US Jews Go Right

Despite the assumption that American Jews traditionally vote for Democrats and not Republicans, there is a shift in the Jewish vote already taking place at the state level.

Politico points out that nationally, Jews make up only about 2 percent of the American population but are heavily represented in big cities and have disproportionately high voter turnout rates. While Democrats do get the lion’s share of the Jewish vote, some Jewish groups such as the Orthodox Jews have shifted to the Republicans, as seen in the 2004 elections, when 70 percent of Orthodox Jews supported George W. Bush.

At the state level, the Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie attracted 38 percent of the Jewish vote in 2009. As a result, Republicans who can be competitive in the Jewish community, gain an edge against Democratic opponents, who have been taking the Jewish vote for granted.

With only a week before historical mid-term elections, it is worth paying close attention to the Jewish vote in close Senate races in states with significant Jewish populations.
For example, Politico points to "the complicated Pennsylvania race,” where Republican-turned-Democrat Jewish senator, Arlen Specter was defeated in the primaries. In Philadelphia, Democratic nominee Joe Sestak signed the “Gaza 54 letter,” which called for Washington to pressure Israel to end the Gaza blockade. This fact alone might cause the Jewish voters to vote Republican.

Other examples where Jews might vote for the Republican candidates include Florida, where former Republican-turned-independent Charlie Crist, who is being endorsed by Jewish former Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler, might split the traditionally Democratic Jewish vote with Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek, causing a boost for Republican Marco Rubio.

Closer to my heart, New Jersey’s 12th district is another important area. Scott Sipprelle is challenging Rush Holt, another "Gaza 54" letter signer. While neither candidate is Jewish, a “Rabbis for Sipprelle” group is seeking to raise awareness of Holt’s actions, another move which could help bring the district back to the Republicans.

The 9th Congressional District in Illinois is also an area to watch, as Republican Joel Pollak - who has won the endorsement of Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz - is challenging Democrat Jan Schakowsky, another Jewish candidate. Israel has become a central issue in the campaign, with Pollak claiming that Schakowsky does not do enough for Israel.

One reason for the apparent fluidity of the Jewish vote could be Obama’s perceived tough stance on Israel. The Jewish vote in America is evolving. Instead of it being monolithically Democratic there are signs that at the local and state level Jews can shift their vote enough towards Republican candidates that Democrats are forced to play defense. Jewish voters care about issues such as the economy, the deficit, and health care. “Jewish voters in state elections across the country could significantly change our political landscape in November,” according to Politico.

The Associated Press reported that both Israelis and Palestinians are closely watching the upcoming midterm race in the United States, sensing that its results could affect both the peace talks as well as Obama's ability to coax concessions from Israel.

The report said that the Arabs are hoping that Obama’s mild reaction to Israel’s refusal to continue the construction freeze in Judea and Samaria has been due to political consideration, and that he would be freer to apply pressure on Israel after the vote November 2.
An adviser for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told AP that if Congress tilts Republican, it could have what he termed a "positive impact" on Israeli concerns, meaning there would be no pressure on Israel to make concessions.

“Settlements are not an obstacle to peace in the Middle East,” says Rev. Michael Faulkner, ex- New York Jets lineman, an evangelical minister and candidate for Congress. When asked about President Obama's plans to compel the Netanyahu government to extend the freeze on settlement construction in Judea, Samaria and parts of East Jerusalem, Faulkner replied, “I am tired of hearing the words 'occupation' and 'return to 1967 borders' when it comes to defining Israel because that simply is not the case. Israel is not an occupying power and thus anyone who says that Jewish settlement construction is an obstacle to peace in the Middle East is just using that as a smokescreen. The real obstacle to peace in that region are terrorists such as Hamas, Hizbullah and other Iranian proxies."

Expressing anger at the view of the Obama administration as it pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Faulkner stated, "Obama has participated in the delegitimization of Israel through his maltreatment of our best friend and stalwart ally in the region. By doing so he helps to fuel feelings of anti-Semitism."

Rev. Faulkner is fighting to unseat Charles Rangel, a Democrat and a political icon in Manhattan's 15th congressional district, which includes the upper West Side, Harlem and Washington Heights. Rev. Faulkner's candidacy has received endorsements from Fox TV commentator Sean Hannity, National Right to Life parties, Newt Gingrich. the New Era Democrats, the Black Republicans PAC, the Frederick Douglass Foundation and more than a dozen Christian churches, ministries, clerics and community groups.

America Supports Israel, Rejects Obama's Policies

A recent poll conducted by McLaughlin and Associates has found that the majority of American adults support Israel and oppose Obama's Middle East Policy.

50.9% of Americans said Jerusalem should remain Israel's undivided capital, compared to just 20.4% who disagreed. 77.9% said that Palestinian Authority leaders should recognize Israel as the Jewish state, compared to just 6% who said they should not.

A majority of 57.2% said Arab terrorism and denial of Israel's right to exist is primarily responsible for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

More Americans felt a Palestinian state would increase problems in the Middle East than felt it would be a solution. 25.5% said that if such a state were created, terrorism against Israel would actually increase, with 50.2% saying that the anti-American sentiment in the Arab world would be unchanged.

51.6% agreed that Obama has been less friendly to Israel than previous presidents, while 35.4% disagreed. 54.4% said they disagree with Obama's policy of publicly criticizing Israel while 27% agree with Obama's actions.
46.5% said they believe Obama's attempt to reach out to the Muslim world has left America less secure, while 33.1% said they believe America is now more secure.

The poll also found that a candidate's image as pro-Israel or anti-Israel could affect elections. 52.7% said they were more likely to vote for a candidate they perceive as pro-Israel, while 53.6% said they would not vote for an anti-Israel candidate even if they agreed with them on other issues.

