Showing posts with label palis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label palis. Show all posts

20 May 2011

Obama's Israel Policy Goes Native


To my most holy Jewish brethren - those who still worship at the feet of the idol O'Ba'alma and who drink from the bitter waters flowing from Jstreet, the time has come for you to do teshuva, if you still can.

Yesterday, in what must have a been like removing a load of bricks off his back, (not to be confused with the fallen ruins of the Twin Towers), the president of the United States of America shrugged off national interest and the hard and painful lessons learned from history in favor of his latent anti-Jewism, born of his early-years Medrassa education. How much of a relief it must have been for him to express his real inner feelings of despise for the lives of the Jewish people in the land of Israel?

Perhaps due to the frustration of having wasted two full years of solitary liberal rule in DC, the emir in chief has finally decided to "be himself" and express his true intentions. Israel, he told us must be reduced to the size it once was when former Ambassador Abba Eban coined the phrase, "the Auschwitz lines".

Since yesterday afternoon's Obamaism, many pundits have made reference to the 1967 "lines" where both friend and foe of the Jewish people have not justly explained what this means. On the surface, it merely means the pre-Six Day war line separating arabians and Jews. What it really means is the 1949 armistice line - the line separating between the Jewish army and the retreating arabian armies who attacked Israel immediately following Israel's declaration of Independence in 1948. The "green-line" as it was known became the Berlin wall of the middle east - demarcating not between freedom and tyranny as in Europe but between civilization and barbarism. So in reality Obama the terrible is calling for re-do, back to 1949, back to the Auschwitz line, back to the time before the humiliating defeat of the arabian armies at the hands of the descendants of monkeys and pigs. Sultan Hussein Obama's inner muslim is on display.

The next few days should be interesting to say the least. This Shmuly Boteach story kinda says it all. Obama will arrogantly speak at AIPAC and tell the Jews and supporters of Israel, that his recommendations are in Israel's best interests and that America's support for Israel is unshakable - just like he said in his Middle East speech on Thursday.

So let's backtrack a little to yesterday and look at just one paragraph of Obama's speech:

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people.

We could really hours on every word, every innuendo, every inflection, etc. But with better things to do, lets be brief. In the eye's of the president, the conflict is about death to the Jews vs. humiliation. Plain and simple it is what Obama said. I don't know that many Israelis that are constantly worried about buses blowing up or a rocket falling on their home - not to belittle these things are say they are not serious. But they are not worries. What does worry Israelis is having the carpet, (a prayer carpet, perhaps) pulled out from underneath them the way Obama did yesterday. What worries Israelis is the possibility of a major regional war with missiles flying in from Iran along with a newly muslimized Egyptian army attacking from, not in, the Sinai joined with a Syrian-Hizbollah offensive in the north. That is a worry. The pali-terrorists are a thorn in the side in comparison.

To equate the two ideas of death to the Jews and humiliation is of course, a demonstration of how little Jewish blood must be valued by the president. And as to the idea that the poor palis have never had a nation of their own, well who is to blame here? I wonder if Obama expressed this same concern to the little King Abdullah II who rules as a minority tribal sultan over millions of "palis" living on the east bank of the Jordan river? I wonder if Abdullah, in the midst of protests in Jordan, feels any safer today? One could argue of course that no arab living in an arabian land today has a country of his own unless he is prince or of royal ancestry. In those lands where an Emir or King or Prince or even Colonel or someone acting like one without the title rules, is the country really theirs? Where tyranny rules, one cannot be free. And where arabians rule, freedom is stifled and only those in power or support those in power can claim any form of ownership.

What is the nature of this statement by Prince Hussein Obama: "Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people". Is he saying that the US and arabians are suffering diplomatically and strategically because of "the conflict"? Really? Is peace in the middle east contingent upon the palis building a thug-terror state in Judea and Samaria? He could mean something else but knowing the president and his historically cold view of Israel which is well-documented on this blog and other places, it is a fair assumption to read between the lines and expect the least from Obama's intentions.

When PM Netanyahu speaks to the Obama today, what will he say? More importantly, when Bibi speaks to the joint session of Congress on Monday, what will he say. If I were Obama, I would be very careful how I treat Netanyahu today and with what I say at AIPAC. Netanyahu may not be the perfect Israeli Prime Minister but I would not want anyone else speaking at AIPAC and more importantly before the Congress of the United States of America. My hope is that Bibi will clearly state before Congress that Israel is under no more moral or legal compulsion to negotiate with the terrorist thugs of a party which honors and trusts Hamas as an equal party than the US has a moral need to negotiate with al-Qaeda. Any party which routinely calls for the destruction of Israel and cannot even draw a map where Israel can be found is no partner for peace - only a partner for war. My hope is that strongly and unequivocally states "Jerusalem is not for sale" while calling upon the US to once and for all move the embassy to Jerusalem, not because it is Israel's capital but because it is Hakadosh Baruch Hu's capital.

See Ketzaleh's speech he wishes PM Netanyahu would deliver.



Stumble Upon Toolbar

23 June 2009

Fred Thompson Explains the Truth About the Palis

Hear Fred Thompson in his "Winners and Losers" segment cheerleading for Bibi Netanyahu. Fred understands Israel's situation better than most Israelis and explains it in a way in which only, well Fred could. FRED THOMPSON SHOW


Show date 22 June 2009



Stumble Upon Toolbar

17 February 2009

Moonbats Say: Our Children Will Make Peace

Kumbaya. Let peace begin with me. Give peace a chance.

