, in the early 1880’s; his father was the deputy mayor of the town. In 1977, Nachman came to an isolated hilltop 30 kilometers east of Tel Aviv with a handful of friends and envisioned a city. Today, that dream is an impressive reality.
Unlike his neighbors in Gush Emunim who took over sites that were, at first, in dispute, Nachman played strictly by the rules. He received government permission every step of the way, and the funds to build. At the time he was the deputy director-general of Israel Military Industries, and later became a director at IBA. In 1985, shortly after Ariel received its municipal council status, Nachman became its first elected mayor and served in that position ever since.
The dynamic mayor was simply undaunted by obstacles. Told that he could not receive thirty caravans to house new immigrants from the FSU, during a massive wave of aliyah, he fought with the Housing Ministry and eventually arranged for six hundred. He literally ran from one project to another, from classrooms where young children play with computers to libraries and planning meetings with the satisfaction of a proud father. Ariel was his child and his soul.
On November 29, 2012 the UN General Assembly voted, by a margin of 138-9 with 41 abstentions, to confer non-member state observer status on the Palestinian Authority. IN a NY Times article describing the vote, Ethan Bronner characterized it as “a sharp rebuke to the United States and Israel’ in view of the efforts by both countries to abort the vote.
Israel’s Ambassador to the U.N., Ron Prosor, stated that the adoption of the resolution “will make a negotiated peace settlement less likely, as Palestinians continue to harden their positions and place
further obstacles and preconditions to negotiations and peace.” Ambassador Alan Baker, former legal adviser and deputy director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated: “The UN does not have the legal and political power to establish states. It merely upgraded the observer status of the PLO’s UN representation to that of a non-member observer state for internal purposes within the UN and its constituent organs and agencies.”
However, the Rabbis of B’nai Jeshurun (“BJ”) saw things differently; to them the passage of the General Assembly resolution was “an opportunity to celebrate the process that allows a nation to come
forward and ask for recognition”. They could not wait to bring the celebratory news to their congregants, distributing an email the very next day in the name of all three BJ Rabbis, the Hazzan. the synagogue’s board president and other synagogue officials. The email proudly proclaimed that the UN vote on the preceding day was “a great moment for us as citizens of the world”. Perhaps from their unique Olympian vantage point “as citizens of the world” the BJ Rabbis spy great moments that the rest of us who are merely citizens of the United States, Israel or another state cannot perceive.
However, in their haste to forward their celebratory email the rabbis apparently failed to obtain the consent of the non-rabbinical signatories and they were compelled to issue a second email stating
that “while we affirm the essence of our message” the email “should not have included the names” of the non-rabbinical signatories, and expressing “regret” regarding “the feelings of alienation that
resulted from our letter.” The New York Times took note of the first email in a front page article, which also referenced a similar email sent by six rabbis in White Plains, New York. The Times subsequently published a second article reporting the “correction” issued by the BJ rabbis.
The three B’nai Jeshurun rabbis have a well deserved reputation for advocacy of “progressive” causes; for example, their activities include service by one or more of the rabbis on the boards of the Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, Human Rights Watch/Americas, the Progressive Jewish Alliance and the Jewish Funds for Justice, all of which are identified with the “progressive” left of the Jewish
political spectrum. Interestingly, BJ’s two senior Rabbis, Matalon and Bronstein, as well as Hazzan Priven, are natives of Buenos Aires..
Alan Dershowitz, a sometime attendee of services at BJ, calls the BJ Rabbis “extraordinarily naïve.” He observed that “Naïveté and ignorance are not an excuse for supporting immoral actions, especially when this support comes from rabbis and congregational leaders who ought to do their homework before spouting out support for resolutions whose implications they do not understand.” [http://forward.com/articles/167286/bnai-jeshurun-should-rethink-rash-statehood-suppor/
The six White Plains rabbis, referenced in the front page NY Times article, represent Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist congregations in that city (no orthodox rabbis
signed the email statement). The most egregious factual error in their collective statement was the unqualified assertion that “Both sides have now indicated that they are prepared for negotiations without preconditions”. On the contrary, the Palestinian Arab leadership has emphasized it will not enter into negotiations until various preconditions have been met.
In addition to the false assertion, the statement contains not even a hint of the impediments to negotiations over which Israel has no control, such as the split between Gaza, ruled by Hamas, and the
West Bank, ostensibly ruled by Abbas and Fatah. Which Palestinian Arab parties do the signatories think have “now indicated that they are prepared for negotiations without preconditions”? Hamas has
emphatically ruled out any peace negotiations with Israel, as distinguished from short term truces, or hudnas, [“There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.” Article 13 of Hamas Charter].