Another finding was a strong concern that America could be the target if Iran obtained nuclear weapons. 49.8% said Iran is at least somewhat likely to attack America if it develops nuclear weapons, while a smaller number, 45.4%, termed such a scenario unlikely.
59.8% expressed support for destroying Iran's nuclear facilities in order to prevent the creation of a nuclear weapon, if sanctions fail.

Based on the findings of this poll, where to do you think the Obama Administration really stands? Judge its standing not according to empty words, but in relation to its deeds and actions. The conclusion, yet again, is that the Obama team is not in tone with the majority of the American people.

Dangerous Naïveté or Hidden Enmity?

Lets see if you can answer this short quiz:
1. Which organization is most responsible for the wave of kidnappings of Westerners in Lebanon in the '80s?
2. Which organization is responsible for the 1983 bombing of the US Embassy and the Marines barracks in Beirut which killed 241 Americans?
3. Which organization kidnapped and murdered US Marine Col. William Higgins and the CIA Beirut station chief William Buckley?
4. Which organization is responsible for the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires which left 85 innocents dead?

If you answered Hezbollah to all of the above, you were right, if not, you were either uniformed or chose to oversee the facts....Much like Obama's "counter-terrorism" chief, John Brennan. Recently, he announced that the Obama administration wants to "try to build up the more moderate elements" within Hezbollah!

In a murderous group officially labeled as a "foreign terrorist organization" by the U.S. State Department, closely tied to Iran, which funds and supplies it and third most responsible for American casualties (after Al Qaeda and Taliban), a deluded Administration wants to “build up (…) more moderate elements”.

Brennan is quoted as saying that Hezbollah has evolved from "purely a terrorist organization" to a militia to an organization that now has members within the parliament and the cabinet. Does that mean that a moderate wing of Hezbollah now exists or does this mean that a terrorist group has infiltrated the government of Lebanon?

When a terrorist group takes on quasi-governmental characteristics, as Hamas has done in Gaza, or forces its way into elected positions in a weak state, as Hezbollah has done in Lebanon, that is not "evolution" - it is another step toward those groups' original goal: bringing down a fledging democracy and replace it with an Islamist government. The Nazis in the 1930’s Germany employed similar tactics and used democratic institutions in order to destroy democracy.

Brennan has a history of controversial judgement to say the least. In a speech last February to the Islamic Center at New York University, Brennan said, "And, in all my travels the city I have come to love most is Al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together." Al-Quds, the Arabic name for Jerusalem, is an Islamist rallying cry. The Ayatollah Khomeini declared the last Friday of Ramadan "Al Quds Day “- "The Day of the Oppressed". Maybe someone should have reminded this rambling idiot that The “Al Quds Brigades” is the name of the "military wing" of a Palestinian Islamist terrorist group and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has a secret “Al Quds unit”, that coordinates with its terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah. For an American counterterrorism official to use such a weighted phrase to gratify a Muslim audience is not only troubling, it’s either proof of dangerous naïveté or down right stupidity (or both).
In the mean time, his boss, the most anti-Israel President in this country’s history pressures Israel not to build in….Al-Quds.

It is hard to believe that an “expert” in counterterrorism and the Middle East, as Brennan purports himself to be, could be so blind to the reality of Hezbollah, or to the real and growing danger of Iranian power in the region. It so hard to believe that the only other logical conclusion would be that Brennan knows exactly what he is saying and reflects the growing anti-Israel position of his boss, while at the same time, trying to appease the Islamo-Nazis. Reaching out to "build up" imaginary moderates in Hezbollah can only strengthen the Iranian regime, as Obama’s impotent policies toward Iran in the last 17 months have already done, while playing to the far left base of the Democrat Party by showing that the Administration is “building bridges” with the murderers.

Since Brennan is the subject of media speculation as a possible replacement for outgoing Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, we should all be deeply troubled that a man in whom Obama places such confidence advances such a misguided and out of touch view of our nation's enemies.

The Week of Hate

“Apartheid Week” is an annual event organized on college campuses in the United States, Canada and elsewhere by extreme anti-Israel groups.

The week-long event includes lectures and exhibits aimed at convincing students that Israel is a racist, colonial state. Participants are asked to sign a document opposing Zionism while supporting the creation of a state for Palestinian Authority Arabs. Although its organizers would like to paint this event as a legitimate form of political protest, it is nothing more than an orgy of anti-semitic hate, wrapped up in "anti-Zionist activism" meant to de-legitimize the State of Israel.

Bnei Brith Canada called this week to ban “Apartheid Week” events completely: "Today's resolution is an important first step towards what must be an outright ban of 'Israel Apartheid Week' and other similar events on campus whose raison d'etre to promote hatred, and whose activities invariably encourage harassment and intimidation of Jewish students,” Bnei Brith stated in a press release.

The organization Stand With Us took a different approach, urging students to “Use the Apartheid weeks ahead as a wonderful opportunity to teach the campus and local community about apartheid that exists today, in a majority of Middle Eastern countries where human rights abuses are commonplace... Simultaneously, encourage students and community leadership to stand up to misinformation about Israel.”

Stand With Us has produced a booklet titled “Middle East Apartheid Today” to counter Apartheid Week criticism of Israel. The booklet describes the oppression of black citizens of South Africa under apartheid and compares it to the situation of women, homosexuals, religious minorities, and reformists in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The booklet is available on the Stand With Us website.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) has also put materials online to assist those interested in countering anti-Israel rhetoric. The site, www.israeliapartheidweek.com, includes information on the radical nature of Apartheid Week, the double standard implicit in criticizing Jewish self-determination and not that of other national groups, and genuine oppression elsewhere in the Middle East.

The legislature of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, and major Canadian dailies have railed against the use of the term ‘apartheid” and the "Israel Apartheid Week” campaign. However, 500 Montreal artists rallied behind an anti-Zionist call to boycott Israel.