Child sacrifice is strictly forbidden by Torah. Isaac, after all was brought upon the altar and taken down. Do not harm the boy. Do not do anything to him. For now I know that you fear G-d. You have not withheld your only son from Him - Bereshis 22:12. The Jewish child is a precious, holy gift from HaShem. A parent is given a child with a holy neshama to nurture into a spiritually holy life. However, far too often, Torah truths and the political "beliefs" of the parents come into conflict, especially amongst the moonbat-left crowd. In such occasions, logic dictates that the Jew set aside "beliefs" and seek Torah guidance.

The story below is a testimony to the sickness of liberalism in the Jewish world which demands moral equivalency even to the point of denying the truth and the strengthening of the undoing of Israel's most basic right to exist. My comments to the article follow the story. For those who want to stop now before reading the account of moonbat madness, the bottom line is that Jews need to stand up and say Israel is for the Jews and that there is no such thing as palis.



Young Muslims, Jews work toward peace
February 17, 2009

Groups try to bridge gap between religions

By Bob Smietana
THE TENNESSEAN

Shoshana Jaffa sums up the conflict in the Middle East like this: "Everybody wants to meet halfway, but no one knows where halfway is."

Jaffa was one of about 45 Jewish and Muslim teens and young adults who met Sunday at Congregation Micah in Brentwood (TN) to discuss the recent fighting in Gaza.

It's part of a dialogue between local Jews and Muslims aimed at building understanding between young people of different faiths. Organizers hope that if young people can learn to discuss the Middle East civilly, perhaps their parents can, as well.

In fact, there was just one rule in place at Sunday morning's meeting — no parents allowed.

"Adults can't have this conversation," Michael Pote, a Sunday School teacher at Congregation Micah, said to the interfaith group meeting in a classroom at the Brentwood synagogue. "Things like this don't happen, and it's a shame."

Pote says that Jewish and Muslim adults rarely discuss the Middle East conflict without ending in a shouting match. He and other organizers hope that young people can show their parents and faith communities a better way.

Sunday's meeting was part of an ongoing dialogue between youth groups at the Islamic Center of Nashville and two local synagogues, Congregation Micah and West End Synagogue in Nashville.

In December, a group of Jewish high school juniors visited the Islamic center for a lesson on the basics of Islam taught by the Muslim youth group. On Sunday, the Jewish teens returned the favor, leading a class on the basics of Judaism.

After the class, Pote, along with Rabbi Flip Rice of Congregation Micah, and Rashed Fakhruddin of the Islamic Center, led an hour-long discussion of the Middle East conflict. The students quizzed one another on everything from the history of Zionism to whether a two-state solution would solve the current conflict.

Several of the Muslim students wanted to know how much Israel's claim to Palestine was religious, and how much was political.

"Most of the people in this room do not believe that Israel is mine because it says so in our sacred texts," Rice said. "That doesn't mean that we don't want Israel to be there, but it's not a deed to the land."

When Rice asked the Jewish youth if any believe that Israel belonged to the Jewish people because the Bible says so, only one student raised her hand. On the other hand, several students said that while Jews had a right to their own homeland, the country should not exclude people of other faiths.

That idea is actually found in the Israeli Declaration of Independence, says S. Ilan Troen, director of the Schusterman Center for Israel Studies at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass.

Still, Troen says that the religious connection of Jews to Palestine remains strong.

Students discuss history

During Sunday's conversation, the students also discussed the history of Zionism, which dates back to the 1890s. Inspired by the writings of Theodor Herzl, Jews began to move back to Palestine and buy land.

At the time, Pote said, Palestine wasn't viewed as a paradise on Earth.

"At that time, it was either desert or swampland," Pote said. "This was not ground where you'd say, 'Oh I have to live there.' "

Complicating matters, both the Jewish and Muslim students admitted, is the fact that Palestine has been ruled by outside powers for more than 2,000 years. Jews were forced from the land by the Romans beginning in 70 A.D., after a failed uprising. When large groups began to return around 1900, Palestine was ruled by the Turks, and then the British after World War II, until Israel's independence in 1948.

Sabina Mohyuddin, who helps lead the Muslim youth group, said it was important for the students to get a bigger picture on the conflict on Middle East.

"In the nightly news, it's two minutes. It won't do any justice to the whole issue," she said. Mohyuddin said that she encourages her students to read news accounts and history from different perspectives.

After the meeting ended, the Muslim students took a tour of the synagogue.

Amar Razali, a 22-year-old Muslim student who spent the discussion seated in front of a stained-glass window of the Ten Commandments in Hebrew,
said that he was surprised by how much Jews and Muslims have in common.

"We should focus on our similarities, and less on our differences."


Back in December during Israel's Operation Cast Lead attack on the terrorist gang Hamas the Tennessean reported on simultaneous rallies in downtown Nashville Local Rallies Mirror Israel-Palestine Splitwhere Jews and Christians came together to support Israel's right of self-defense against random rocket fire into cities in Israel from Gaza. Local Arabs came together to complain that Israel was fighting back. Today, the Tennessean reports that children "can show their parents and faith communities a better way." Children can be taught to ignore the facts when their parents aren't around. For the Muslim side that might not be so bad. But for the Jewish side.....

This story is interesting in that we find local Jews, tied to the land of Israel by religion, by history and by law not knowing that fact. It is curious that a "dialogue between local Jews and Muslims aimed at building understanding between young people of different faiths " has any mention of international politics at all. Muslim youth, unless specifically connected to the land of Israel by all rights should merely be as connected to Israel as any youth anywhere, which should be scant to little.