Two of the five films nominated for Best Documentary by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences this year are Israeli films. Let’s hope one of the other films wins.
Why? Because the two films portray Israel and Israelis in the classic two-dimensional role of evil occupier and brutal interrogator.
The first of the two movies, “5 Broken Cameras,” has a plot as thin as pita bread. You already know the plot, even if you’ve never heard of the movie: Israelis are very bad, they violently wrest away the land and the dignity from the angelic Arab Palestinians. That’s the story, in a nutshell.
If you want more specifics, “5 Broken Cameras,” chronicles the experience of the Arabs who live in the village of Bil’in, next to which, in 2005, part of Israel’s security fence was erected. The five cameras refer to ones owned by the amateur filmmaker and Bil’in villager Emad Burnat, who purchased them in order to document the “horrors” of the Israeli encroachment (although some accounts claim the cameras were purchased for the birth of Burnat’s first and then subsequent children). Burnat records the weekly “nonviolent” activities held by the villagers and international agitators who join them to protest the fence. He claims that all five cameras were broken by the evil Israelis responding to the weekly nonviolent protests against what they call the “Apartheid Wall.”
The sole objective of “5 Broken Cameras,” like so many Pallywood videos, is to portray Arabs as the innocent victims of the evil “Zionist Occupation Government.” Astoundingly enough, however, this movie actually started as video clips of the protests that were submitted as “evidence” to Israeli courts and handed over to be used by mainstream media to show the sad plight of the Arabs.
For those who maintain a vigilant watch on news reports about the Arab-Israeli conflict, Bil’in is famous for a very different kind of revelation – it is one of the few times the pro-Israel side was able to capture – dead to rights – the Arab Palestinians in a flat out lie.
Jawaher abu Rahma was an Arab woman who lived in Bil’in. In late December, 2010, spilling on into 2011, news reports from dozen of mainstream media outlets claimed that abu Rahma was killed by the Israelis who threw tear gas at the “nonviolent” protesters near the fence. How awful. Except that it turned out abu Rahma, who died in a Ramallah Hospital on December 31, 2010, died as the result of medical malpractice at the hospital, completely unrelated to any tear gas. In fact, abu Rahma wasn’t even at the protest that day. A film about how Jawaher abu Rahma actually died, who exploited her death, and why the lies about it weren’t considered news is a film I’d be happy to recommend.
“5 Broken Cameras” is 90 minutes long, and is in Hebrew and Arabic.
The second Israeli film nominated for Best Documentary is an odd film to be nominated for any kind of artistic award; it really is mostly the piecing together of six long interviews with six former heads of the Israeli Agency in charge of preventing terrorism, the Shin Bet, interspersed with what looks like stock footage of the Arab Israeli conflict from the six o’clock news.
While it is fascinating to hear what the leaders of one of the world’s most vaunted spy agencies think, it’s hard to believe that, were it not for the opportunity to hear firsthand bashing of Israel, anyone would sit still for more than an hour and a half watching aging men with strong accents talk into the camera.
As we witness radical Jewish leftists assume a prominent role in an international assault on the Jewish State, we are reminded that their counterparts in the past not only fought Zionism tooth and nail, but also demonstrably opposed American involvement in the “imperialist” war against Hitler.
In the Spring of 1929, when the followers of the British-appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem attacked unarmed Jewish men, women, and children in such religious centers as Hebron and Safed, killing and maiming more than four hundred, the Communist Yiddish Daily “Freiheit,” which was published in New York and had a paid readership of 65,000 at that time, blamed the “Zionists” for the pogroms and hailed the bloody events as “the beginning of the Arab revolution.”
Norman Thomas, the Socialist candidate for Mayer of New York City and a gentile beloved by many Jews, denounced the Balfour Declaration in a message to a Conference of the United Hebrew Trades even as he sent a check to help the survivors.
In a rally at Union Square, Jewish Communists proclaimed support for the “revolutionary uprising of the Arab masses” to whom they forwarded “brotherly greetings.”
Many years later, Lionel Trilling said: “We were inclined to be skeptical about Zionism and even opposed it and during the violence that flared up in 1929, some of us were, on principle, pro-Arab.”
One cannot help remembering the enthusiastic involvement of many young Jews in the “Peace Movement” prior to the German invasion of the USSR.