Ontario’s resolution condemned the annual anti-Israel event, which opened this week.

In the predominantly French-speaking city of Montreal, 500 artists, including several left-wing Israelis, promoted a petition supporting "Israel Apartheid Week" and backing the Arab claim of the "right of return” for millions of Arabs claming ancestry to those who fled Israel during the wars in 1948 and 1967. Ample historical evidence has shown that the Arab world encouraged most of them to leave to allow the Arab Legion to complete what it thought would be the annihilation of the Jewish State.

Writing in a column published from Vancouver to Montreal, Leonard Stern wrote that Israel Apartheid Week gives Israel the “assigned the role of Jew among the nations — singled-out, cursed and harassed….The whiff of something medieval hangs over this March ritual. This isn’t about Jews, say the organizers. It’s about Zionists. Problem is, the activist groups behind Israeli Apartheid Week are doing everything to erase the distinction.”

He pointed out that an Ottawa research group in 2008 refused to promote a lecture on African development “because Jewish students at the University of Ottawa happened to be organizing it. The event had zero connection to Israel but [the group] said it wouldn’t partner with the Jewish students’ union due to the latter’s 'relationship to apartheid Israel.'”

Who Are You, Mr. Goldstone?

The US House of Representatives has rejected as "irredeemably biased" the findings of a UN-sponsored report which says Israel committed "war crimes" during its last military operation in the Gaza Strip (code named "Cast Lead").

The report, also known as "Goldstone Report", named after Richard Goldstone, a South African judge who headed the panel, accused Israel and (to a much lesser extent, the Hamas terrorist group) of war crimes during the 22-day conflict in December and January 2007-2008. It has been characterized as "a distorted picture" by Steny Hoyer, the Democrat House majority leader. Steven Rothman, a Democratic congressman from New Jersey said that the report "was not written to talk about 12,000 rockets intentionally sent by Hamas to slaughter Israeli men, women and children, versus the Israelis trying in many respects to minimize the damage to Palestinian civilians."

Israel refused to collaborate with the biased "investigation" and around the world, many voices were heard in defense of Israel and the IDF ("IDF is the most moral army in the history of warfare"). But many others took the opportunity to lash out against Israel and to use the conclusions of the report in order to further their anti-Israel (and often anti-Semitic) agenda, using charges of "war crimes" against the Jewish State.

Goldstone maintains his objectivity and impartiality. A recent article in the Israeli daily "Israel Ha'Yom", however, uncovers another side of Mr. Goldstone....

It seems that the "impartial" and "objective" judge Goldstone is anything but. According to the "Im Tirtzu" group, Goldstone was a member of the "International Center for Transitional Justice", a far left group masquerading as working "to redress and prevent the most severe violations of human rights", but has a history of accusing Israel of some of the worst abuses of human rights. On its website, the group quotes Goldstone as lamenting that he cannot understand how "Jews can act with racism".

Goldstone served in the Board of Directors of "Human Rights Watch" (although his name was removed from the organization's website after the group "Monitor NGO" publicized the judge's links with HRW). In its March 2009 report, HRW accuses Israel of "war crimes" during its "Cast Lead" operation in Gaza.

Today, Goldstone belongs to "Doctors for Human Rights", another self proclaimed global human rights organization which has a history of accusing Israel in the past of "violations of international human rights".

Impartial and objective? Goldstone's bias and lies are shameful to the very least.

Another Obama Anti-Zionist Jew

The Czar of Czars (no, it's not the Russian Czar) has gotten himself also an "Anti-Semitism Czar", as if 32 other useless, unelected czars with quasi-dictatorial powers were not enough (for a list of the 32 Obama "czars", go here).

This one is Hannah Rosenthal, a member of the "J Street" advisory panel and an ex-member of the Board of Directors for the left wing "Americans for Peace Now".

"J Street" is a lunatic, far left, anti-Israel organization funded by Arab and other radical sources, masquerading as a concerned supporter of Israel, presenting itself as a counter weight to the powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC. "American Thinker" has an excellent article in which it exposes this farce called "J Street" ("Blowing J Street's Cover").

Only a month after her investiture by His Highness the "Czar of Czars", Rosenthal went to attack. Not against the rising Anti-Semitism in Europe or the insane "blood libels" washing the Western and Muslim press...No...Her first target is none other than Michael Oren, Israel's Ambassador to the US, who dared to turn down a "J Street" request to be a key speaker at its first annual conference, refused to attend the event and voice remarks against the far left group.

Rosenthal, in turn, said that Oren "would have learned a lot" had he participated in the conference. Her words prompted a storm of protests, best voiced by Harvey Schwartz, head of American Israeli Action Coalition (AIAC):
"As a high ranking member of the Obama Administration, Rosenthal's criticism of the Israeli Ambassador to the US is beyond bizarre and highly offensive in the extreme. It is a virulent anti-Israel attack which AIAC interprets to be anti-Semitic."
Instead of fighting Anti-Semitism, the ideologue Rosenthal is actually promoting it!

The Israeli Embassy asked for "clarifications" from the US Administration, but it is increasingly clear that the Obama White House is in no way as friendly to the Jewish State as the George W. Bush Administration was. And Rosenthal's remarks are only one of the many slaps Israel has suffered since the "Czar of Czars" has been elected.

To the many voices calling for her resignation, Hannah Rosenthal can only arrogantly say that criticism of her comes from "very few people that blog a lot"....Well, you can add this blogger to those people Hannah. With friends like you and your boss, Israel doesn't need anymore enemies.

Obama: 'take your hands off the Land of Israel!'”