Like all people, they, their families, their friends can travel to Israel as tourists and visit wherever they please. The Jewish youth on the other hand, contrary to the article's quotes are indeed, by religious obligation connected to the land of Israel and should not be afraid of saying so. Unlike the quote in the article,
"Most of the people in this room do not believe that Israel is mine because it says so in our sacred texts," Rice said. "That doesn't mean that we don't want Israel to be there, but it's not a deed to the land."
even the atheist David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel testifying before the Peel Commission in 1937 said: "I say on behalf of the Jews that the Bible is our Mandate, the Bible which was written by us, in our own language, in Hebrew, in this very country. That is our Mandate. It was only recognition of this right which was expressed in the Balfour Declaration."

Ben-Gurion was only wrong in his citation of authorship but was quite correct in his logic. It is confusion over Jewish rights to the land and the pervasive liberal attitude to not say without hesitation that there is no such thing in history as an Arab Palestine which perpetuates the Arab Israel conflict. Let the youth meet, let them discuss common themes but let us not forget the truth, that Israel is the Jewish home land. Bring the kids together to feed the hungry and clean up the trash in the parks. Leave the political discussions out.

for review:
Daniel Pipes - Reader comment on article: The Forcible Removal of Israelis from Gaza

JCPA - AN ANSWER TO THE NEW ANTI-ZIONISTS:
THE RIGHTS OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE TO A
SOVEREIGN STATE IN THEIR HISTORIC HOMELAND


Front Page Magazine - How 'Nakba' Proves There's No Palestinian Nation

Stumble Upon Toolbar

17 July 2008

Winning Through Mythology or Arabian Fractured Fairy Tales

The article below is a timely piece in light of the Israel-Hezbollah prisoner exchange where the bodies of Eldad Regev(H'Y'D) and Ehud Goldwasser (H'Y'D) were traded for living and dead terrorists. World media reports of the celebrations around arabia in honor of the release of the murderous barbarian Samir Kuntar from an Israeli prison, abound. Kuntar, by all rights should have been executed. Begging the question, the absence of a death sentence in Israeli law is a matter which will have to wait for some other time.

It would be hoped, but for only a lack of good sense, that the festivities revolving around Kuntar's release would shock good western sensitivities. But western sensitivities no longer exist, the victims of de-sensitization a by-product of liberal politically correct revisionism. This de-sensitizing toward the spilling of Jewish blood is part programed antiJewism and part the seemingly successful foisting of the "palestinian myth", a fairy tale brought to life in the same way a toddler acts out an episode of his favorite cartoon character, but changes the ending.

The myth stimulates the basic antiJewism which has been handed down through the centuries, calling to someone with normally good reasoning to question basic logic. The Jews are certainly stronger than the arabians, this person might reason, after all, it is the Jews who man the check points and who would want to have to go through a check point every day? Who flies the top fighter planes? Who has the strongest lobby? Who has the greatest intelligence agency? Who owes their country to the UN? The lack of basic knowledge of the challenge faced by Israel, influenced by the MSM, is easily manipulated by the well-crafted myth proponents.

Israel's failed diplomacy has bolstered the authenticity argument of the myth to the point that previously what was a question is now matter of fact "truth". Such acceptance of the corpses for terrorists trade as we recently observed on a world wide basis is the best evidence. The writer below takes a stab at why the myth is "believable".

for a good discussion on the pali myth listen to Jihad in the Holy Land: The Real Arab-Israeli Conflict on Middle East Radio Forum with guest Shai ben Tekoa

(see the youtube video Samir Kuntar - A new Hero!!.)



Exclusive: The World’s Most Successful Con Game - Family Security Matters
July 17, 2008 - Leslie Sacks

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. That selective claim now underpins world politics. It seems that since the war of 1967, with its stunning victory against all odds, Israel finally lost its "underdog" identity. The guilt-ridden post-Holocaust populations in Europe were now not any more coerced into feeling sorry for their decimated Jews. Anti-Semitism could once again afford to be fashionable. Thereafter Israel's follow up victory in the Yom Kippur war of 1973, when attacked by overwhelming numbers on all sides, was a remarkable rerun of "David" effectively overcoming "Goliath." Yet politically, the war finally buried the remnants of the underdog scenario as far as Israel and the Jews were concerned. The burgeoning wealth and unsurpassed success of America's Jews, from then until now, gave further ammunition to those United Nations, NGOs, co-mingled human rights groups, incestuous leftists and Third World radicals to finally reverse common perception of Israel.

The magical sleight of hand, that perversion of truth, is now complete. Israel has become the fascist, the Nazi, the apartheid oppressing country and conversely Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and their compatriots have transmogrified into the underdogs. The transformation of Mephistopheles is finished - Goliath is now Israel whilst the symbol of David is assumed by all the poor, undernourished, undereducated, disenfranchised Arab refugees and citizens across North Africa, the Middle East and on into South East Asia. Five million Jews are now incontestably victimizing one billion Muslims and Arabs. There are no limits to the nefarious machinations of the conspiratorial Jewish puppeteers of Tel Aviv and Washington. All the world's injustices and problems, inequalities and inequities are laid out at the foot of this latter day Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

And it will only get worse, as Israelis and Jews everywhere continue to fight adversity and do better, become more successful and refuse to be downtrodden, refuse to apologize for their normality. Their success is breeding their political ostracization, their success proves to the world that they are on the wrong side; it proves they are the oppressor - how else could it be? The logic is indisputable. And the oil rich Arab states understand this only too well - they keep their riches in Dubai and in banks, investing in Citibank, UBS and in Western stock exchanges, whilst keeping their populations and their women disenfranchised - ensuring their underdog image remains in perpetuity.