Indeed, in a pamphlet dated May 11, 1940, entitled “The Jewish People and the War,” Earl Browder, then the leader of the American Communists, wrote:
“This war is an imperialist war, and the Jewish people…have nothing to gain from taking sides, they have nothing to gain from an Allied victory just as they have nothing to gain from a victory by Hitler.”
Lest we think it was only the Young Jewish Communists at CCNY and other colleges who demonstrated against the “imperialist” war, we were reminded by Bernard Bellush, an alumnus of City College, in a letter to the English language Forward published on June 11, 1993, that they had company:
“..Shortly before I graduated in January, 1941, all of us in Alcove 1 – Democratic Socialists Trotskyists, Labor Zionists and Anarchists – planned and convened an anti-war anti-ROTC rally on Convent Avenue, in front of General Webb’s statue.”
It would be an understatement to point out that the unfolding Jewish catastrophe in Europe was simply not on the radar screen of the “progressive” Jewish students who were drowning in Marxist claptrap. If they hadn’t fallen victim to anti-Semitism, themselves, how else is one to explain the widespread reluctance to identify as Jews, the indifference to the Jewish fate, and the hostility to Zionism which was providing an imperative lifeline to the endangered Jewish people?
It is not surprising that many “enlightened” Jews subliminally soaked up and internalized anti-Semitic attitudes deeply entrenched in the, basically, Christian culture surrounding them.
When someone says he knows what’s best for you. Or, that you don’t know what’s best for yourself.Too often it really means that they know what’s best for themselves, and that they want you to play ball in order to make it happen.
I’ve learned a few other things also over the years–like to often be wary when someone says that they have your back. Best to then ask how long the blade is that you’ll be stuck with.
I’m sorry to have to say what comes next, but for some reason–after close observation of both events and deep personal associations over the decades–the name Barack Hussein Obama comes to mind followed by “Israel.” Yes, many will have a fit over my saying this–but will pathetically stumble when hit between the eyes with overwhelming solid documentation and other evidence.
The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg–rival to Thomas Friedman of The New York Times for the Arabs’ dhimmi kelbi yahudi (Jew dog) man of the year award–recently wrote a widely-reported piece for the Bloomberg View (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-14/what-obama-thinks-israelis-don-t-understand-.html). Among other things, he seems to have quoted President Obama stating that Israel simply doesn’t know what its own best interests are.
Understand that, like his powerful good friend in High Places, Goldberg also sees Jews–wishing to live in a state larger than the nine to fifteen-mile wide virtual sardine can that Israel was left as as a result of the U.N.-imposed armistice lines in 1949–as expecting too much and behaving like provocative, expansionist, right wing zealots.
The problem of the relationship between the current two American and Israel leaders is well known. There is no need to rehash all of the fine details yet again. The open microphone conversation between Obama and his French counterpart was revealing enough, not to mention the episode at the White House where Netanyahu was left stewing for hours by himself while Obama took off to dine with his family.
EVOLUTION OF HATRED by Ruth King
Here is a small quiz for OUTPOST readers:
Question: Who said that Jews are descended from apes and pigs?
Bashar Al Assad of Syria
The Moslem Brotherhood
President Morsi of Egypt
Charles Mohammed Darwin
Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the highest-ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world
Saudi sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, imam and preacher at the Al-Haraam mosque – the most important mosque in Mecca
Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi, PA official and imam of the Sheikh Ijlin mosque in Gaza City.
Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah
Salim ‘Azzouz, columnist for the Al-Ahrar Egyptian opposition daily, affiliated with the religious Liberal Party
British-Palestinian Muslim cleric Haitham al-Haddad
Answer: All of the above except for D. My apologies to Charles Darwin, the naturalist and father of the theory of evolution.
The radicals in the 1960s anti-war movement called policemen “pigs” to deprive them of respect and mercy. Fortunately, that movement dissipated but its participants became leftist activists, journalists and tenured academics, many of whom who now support the promulgators of these anti-Semitic slurs.
Associating Jews with apes, pigs, and other animals, is widespread in the Arab and Muslim world among both Shi’ites and Sunnis, and firmly grounded in Islamic religious sources since the advent of Mohammed. It dehumanizes the Jewish people and justifies Jihad.
When it was disclosed that Morsi had used that vile language, the Obama administration tut-tuted capped by the hapless Jay Carney who said “We completely reject these statements.” but clearly did not reject their man in Cairo who made it. In fact they just rewarded him with the pending delivery of American made F-16 fighter jets.