Americans may still be stuck in the dream world provided by the Obama illusion machine (although they are starting to wake up in record numbers), but Israelis are taking to the streets protesting the American imposed freeze on buildings in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. These are some of the photos from the Dec. 9th, demonstration in Jerusalem, organized by the Yesha Council and attended by tens of thousands of Israelis:

"Blood Libels" fuel the New Anti-Semitism

The Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet's August 2009 story accusing the IDF of harvesting Palestinian organs is the latest in the long and dark history of European Antisemitism. Donald Bostrom, the author of the offensive piece, duly demonstrated his utter lack of any basic journalistic standards when he said: "But whether it's true or not - I have no idea, I have no clue." On top of this, the story was further undermined as one of the Palestinian families interviewed said they never told any reporter that their son was missing organs.

With the credibility of the story in tatters one might have expected the outrageous accusations to have a limited shelf life or to disappear altogether. However, the Swedish blood libel is a textbook case study of how what starts as an article published in a language read by few from a country of limited international influence can turn into a poison that spreads much wider.

Perhaps no one can prevent the spread of such poison through the Internet and beyond. But it is still incumbent upon us to act as a bulwark and to ensure that the truth and an antidote to the poison appears online to counter the lies.

Such falsehoods take on a life of their own on Internet message boards. Some media outlets save their comments for perpetuity. For the miss informed, a comment or post on a message board may even become a valid source through a search engine such as Google or Yahoo.

A look at one example of this may be an indicator of the long-term consequences of the Swedish blood libel.

In a November 2008 story on the confirmation of uranium traces at a Syrian site bombed by Israel in September 2007, the discussion on CNN's message board invariably turned to accusations that Israel was responsible for the uranium.

One commenter posts from an article by Robert Fisk in The Independent from October 2006 that claimed that Israel had used uranium bombs during the 2006 Lebanon conflict. He then asks: "Israel used it [uranium] in Lebanon why should any one be surprised that Israel used it in Syria too."

However, the original story by Fisk was thoroughly debunked after a United Nations agency found the uranium charges to be false. The Independent refused to issue a correction or apology and so this libel is regurgitated on forums such as CNN's. The latest Swedish blood libel could be a similar story.

Several Ukrainian Web sites claim Israel has brought around some 25,000 Ukrainian children into the country over the past two years in order to harvest their organs. Vyacheslav Gudin told the estimated 300 attendees of the Kiev conference a detailed story about a Ukrainian man's fruitless search for 15 children who had been adopted in Israel. The children, Gudin said, had clearly been taken by Israeli medical centers, where they were used for "spare parts." Gudin said it was essential that all Ukrainians be made aware of the genocide Israel was perpetrating. In response to a request by the country's Jewish community Ukraine's police force is investigating ZUBR, one of the Web sites that reported the speeches.

The story spread into Canada via Al Ameen Post, a Canadian Muslim newspaper, which published an article repeating the libel that Jews kidnapped "25,000 Ukrainian children (...) over the past 2 years in order to harvest their organs".

The Palestinian Authority libel that Israel deliberately harvests organs from dead Palestinians has caught on in the Arab world. Last month Egyptian authorities temporarily denied Israeli doctors entry into Egypt to participate in a medical conference. The head of the Egyptian Medical Syndicate explained that this was because they "participated in torture" of Palestinians and because they "are also guilty of stealing the organs of Palestinian prisoners."

In response to the Israeli doctors' protest over Egyptian authorities not issuing them permits to enter Egypt for a medical conference, the head of the Egyptian Medical Syndicate, Dr. Hamdi Al-Sayed said: 'We have no regard or respect for the Israeli doctors because the medical community has condemned them due to their participation in the torture of Palestinian prisoners.' He added: 'The Israeli Medical Association has acknowledged having participated in torture, noting that it had done so with the aim of protecting Israeli citizens.' He stated that the Israeli doctors are also guilty of stealing the organs of Palestinian prisoners, and that 'such people will not be permitted to take part in our medical activities." [Al-Ayyam, Nov. 27, 2009]

Saddly, in the 21st Century, the Antisemitism is alive and well.

'IDF Most Moral Army in History of Warfare'

Thank you, Mr. President.

I am the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. I served with NATO and the United Nations; commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War. I spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Government’s Joint Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.

Hamas, like Hizballah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.

The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop Hamas from attacking them with rockets.

And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Obama's Anti-Zionist Jew II

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has denied calling White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and senior Obama advisor David Axelrod “self-hating Jews."

Whether or not the Prime Minister used the term, increasing criticism by American Jews of Obama signals a split in the American Jewish community.

The trigger for the growing crisis between Israel and the U.S., and among American Jews, is the issue of “settlements” (which Obama labeled as “illegitimate” in his speech in Cairo nearly two months ago) in which he included Jewish communities in eastern Jerusalem.

Obama revealed that Rahm Emanuel, whose father was an Israeli and part of the underground resistance movement under the British Mandate, tells him everything he needs to know about Israel.

Emanuel has pushed Obama into a head-on collision with the Netanyahu government out of a strategy to demonstrate that the pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) no longer speaks for American Jewry.

Obama's game is to try and defeat the Israel lobby from within, since he could not defeat the lobby from outside it.

But that strategy has backfired, turning into a wall of opposition, both in Israel, where Obama’s popularity rating is near-zero, in the U.S. where Emanuel has simply ignored opposing views of major Jewish organizations, and even in the liberal anti-Israeli American press.

The liberal "Washington Post" has criticized Obama on his policy towards Israel, and an editorial on Thursday went even further. Under the title “Tough on Israel - Why: President Obama's battle against Jewish settlements could prove self-defeating,” the newspaper’s editors wrote:

“One of the more striking results of the Obama administration's first six months is that only one country has worse relations with the United States than it did in January: Israel. The new administration has pushed a reset button with Russia and sent new ambassadors to Syria and Venezuela; it has offered olive branches to Cuba and Burma. But for nearly three months it has been locked in a public confrontation with Israel over Jewish housing construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank.”