Their biggest export seems to be endless numbers of madrassas and terrorists. They continue their century-old con by ensuring the continued existence and expansion of the refugee camps, home to millions of Palestinians, a unique phenomenon in the last 100 years. The partition of India and Pakistan created millions of refugees - all resettled. The creation of Bangladesh, millions more - all resettled. Mao Tse-tung, tens of millions - all resettled. The great east-west exodus after WWII, across the iron curtain - all resettled. Only in the Middle East, with trillions of excess oil dollars to invest in anti-Israel, anti-West, pro-jihadist education and mosques, and in the NASDAQ, in hedge funds - everywhere but into the refugee camps. And these Arab potentates know only too well the propaganda game of choice: exacerbate the indignity and tragedy of the refugee camps and it will keep the world infatuated with the Arab David conflicted with the Israeli Goliath.

Everything becomes upside-down in this Alice of Wonderland. Five million Israelis on 1% of the land in the Middle East with no oil and natural minerals are holding hostage to 300 million Arabs with 75% of the world's oil reserves and an unbreakable majority in the UN councils.

These Jews must be very powerful, very sinister. But wait - is there not a major Arab investor in Fox News? Is not Arab money a partner in Citibank, the London Stock Exchange and a myriad of other western financial icons? Are not the riches of the West exchanged for Arab oil, going not for the improvement of Arab hospitals, schools and legal institutions, but to purchase the West's leading companies and properties and to buy influence in Washington, Harvard and even at the Louvre. So from whence cometh this secret power of the Jews? Perhaps it's merely their seemingly magical survival over thousands of years, in spite of Torquemada, Hitler, Stalin and al Qaeda. This has become most irritating, most annoying to those who would like to see the back of the Jews. They defy the numbers, the logic and the will of majority. They insist on success, on not being the underdog. Most perturbing, most bothersome. They were, in times past, "untermenchen," Dhiminis, second-rate non-citizens squeezed into European ghettos, powerless and dependent serfs limited to professions such as money lending. Now Israel has an unrivaled army - outrageous. Its desert is blooming amidst a sea of Middle Eastern deserts - provocative. Its women have equal rights, naked thighs, and become prime ministers - outlandish and obnoxious. Israel is the tiny pin pricking the bloated 18th Century Middle East that is still mired in its Dark Ages, desperate to retain its unchanging ways. And Israel is still only the Little Satan. Everyone knows the Jews also run the Big Satan. Why, Jews must own the New York Times and Washington Post, CBS and CNN, the State Department and the CIA, in spite of all the continual anti-Israel bias - more subterfuge.

And moreover, Bush is clearly controlled by Israel, in spite of his intimate handholding photo-ops with Saudi Arabian princes, and now more with Condi's overtures to Iran and Syria - further devious camouflage, I imagine.

All in all, these Jews must be very clever, very shrewd: to cause 9/11 and the many suicide bombings and intifadas, to pretend to be under the whip of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas - most ingenious, to play at being the underdog when in fact, to all enlightened Jihadists and liberal Westerners, they are in fact the secret Goliath, the masters of deceit, even to the extent of six-million Holocaust deceits. Clever Jews, those people, clever magicians these Israelis.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Leslie Sacks is an art dealer and gallerist in Los Angeles. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

30 May 2008

Birds of a Feather: J Street and Obama


J Street: Israel Should 'Talk With its Enemies'
by Hana Levi Julian(IsraelNN.com) 25 Iyar 5768, May 30, '08


A new American Jewish lobby group put its left foot forward this week during an interview with a US-based weekly, with its executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, claiming that most Jews support "an end to the occupation and a Palestinian state."

Ben-Ami's group, a new lobby organization dubbed "J Street" made its debut a scant month ago, with its name a "hip" way of placing a finger on the pulse in downtown Washington, where J Street does not exist, and where K Street is rife with lobbyists. J Street is a double-play on words, also standing for "Jerusalem Street."

In the May 27 interview with Newsweek magazine, Ben-Ami underscored his group's belief that the so-called two-state solution is "actually an essential element of a pro-Israel agenda." He also said that the new lobby hopes to break up the "alliance between the neo-cons, the radical right of the Christian Zionist movement and the far-right portions of the Jewish community that has really locked up what it means to be pro-Israel."

The new leftist lobby group's leader stated that Israel should "talk with its enemies," including Hamas, and that the US needs to exert further pressure on Israel to restrict the growth of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

"We have absolutely no problem taking a position that says the actions and policies of the Israeli government are counterproductive and not in the best interests, in our opinion, of either Israel or the United States," said Ben-Ami.

Less than three weeks ago, the left-wing lobbyist wrote in a May 11 opinion piece for the Washington Post newspaper that allowing a Jewish presence to grow in Judea and Samaria was akin to a friend enabling his buddy to drive drunk.

"Criticize or question Israeli behavior and you're labeled 'anti-Israel' [sic] or worse. But unquestioning encouragement for short-sighted Israeli policies such as expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank isn't real friendship. (Would a true friend not only let you drive home drunk but offer you their Porsche and a shot of tequila for the road?) Israel needs real friends, not enablers," he wrote.



How interesting coincidences are? A new leftie 'Jewish'/'Israel' thoughtfulness-defying lobby group has arisen advocating the same self-destructive policies preached by Barry H. Obama. And, wouldn't you know it, they claim to be Jews! Isn't it perceived that Barry H.O. has a Jewish vote problem and his credentials regarding the welfare of Israel are in doubt? Isn't talking to the enemy one of Barry's foreign policy planks? Must be one of those flukes of nature. This effort may represent a new round in anti-Israel advocacy by the Jewish left, ever seeking to divide itself from religious thought while drawing near to the bible of liberalism reminiscent of the Yevsektsiya of the motherland. Should Barry be elected President, Chas v'Shalom, expect to see these people ascend in influence until they are no longer needed.

Couple of points. Why is the left so backward? It reminds of Algore's "Everything that should be down is up. Everything that should be up is down." comment. Let me get this straight. J Street's agenda is drive a wedge between Jews and Israel supporters correct? That equates to the "everything that should be down is up". Then, J Street advocates talking to the barbarian Palis and living side by side with them, as they squat on Jewish land. That then equates to "everything that should be up is down". Essentially, J Street's goal is to "re-invent" advocacy. Their goal is not to help Israel secure her future, but to build the future in the image of Barry H.O. What do you need all that land for anyway, selfish Jews? " "We" think you should give your land to your enemy so the vision of peace will be fulfilled." Maybe Algore should be speaking for J Street instead?

A Personal Message to Jeremy Ben-Ami,
when you advocate talking to and settling your enemy on land they are trying currently to steal and have pledged not to stop until the destruction of your country and your people, thereby promoting a situation where death and violence is the result, your are indeed anti-Israel and antiJew.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

19 May 2008

McCain Redeemed, Rubin Exposed - Obama Still Favorite of Terrorists

McCain Accused of Hypocrisy Over Hamas, Obama
by Gil Ronen 14 Iyar 5768, 19 May 08 06:07
(IsraelNN.com) The Republican candidate for President, Senator John McCain, is being accused of "hypocrisy" for criticizing Sen. Barack Obama over his stated policy of dialogue with Iran and other enemies, when McCain himself previously stated the U.S. will have to "deal" with Hamas.

McCain previously attacked Obama because of an interview for WND and WABC in which Ahmed Yousef, a top Hamas official, voiced hope that Obama would become president. Yousef, Hamas's chief political advisor in Gaza, also compared Obama to John F. Kennedy.

The Huffington Post, which is considered pro-Obama, has featured a video from a 2006 television interview in which McCain himself implied an eventual willingness for U.S. talks with Hamas.

'They're the government'
When asked about the possibility of conducting talks with Hamas following their victory in the PA elections, McCain said: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy toward Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so... But it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

McCain was speaking on Sky News to former Clinton State Department official James Rubin. In an op-ed in the Washington Post last Friday, Rubin blasted McCain, saying that "given his stated position then, it is either the height of hypocrisy or a case of political amnesia for McCain to inject Hamas into the American election." He also accused McCain of "smearing" Obama in quoting Hamas's praise for him.

Conservative bloggers conducted some research of their own, however, and discovered that on the same day as the Rubin interview, McCain spoke to CNN and made it clear that the only way the U.S. can "do business again" with Hamas-led Gaza is if Hamas renounces terror.

'We like Mr. Obama'
In the interview cited by McCain, Hamas's Yousef stated: "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections. I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse... I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle. And he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance."

McCain released the following statement in response to the latest accusations: "There should be no confusion, John McCain has always believed that serious engagement would require mandatory conditions and Hamas must change itself fundamentally - renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept a two state solution. John McCain's position is clear and has always been clear, the President of the United States should not unconditionally meet with leaders of Iran, Hamas or Hizbullah. Barack Obama has made his position equally clear, and has pledged to meet unconditionally with Iran's leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leaders of other rogue regimes, which shows incredibly dangerous and weak judgment."

Will Jews defeat Obama?
Leading independent Democrats fear that if their party nominates Obama to run against McCain, the Jewish vote will help contribute to a Democratic loss in November, CBS reported last month. The network study said that Sen. Obama's rival, Senator Hillary Clinton, has not stated out loud what she believes--"that if Obama is the nominee a likely Democratic victory would turn to a near-certain defeat."

CBS noted that Sen. Obama lost the Jewish vote in Florida by double-digits. It said that an Obama victory in the primaries would forge an unusual alliance of Hispanics, blue-collar whites and Jews who would help send Sen. McCain to the White House.



In the APRPEH post on Friday, 16 May Two Campaigns, Two Candidates, One Israel I questioned the nature of the remarks reported by James Rubin and left for McCain to interpret what he meant by "dealt with" in reference to a PA government led by Hamas. The story that Rubin and Huffington were trying to sell is that McCain is no different that Obama seeking negotiations with terrorists and the enemies of freedom. McCain's remarks seem to be, when viewed in context with the CNN interview given the same day as the Rubin interview and posted by Hotair (also on Friday) reveal at least a few pre-conditions, albeit conditions for which Hamas could never comply. Obama still cannot be trusted with the security of the American people, even if McCain may have 'gaffed' on the Rubin interview. McCain has made his position clear. And unlike Barry H.O., McCain has a track record on this issue and doesn't hang out with terrorists and gangsters.

Ed Morrisey at Hotair in the article referred to above had this to say regarding Rubin:
The context here is crystal clear. McCain envisioned a possible change in Hamas from a terrorist group to a legitimate political party, one that recognized Israel and renounced violence. Under those conditions, McCain said that we could engage them in talks designed to establish peace, and only under those conditions. The Bush administration had the same policy at the time. Neither the US nor John McCain supported meeting with Hamas without preconditions, and they certainly didn’t have policy advisers meeting with them while they conducted terrorist attacks and plotted an armed takeover of Gaza.

This attack meme demonstrates a breathtaking bit of intellectual dishonesty. We expect that from the hard Left. Coming from the Washington Post, even in its opinion section, it disappoints. So much for the layers of fact-checkers and editors. And now that our friends on the Left have acknowledged the terrorist status of Hamas, can they explain Malley’s presence on the Obama campaign for months while his connections to Hamas were fairly well known?