The newspaper criticized Obama for his “absolutist demand” for a freeze on all building for Jews in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem and observed that Palestinian and Arab leaders hardened their positions, while the Israeli public opinion has rallied behind Netanyahu (quite the opposite result that Obama and Emanuel had hoped for).

The turning point against Obama may have been the meeting in the White House earlier this month with American Jewish leaders. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations requested a discussion with Obama, but Emanuel decided who would attend.

He used the opportunity to attempt to create an impression of solid support for Obama and show off the relative new "J Street" lobby. Unlike AIPAC, it is active politically and endorsed and campaigned for Congressional candidates who fit their agenda, which includes Israel’s surrendering all of Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem that were restored to the Jewish State in the 1967 Six-Day War.

At the same time, he excluded National Council of Young Israel (NCYI) and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), both of which support a Jewish presence in all of Israel.

The latest confrontation on a new project for Jews in eastern Jerusalem prompted Alan Solow, chairman of the Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, to state this week, "Hundreds of Arab families have moved into Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the same right should be accorded to Jewish residents to live wherever they choose in Jerusalem. No government of Israel has or can pursue a discriminatory policy that would prevent the legitimate presence of Jews in any area of the capital."

In response, five leftist groups, including Americans for Peace Now and J Street, criticized supporters of Jews’ rights to build in the area.

While Emanuel is trying to strengthen his position, he faces another challenge on the Obama administration’s health plan. Emanuel’s brother Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel is Obama’s “health czar,” and the plan is being widely panned in American media, leaving the White House Chief of Staff with two potential failures in the making.

Hands off Jerusalem!

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu issued a sharp response Sunday to Obama's pressure to stop Jews from building in parts of Jerusalem claimed by the Palestinian Authority. Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem is “not up for debate,” Netanyahu said, and Jews are permitted to build in any part of the capital city, as are Arabs.

Netanyahu implied that the U.S. request was racist, saying before the weekly Cabinet meeting, “Imagine what would happen if Jews were forbidden to live or to buy apartments in certain parts of London, New York, Paris or Rome. There would be an international outcry."

"All the more, we cannot to a decree like this regarding Jerusalem,” he said.

Obama's pressure on Israel is growing and the U.S. State Department summoned Israeli envoy Michael Oren and demanded the halt of construction of Jewish homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, near the ancient grave of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simon the Just). The property on which the homes are to be built has been owned by Jewish philanthropist Dr. Irving Moskowitz for more than 20 years.

Oren told U.S. officials that Israel would not agree to stop building in the area.

Israel annexed Sheikh Jarrah and other Jerusalem neighborhoods following the Six Day War, in which the city was reunified after 19 years of Jordanian rule in the eastern half of the city. While Israel has maintained sovereignty in the capital city for more than 40 years, the Palestinian Authority continues to demand all areas controlled by Jordan in the 1950s.

Seven Jewish families and an all-day Torah-study program, known as a Kollel, are trying to renew the old Jewish neighborhood of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simon The Just).

The area, where Simon the Just and elders of the Sanhedrin were buried over 2,000 years ago, was a thriving Jewish community from 1895 until 1948, when it was evacuated by the British army during the Arab riots preceding the War of Independence.

In the mean time, former PM, Ehud Olmert is joining the debate. "Obama is making a big mistake by insisting that Israel freeze all building for Jews in Judea and Samaria, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wrote Friday in the Washington Post.

In his opinion article, which in effect was an open letter to the president, Olmert reminded the American government that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and that its friendship with the United States is one of the country’s “greatest strategic asserts.”

The former Prime Minister wrote that the Annapolis, Maryland Middle East conference in the Middle East in November, 2007 was based on previous agreements with the Bush administration that Jewish population centers in Judea and Samaria would remain part of the State of Israel in any agreement establishing a Palestinian Authority state.

Olmert wrote. "Let me be clear: Without those understandings, the Annapolis process would not have taken on any form. Therefore, the focus on settlement construction now is not useful.”

Olmert noted that a total building freeze is “impossible to completely enforce” and would not help security.

Referring to his own offers for a new PA state, he declared that the U.S. should investigate “why the Palestinian leadership did not accept the far-reaching and unprecedented proposal I offered them. My proposal included a solution to all outstanding issues: territorial compromise, security arrangements, Jerusalem and refugees. It would be worth exploring the reasons that the Palestinians rejected my offer and preferred, instead, to drag their feet, avoiding real decisions.”

Obama Bows to the Muslim World

Obama's speech in Cairo Thursday called for a sweeping change in Muslim-American relations, based on the establishment of a Palestinian state. He told 3,000 guests at Cairo University that he will put pressure on Israel to cease a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria. He did not specifically state whether Jerusalem neighborhoods are part of the “occupation” that he said must end.
Obama opened the speech with the Islamic greeting, “Peace unto you” in Arabic and reminded his listeners of his Muslim background and quoted the Koran several times.
Concerning Israel, he made it clear that he will personally pressure for an end to the "occupation” that he said has caused displacement to the Arab population in Israel for 60 years. His speech specifically defined the Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza as a “Palestinian people,” and he mentioned their “suffering” immediately after referring to the Holocaust. He accused Israel of being responsible for "humiliation” of Arabs and blamed Israel for the lack of opportunity for Arabs under PA rule, despite the local Arab economy having enjoyed unprecedented economic growth following the end of Jordanian and Egyptian occupation in the 1967 Six-Day War.
Concerning Iran, he capitulated by asserting that it can have nuclear power if it abides by international treaties.
Speaking in the police state of Egypt, Obama addressed the issue of democracy, which he said the U.S. cannot impose. He added that the U.S. will work with countries “that recognize the will of the people.”
He then praised Islam as a force of religious tolerance and racial equality (!!!) and stated that “Muslims have enriched the U.S. and have won Nobel prizes,” although in fact less than handful of Muslims have won international Nobel prices.
In Israel, Obama's speech was met with mixed reactions ranging from sharp criticism coming from the right to foolish remarks (such as Ofier Pines' or Zeev Boim's) from the left.