It remains to be seen whether or not McCain actually believes the conventional wisdom stuff of 'if only Hamas would renounce terrorism and recognize Israel' we could begin negotiations over ending the conflict. Hamas would sooner advocate conversion to Catholicism and renouncing Islam before recognizing Israel's right to exist. Such ideas are for diplomatic naivete, also known as disparity in truth. There is an Israel and there are barbarians.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

06 May 2008

The Clock Ticking Down on the Bush and Condi Championship Game

Rice: Young Palestinians Losing Hope For Deal With Israel
Heading Back To Mideast, Rice Says Young Palestinians Are Losing Hope For Deal With Israel


WASHINGTON, May. 6, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told an American Jewish audience Tuesday that young Palestinians are losing hope for an agreement with Israel.

"Increasingly, the Palestinians who talk about a two-state solution are my age," Rice, 53, said in a somber speech to The American Jewish Committee at its 102nd annual meeting.

Insisting that the Bush administration will never yield to dealing with Hamas militants, Rice said, "What you don't want is that the hopelessness and the vision of the extremists have no counter."

Set to leave early Thursday for more jawboning with moderate Arabs and Israeli leaders, after talks in London designed to raise more economic support for the Palestinians, Rice called on Israel to make "difficult decisions" to provide the Palestinians with the dignity of statehood.

In fact, she said, "we have a chance to reach the basic contours of a settlement by the end of the year" _ a scaling back of President Bush's initial hope for a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians before he leaves office.

Rice also poured cold water on any prospects that Israel and Syria could negotiate peace terms.

The two sides, working partly through Turkey, have shown some renewed interest. The basis would be Israel swapping the Golan Heights for a peace treaty with its Arab neighbor.

Rice said the Bush administration had tried to interest Syria in peacemaking, with such moves as an invitation to a Mideast conference last November in Annapolis, Md.

"It is hard to see there is a Syrian regime receptive" to negotiations with Israel at this point, she said.

"Syria is like Iran's sidecar," she said, aligning itself tightly with a country that threatens Israel's existence. And, she reminded the American Jewish Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobby and foe of intolerance and anti-Semitism, "you know about Syria's nuclear program."

Rice referred to a nuclear facility built with North Korea's cooperation and then wrecked by Israeli jets last September.

The central theme in her 15-minute speech and 20-minute question-and-answer session was that the Bush administration would not give up trying to steer Israel and the Palestinians toward a settlement that provides the Palestinians with a state.

And, the administration would have no dealings with Hamas or other Palestinian extremists that war with Israel and refuse to recognize the Jewish state.

"Either you are a political party or a terrorist group," Rice said. "You cannot be both."

Once again, Rice criticized former President Jimmy Carter for holding talks with Hamas leaders. "I don't see the point of trying to negotiate with people who are determined to destroy the foundation of peace," she said.






Dr. Rice is talking like a basketball coach watching the clock tick away with her team down in the championship game and realizing that with every day of 2008 sliding by, the chance of making a comeback is increasingly unlikely. Then again, maybe these statements are yet another example of the Bush Administration's arabian "end run", not meaning for any true, permanent, resolution to the conflict between the arabians and Israel, just attempting to finish the game in good form.

Her comments lead me to believe there is confusion on her part as to the reason for talks, or is it after all an attempt to stall? If the youth are not interested in peace, who are the guarantors of any agreement? If Hamas cannot be a "political party" how is that Fatah/PA can be a partner for negotiations? The trouble with such logic as hers is that it leaves the door open for one day accepting Hamas as a party to negotiations. Why, all you have to do is say you are a "political party" and ta-da, welcome to the White House.

What is it with this age issue after all? The arabians have been saying since the re-establishment of the Jewish homeland that a war of "liberation" was the only way to expel the Jews. This message has been taught for generations now in "palestinian" and arabian schools. The official PA educational curriculum and press still de-humanizes Jews and Israel. How can it be that only now, the youth of "palestine" do not talk of a "two-state solution"? The only arabians talking two-state solution are the PA on the US and European payroll. Nothing has changed in this regard.

In fact the idea of modernizing, democratizing, de-militarizing the PA is contradicted by Condi's words. It is fair to say that the PA arabians have secured more compromises, promises and diplomatic success than any effort to destroy Israel did in previous generations. An American President has called for the creation of an independent "Palestine" and the sitting Prime Minister of Israel (for the time being that is) is ready to hand over as much land of Judea and Samaria as needed with part of Jerusalem as its capital for the erstwhile new Pali homeland for a people who never had one. None of this was achieved by war, only through talks.

How is it then that younger arabians are not interested in "two-states"? Maybe it is because the older arabians are not really interested in "two-states" either and like the Bush administration may be doing, just walking the walk. So, after President Bush is gone, PM Olmert is gone and very possibly Abu Mazen is gone, then who picks up the pieces of the "failed" negotiations? When will the lesson be learned that just as when road blocks are removed Jews die, chas v'shalom, that when talks fail Jews die, chas v'shalom?


Stumble Upon Toolbar

03 April 2008

Eric Yoffie - John Hagee, Arabs and Jews

Oh, shut up, Yoffie - Zioncon
Oh, shut up, Yoffie - INN

27 Adar Bet 5768, 4/3/2008

I think we should hold a contest for the most imaginative ways to shut up
"Rabbi" Eric Yoffie, the leader of the American Reform synagogue's
political SWAT team, the "Union for Reform Judaism." It is a political
movement that seems to want to replace the Torah with Tikkun Magazine.
You know the the sort, Jews who consider Palestinian statehood and gay
"marriage" to be the highest priorities for Judaism. Yoffie evidently
wants the Ten Commandments to be replaced with Barack Obama's campaign
platform.

"Rabbi" Yoffie is a leading theological practitioner of Political
Liberalism as Judaism, a form of pseudo-Judaism and "liberation theology."
Yoffie has a long track record of issuing anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian
pronouncements. This past week he is calling for a Jewish jihad against
Christian evangelists, because the latter are guilty of supporting Israel.
Who does not need to be criticized, according to Yoffie? Islamofascists,
of course. Last year, "Rabbi" Yoffie sucked up to them at the Islamic Society of North America's 44th annual convention in Chicago, IL. While still president, Moshe Katsav made a point out of refusing to call Yoffie a Rabbi.

So imaginative suggestions for ways to shut Yoffie up are being solicited.

So far we have:

1. Stick the stockings from a Reconstructionist Christmas tree into his
mouth.

2. Borrow a giant reefer for him from Arthur Waskow.

3. How many Kafiyas can he swallow in an hour?

4. Get him the seafood platter from a progressive egalitarian California
Reform "temple" we know about.

5. Two words: fur balls.

6. Get him to recite fatwas from the Religious Action Center of David
Saperstein at the speed of an old 45 record being played at 78.

7. Make him give all his liberal speeches in Hebrew. (Or Aramaic)

8. Make him give a class on the Daf Yomi before any political speech he
plans to give.

9. Get him to a dentist who was admitted to dental school via affirmative
action.

10. Let him drink every day as if it were Purim.

# posted by Steven Plaut : 9:49 AM




All Jews would like to think of their Rabbis as being thoughtful, inspiring, and learned. They want them to be able to listen and respond in a meaningful manner as an halachic guide and adviser answering our questions in good times or G-d forbid the bad times. I wonder what it is that Reformist Jews see in Eric Yoffie? I can't picture him as an adviser, guide, teacher and most certainly not a pulpit Rabbi. Granted my observations are based upon primarily print media and the Internet, but what I have seen and heard leaves me quite confused. The Shalom TV interview which I referred to in a previous post left me even more confused. Yoffie is soooo "un-Rabbi" like. APRPEH has made references to Yoffie's essentially illogical and uninformed positions many times.

An example can be found here with Yoffie being quoted as saying in regards to John Hagee:

"In expressing contempt for other religions and rejecting territorial compromise under any and all circumstances, their views run against the American grain."

In other words, Yoffie by equating 'contempt for religions' and 'territorial compromise' if I may be permitted to read between the lines, believes that Hagee doesn't like Yoffie's religion since it takes the arabist position calling for a judenrein Yosh.

Setting aside the "contempt for other religions" (which would seem to already be a subjective observation given Hagee's non-contempt for Jews - although Catholics might see it differently) it is Yoffie who is mistaken in terms of what is American sentiment for Israel and the need for "territorial compromise". Yoffie is clearly expressing his view and that expressed by the Reformist party/movement that Israel should engage in what he calls "territorial compromise" and meaning it in the fullest sense of the word.

As Gallup polls demonstrate, Americans favor Israel in the dispute with the palis and do so year after year. The Gallup polls also show that Americans want more pressure exerted on the palis than Israel by the American government in negotiations (not that there should be any pressure on Israel to acquiesce before barbarians). While polls also do show support for a pali state, it is presumed they mean the peaceful, non-belligerent, non-terrorist, non-bloodthirsty, non-antiJew state of the Foggy Bottom propaganda machinations. Could it be that Yoffie's understanding of "territorial compromise" and the understanding of the Americans polled is different? Could he actually be wrong? What do Americans believe in terms of a pali state in Judea and Samaria?

Palestinian-Israeli Dispute Engenders American Sympathy for Israelis



Americans Likely Welcome Arab-Israeli Peace Summit



Mixed Reviews for Bush Administration’s Mideast Peace Push



And how is this fictitious contiguous pali state in the West Bank to come into existence? Polling before the Gaza disengagement commissioned by the ZOA and conducted by McLaughlin and Associates on this question resulted in overwhelming American opposition to the removal of Jews from their "homes and businesses":

Respondents, by a margin of 4 to 1 (63% to 16%) opposed "Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from a section of Gaza and northern Samaria and forcing 10,000 Israeli Jews from their homes and businesses" and by a margin of 2.5 to 1 (53% to 21)%, agreed with the statement that "this Gaza Plan sends a message that Arab terrorism is being rewarded". Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. Based upon these results one must conclude that it is Yoffie's views which run against the American grain. How would Americans poll on the need for more Israeli withdrawals after having watched the disturbing and heart breaking videos of the previous disengagements? Would Americans be more or less favorable toward forcing "Jews from their homes and businesses"?

Returning to the idea of thoughtful rabbis, maybe it is within the interpretation of poll results where a diagnoses of Yoffie and reformism can be found. For the record, I do not particularly care what results the polls reflect when Jewish life and security are at stake. Even if the polls were overwhelmingly supportive of the palis and anti-Israel it wouldn't matter. I also believe that to be the case with many Jews. When it comes to Yoffie and his supporters, I must conclude the opposite. His use of public opinion polls to justify his callousness in terms of the security of Israel is informative of his lack of thoughtfulness and lack of real rabbinic status. And yet he speaks from both sides of his mouth.