Obama strived to strike a conciliatory tone in his speech to the Muslim world, in a balanced tone. So what is the problem? It is exactly in the "balanced tone". US policy should not be balanced! It should side with those who fight terror, not those who either engage in it or are too weak to prevent it.

Palestinians must be sent the message that they have to put an end to terrorism, violence, and incitement against Israel. US should stand by Israel - a fellow democracy and committed ally - in its efforts to achieve lasting security for its citizens. Israel's good faith efforts have been met by unremitting Palestinian violence and what is in effect an internal Palestinian civil war. Peace and security go hand in hand - Israel has repeatedly reached out her hand in peace only to have it slapped back. Obama's remarks to the world's Muslims today appear to mark the beginning of a worrisome shift in U.S. policy.

Who Stands With Israel?

The Democratic Party base has changed demographically and with it, the way it views the U.S. relationship with Israel. Democratic voters now have very contrasting views on these matters with those of Republicans, and this gives Obama a potential mandate to change course in U.S. policy.

The latest Zogby Interactive survey conducted from April 1 to April 4, 2009 underlines the increasing difference between the Republican and Democrat views towards Israel. Here are a few of the questions in the survey that found significant differences between self-identified voters for Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain:

U.S. interests and Israel's interests are identical: McCain voters, 78% say YES; Obama voters, 72% say NO.
--Do you believe U.S. support for Israel strengthens or weakens U.S. security? McCain voters: 72% strengthens, Obama voters: 50% weakens.
--If Israel continues to build settlements in the West Bank, the U.S. should get tough on Israel McCain voters, 26% YES; Obama voters, 71% YES.
--The US Administration should lean toward Israel: McCain voters, 60%; Obama voters, 9%.

Support for Israel is extremely high among evangelical Christians, who are the bedrock of the Republican base. That, coupled with broad acceptance of neo-conservative foreign policy among Republicans, accounts for the survey results. Support for Israel among Republicans now ranks as one of the party's defining issues, along with anti-abortion and gun rights.
By comparison, more American Jews believe in "talks" and appeasement as strategies that would benefit Israel and most back Obama's liberal policies on the economy, pro-abortion and gay rights.

So who really stands with Israel? Apart from conservative Jews, the evangelical Christians are Israel's most ardent supporters, not the majority of the American Jews. Those are sadly more concerned with their hypocritical Liberal self-image than with the security and well being of Israel (or the US, for that matter).

How will this emerging political reality affect the Obama administration's policies regarding Israel? Obama will emphasize dialogue and appeasement to the detriment of the basic security interests of the State of Israel.

Pursuing that course, Obama will face opposition from Republicans and U.S. supporters of Netanyahu's hard-line policies toward the Palestinians. However, these are not the voters who elected him. Those that did, want a new, less friendlier U.S. policy towards Israel, and they will demand Obama to implement it.

Obama - A Mistake the Israelis Cannot Afford to Make

In baseball terms, it's called "taking one for the team". In other words, Obama would like to demand that Israel sacrifices its security to test Iran's willingness to make peace.

Neither Obama nor his minions will put it in those terms but they allude to the "linkage" between the urgent need for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians and Iran's willingness to give up their quest for nuclear weapons.

The "linkage" idea was thrown around by Rahm Emanuel, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton and it is a foolish idea, real only in the minds of those who refuse to see three fundamental realities of the Mideast.

The first is that Palestinian culture is dominated by a culture of death and bloody "martyrdom", with children programs, music videos and mosque sermons all glorifying death and war against the Jews.

The second reality is that Iran has repeatedly demonstrated that it will not give up its nuclear aspirations voluntarily. Even its so-called "moderate" leaders see the bomb as a ticket to regional dominance and the final victory over Israel. One such "moderate" called Israel "a one bomb country," meaning one would be enough.

The third reality is that there is simply no linkage between the creation of a Palestinian state and Iran's ambition for nukes. To believe otherwise is to believe Iran embarked on the nuclear quest because the Palestinians lacked a state. Nobody in their right mind believes that.

Yet Obama is charging full speed ahead with its vision of a deal, conforming to the liberal Democrats' view that Netanyahu and Israeli conservatives are the problem.

If Israel were to agree to Obama's demand, it likely would get the worst of both worlds: more violence from the Palestinians while Iran merrily moves toward the bomb.

It would be suicidal for Israel to entertain the idea of a nuclear Iran. Even if they assume Iran would not 'nuke' Israel (out of fear that a counterstrike), the Iranian possession of a nuke would wreak havoc do to the morale of its society. The Israelis would be living under threat of a Holocaust every day.

Just because the American people has been fooled into trusting Obama does not mean that the Israelis should make the same mistake.

The Pope Pleases Muslims but Disappoints Christians and Jews

Pope Benedict XVI wrapped up his week-long “Bridge for Peace” Middle East tour leaving behind disappointed Christians and Jews but satisfied Muslims and Palestinian leaders.

Benedict XVI was not in a great hurry to visit Israel and wanted to make his trip contingent on Israel’s agreeing to turn over valuable property to the Vatican.

Israeli Christians were astonished that the pope did not visit Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee), which is a center of Christian tradition. This may have been because of security concerns: police revealed Friday morning that they had specific information of attempts to interrupt the papal entourage. The 3,000 faithful who attended an open-air mass in Jerusalem were outnumbered by security forces.

Media Bias

Yad VaShem Holocaust Museum Director Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, former Chief Rabbi of Israel and one of the most widely respected and popular rabbis ever to serve in that position, was openly critical of Benedict XVI. The German-born patriarch’s speech at Yad VaShem was charged with emotion but omitted specific references to Germany or the Nazi movement, of which he was a member in his youth.

The Vatican immediately defended the Pope, saying that he was an involuntary member of a Nazi squad that he left in order to enter the priesthood and the foreign media was quick in replaying this angle over and over.

However, the media, and the pope himself, played down or ignored a tirade by a Muslim cleric in the Pope’s presence, when Sheikh Tayseer al-Tamimi, a senior religious leader in the Palestinian Authority, accused Israel of "murdering women and children and destroying mosques and Palestinian cities."

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, a popular American journalist and author commented in the Washington Post, “Without debating either the accuracy of his claims or the sincerity with which al-Tami spoke, the Sheikh's behavior points to his lack of desire for peace or even reconciliation. His behavior points only to his desire to enlist the Pope in his own version of events.(...) But more disturbing than the Sheikh's boorish behavior is that this is the man the Palestinian Authority would send to this important meeting. Is this the best that they can do? Is this really the message that they want to send?”

The Pope‘s Pro-Palestinian Speech

The pope rallied behind Palestinian demands for a new Arab state in Judea and Samaria - on the land that Jordan occupied from 1948 to 1967. During that time, Jordan prohibited Christians and Jews from entering holy sites.

He implicitly backed the demand that millions of foreign Arabs be allowed to immigrate to Israel based on their being descendants of approximately 700,000 Arabs who fled the Jewish state while the Arab world fought to annihilate it in 1948.

Pope Benedict also held 'interfaith' talks with Muslims, in a sharp reversal from Vatican statements last year that ruled out theological discussions between Muslims and Christians. He took off his shoes and entered the Al Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount the morning after Sheikh Tamimi’s harangue.

The pope stated, “One God is the infinite source of justice and mercy.” This was a reference to the Common Word appeal by Muslim scholars for a Christian-Muslim dialogue.

After noticing the echo of the Common Word appeal in Benedict’s address, journalists checked to see whether his Muslim hosts were signatories of the document. It turns out that they weren’t. In fact, the only Palestinian signed is Sheikh Taysir al-Tamimi (!!!), the head of the Islamic courts in the Palestinian territories and the same cleric who railed out against Israel in the Pope's presence.

Obama's Anti-Zionist Jew

Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff to Barack Hussein Obama, told a large group of AIPAC supporters on Sunday that American efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program depend on progress in Israel’s peace talks with the Palestinian Authority.

MK Yaakov Katz, chairman of the Ichud Leumi (National Union) party, says the veiled threat by Emanuel should be rebuffed and exposed for what it is: “He is basically telling Israel to commit suicide in exchange for American consent to consider dealing with the Iranian threat to the world.”

What Emanuel is saying is that in order for the U.S. to agree to act against the nuclear program that threatens not only Israel, but the entire civilized world, the price is that Israel should agree to a two-state solution that will see Hamas threatening its population centers with its missiles not only from Gaza, but from the very heart of Israel as well, in Judea and Samaria.

“In other words,” Katz is saying, “we have to bring ourselves to the brink of extinction by allowing Hamastan into Judea and Samaria. And this is the idea of a Jew, Rahm Emanuel – a Jew whose father fought in the Etzel (Irgun) against the British for the future of the State of Israel, but whose son, born in America, identifies with the most left-wing opinions, whose significance is the destruction of the State of Israel.”

Unfortunately, Jews like Rahm Emmanuel express the believes of a majority among the US Jewry. Blinded by their far left ideological allegiance, most do not realize the implications of their political actions on the security and the very existence of Israel. An extremist minority subscribe to the credo of the anarchist, universal radical left, which seeks the destruction of the State of Israel.

Katz noted that what is happening in Pakistan right now is proof that Israel cannot even consider “doing business” with its Muslim enemies.

There is a lesson to be learnt from the “Pakistani experiment": the government made many concessions to the Taliban/Al Qaeda, giving them Islamic courts and allowing them control over certain areas, hoping to thus curry favor with them. But the result was that the Taliban is now threatening the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, and the fear is that the terrorists will gain access to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The government there finally realized that it has no choice but to fight them.

"We do not want to find ourselves with Tel Aviv and all of Israel’s cities under the same threat," Katz said, "and therefore we cannot entertain the type of solution that Emanuel wishes to force upon us – against the will of the people as democratically expressed in our recent elections.”

Obama Bows to the Saudis

Barack Hussein Obama was caught on camera by journalists on Wednesday bowing in deference to Saudi King Abdullah as he greeted him at the opening of the G20 meeting in London, prior to being photographed with British royalty.

Obama later expressed support for the 2002 Saudi Plan in his meeting Thursday with the Saudi monarch. The two also discussed global economic issues and terrorism, White House staff said.

The meeting between Obama and Abdullah was the first face-to-face talk between the two. The meeting created a storm of debate, when pictures and a video were released that appeared to show Obama bowing to the Saudi monarch at the G20 photo-op.

The video clip shows Obama greeting the Saudi monarch and executing a bow before him.

Obama reportedly expressed support for the 2002 Saudi Initiative and had been quoted as saying of the plan, “The Israelis would be crazy not to support this initiative.”

In January of 2009, Saudi officials warned that the U.S. would need to “drastically revise” its Middle East policy, particularly towards Israel, if it wanted to maintain influence in the region.

The Saudis referred to the Middle East policy of former U.S. President George Bush as “sickening,” and accused America of “contributing to the slaughter of innocents” by supporting Israel.

Bush expressed strong support for the 2003 Road Map initiative over the Saudi Plan. The Road Map plan calls for the Israel-PA negotiations process to take place in stages, with Israel dismantling Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria only after the PA begins to fight terrorism.

The Saudi Plan calls on Israel to cede Gaza and all land east of the 1949 armistice line, including much of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, to the Palestinian Authority. Israel would also be required to cede the strategic Golan Heights region to Syria.

In addition, the plan requires Israel to release all terrorists currently in its prisons, and to offer citizenship to millions of foreign Arabs who say they are descended from Arabs who fled pre-state Israel during the War of Independence.

In exchange for these suicidal measures, Arab states would "normalize" their ties with the Jewish State.

In Israel, the plan has met with little support. Enacting the plan would force roughly 600,000 Israelis from their homes. In addition, senior defense officials have warned that the plan would compromise Israel's security.

Plagued by a faltering economy, a reluctant Europe, increasing resistance at home to his pseudo-socialist agenda and a growing realizations by more and more Americans that electing Obama to the White House was a huge mistake, Hussein is trying to gain momentum by forcing a peace deal in the Middle East and pressuring Israel into suicidal concessions.

If Obama chooses to bow to the Saudi King, he should not be allow to pressure Israel into doing the same.

Activism masquerading as "journalism"

Browsing the Israeli press one can get a more informed picture of events in Israel than the slanted international media coverage. As the expression of a vibrant democracy, Israel's press is hardly monolithic, presenting a variety of competing political views. Behind it, however, is hiding a virulent stream of political activism, with a penchant for self-criticism, so much so that many of the most negative stories appearing in the international press are first broken by the Israeli newspapers.
Unfortunately, like their Western counterparts, some Israeli media is pushing a far-left political agenda, while masquerading as legitimate journalists.
Such is the case of a recent Ha'aretz story alleging "war crimes" and serious ethical failures on the part of the IDF in Gaza. It wasn’t long before many international media outlets, such as the New York Times, The Guardian, The Independent, Australian, and Globe & Mail to name but a few, repeated the allegations, presenting them as facts, without bothering to do any rudimentary checks.

The viciously anti-Israel newspaper, The Guardian published its own claims of evidence of alleged Israeli "war crimes". Online videos and accompanying articles accused Israeli forces of using human shields, deliberately firing on Palestinian medical staff and indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians with unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as claims that Israel had used a variety of weapons in "illegal ways."
Both Ha'aretz and The Guardian are guilty of shoddy journalism and intellectual dishonesty. When subjected to honest inquiries, their slanderous articles appear more like modern-day Blood Libels than “reporting facts”. Melanie Phillips, writing for The Spectator, examines the Ha'aretz report in her article – The Ha’Aretz Blood Libel:
There are precisely two charges of gratuitous killing of Palestinian civilians under allegedly explicit orders to do so. One is what even Ha'aretz made clear was an accidental killing, when two women misunderstood the evacuation route the Israeli soldiers had given them and walked into a sniper's gun sights as a result. Moreover, the soldier who said this has subsequently admitted he didn’t see this incident - he wasn’t even in Gaza at the time - and had merely reported rumor and hearsay.
The second charge is based on a supposedly real incident in which, when an elderly woman came close to an IDF unit, an officer ordered that they shoot her because she was approaching the line and might have been a suicide bomber. The soldier relating this story did not say whether or not the woman in this story actually was shot. Indeed, since he says 'from the description of what happened' it would appear this was merely hearsay once again.

Writing in The Jerusalem Post, Herb Keinon points out:
It is important to note that none of the testimony was about what the soldiers did themselves, but rather of what they heard or saw other soldiers do. It is also important that what was reported seems to fall within the realm of aberrations by individuals during war against a cruel enemy hiding behind civilians, not a systematic loss by the army of its moral compass.

Numerous testimonies from IDF soldiers debunking those allegations were published by YNet, other Israeli newspapers and even personal blogs of soldiers themselves. Yet these were ignored by the agenda-driven reporting of both Ha'aretz and The Guardian.

THE GUARDIAN: JUDGE AND JUROR
• The allegations are presented as facts even though they are unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
• The proven unreliability of Palestinian "eyewitnesses".
• The lack of any verifiable information or any mention of the measures taken by the IDF to avoid civilian casualties while Hamas actively used human shields.

As further evidence that The Guardian chose activism over journalism, the newspaper called blog and Web site owners to support its “work” and asked them to link to their "Gaza War Crimes" page. The appeal was sent by Mustafa Khalili, who is one of those credited by The Guardian for the Gaza content.

The Guardian is carrying out a blatant and systematic campaign of demonization against Israel that goes well beyond journalistic norms. Like a good example of the new Liberal Fascism, so pervasive with today’s “new left”, the paper has been selective (to put it mildly) in its willingness to publish responses from supporters of Israel criticizing its extreme lack of balance and proportion.
However, The Guardian's behavior cannot be allowed to go unanswered. Hiding behind the bumper sticker of “to be anti-Israel is not Anti-Semitism”, the far left in Europe and elsewhere is actually guilty of anti-Semitism.
The belief that it's only permissible for the Jews to have a state and an army if that state and its army comply with standards of behavior far higher than that required of other states, including their own is anti-Semitic. Any failure to live up to these standards tends to be taken as evidence of the basic illegitimacy of the Zionist enterprise. Following this logic, Israel’s right to exist is thus questioned.

The media circus surrounding the cases above are yet another example of the lengths to which the international media and Israel's detractors will go to in order to promote the false image of a uniquely unethical or evil IDF.
From media stories such as those above to cartoons portraying the IDF as the new Nazis, it is only a short step to the total delegitimization of Israel itself. The lingering question remains: Why is some of the Israeli media part of this charade?

GAZA: An Arab-Made Misery

An eloquent analysis of the current situation in Gaza, by a Gaza native, Nonie Darwish, published in the European edition of the "Wall Street Journal".

Hamas