Reform Jewry Head Calls PLO Movement Ugly and Stupid

Yoffie senses that the palis use of terror reflects stupid politics. At least that is how I interpret his comments. Again, this interpretation, if true reflects his very arabist thinking. In other words, the palis have taken actions which damage their cause, not that the lives of Jews matters so much. Yoffie is saying, the state could have been yours if you killed and maimed fewer Jews. This logic, to those who read the words expressed by the palis is Abu Mazen logic.

Maybe, it is this very ability to deny reality and side with the enemy which is indicative of how Reformism thinks about Judaism. In Chassidus there is an idea that all Jews really wish to be Tzadikim and come close to Hashem. But, they are held back by their gashmius (physicality) which allows their physical selves to dominate their actions. (Where Chassidus teaches how to harmonize the soul and body in a spiritual bond). This weakness drives the person further away from holiness and eventually shields him from seeing the difference between right and wrong. The effect of the yetzer hara is that reason becomes a vehicle for confusion. The origin of this confusion stems from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

When there is a question of what is the good and what is the evil, the human mind tries to make distinctions which leads to compromising. Good becomes some good and a little bad and bad becomes a little bad with some good and the human mind, left alone without proper Torah guidance becomes confused. This is where in my humble opinion reformism and its followers have descended to. And this is where Eric Yoffie resides as the one who believes he can make the proper decisions. After all, the palis have some good and bad and the Jews have some good and bad. They are not all wrong and the Jews are not all right, etc etc etc...

It is this inability to see clearly which hides the truth. Yoffie and all Jews must unite to say clearly without reservation that mission number 1 is the need to preserve Jewish life and to acknowledge once and for all that HaShem, the King of Kings has established from the time before creation that the Jews have been assigned the land of Israel. This idea is amongst Rashi's first comments in his Chumash commentary and well worth remembering.

Here is a good place to start learning about your soul.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

12 February 2008

How Nahoul the Bee Lost His Sting



Poor Nahoul. The friendly martyr bee has gone away. But not to worry little martyrs of Philistia, Assud, the Jew eating Rabbit has come to avenge his hero Nahoul. Assud, is Saraa's new little friend. Jews beware the appetite of Assud.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

04 February 2008

Obama Counter-Offensive: The Malley Defense


Rob Malley: the Willy Horton of right wing Jewish nut jobs

By Dan Fleshler | February 1, 2008

Unable to find anything in his past to prove that Barack Obama will sell Israel down the river, right wing bloggers in my community are now focusing on one of his Middle East advisors, Robert Malley. Malley served various roles in the Clinton Administration and was President Clinton’s special assistant during the Camp David talks.

Ed Lasky’s character assassination of Malley in American Thinker spews accusations that are being echoed all over the right wing Zionist blogosphere. Normally, I don’t worry about what Lasky and other contributors to American Thinker have to say. Some of them make Bill Krystal seem like a member of the War Resisters League, or a Deadhead. But someone needs to address the current, vile frenzy to use Malley as the Willy Horton of Likud sympathizers and those much further to the right.

Normally, it is best not to call attention to the irrational bile that often passes for analysis when Israel is discussed in the digital world. But Lasky’s article is extensively quoted by the Greater-Israel-right-or-wrong crowd. One can find posts entitled “OBAMA IS FUNDING TERRORIST…..this MUST STOP” and “Obama’s Pro-Terrorist Foreign Policy Advisor,” which opens with “Robert O’Malley [sic] goes past appeasement, directly to alliance with terrorists out to destroy Israel.”

As far as I can tell, nobody attacked Willy Horton’s father, but Lasky can’t forgive Malley for being the son of a well-known, leftwing francophone journalist, Simon Malley, who was born to a Syrian family in Cairo. That ancestry presumably makes his son immediately suspect and someone who should be carefully screened at American airports. So does the fact that Simon Malley, like much of the post- World War II intelligentsia, lauded liberation movements in Africa and also supported the Palestinian cause. Lasky asserts:

Malley has seemingly followed in his father’s footsteps: he represents the next generation of anti-Israel activism. Through his writings he has served as a willing propagandist, bending the truth (and more) to serve an agenda that is marked by anti-Israel bias…Robert Malley’s writings strike me as being akin to propaganda. One notable example is an op-ed that was published in the New York Times (Fictions About the Failure at Camp David). The column indicted Israel for not being generous enough at Camp David and blamed the failure of the talks on the Israelis.

The column did no such thing, of course. Read it youself. Malley overturned conventional wisdom by blaming everyone, including the Palestinians, for missing a historic opportunity.

Lasky’s piece is quite instructive, because each and every article by Malley that he deems to be anti-Israel propaganda is precisely the kind of article Israel needs. His writing is balanced, evenhanded, refusing to rely on received wisdom when dealing with a conflict that both sides must take responsiblity for inflaming. He comes across as very…reasonable. We have reached the point where anyone who tries to be cool and level-headed about the conflict is absolutely terrifying to those who think of it as a zero sum, Manichean game.

I don’t know Malley well but I do know that in the Clinton Administration, his “agenda” was to promote and protect America’s best interests. Those interests –and indeed, Israel’s interests–will be well-served if the next president uses America’s leverage with both sides, rather than just one side, to help them solve a conflict they cannot possibly solve by themselves.

There is no way to stop anyone from saying anything they want about Rob Malley in the lawless, rhetorical wild wild west of the blogosphere. But I hope Obama’s campaign does not take the bait and disassociate itself from Malley. And if this smear campaign continues, I hope the mainstream American Jewish community will rise to Malley’s defense, just as they did for Obama.

Topics: American foreign policy, Palestinians, Middle East peace process, Israel, American Jews, Hamas, Barack Obama |

Correction on Malley’s role, and a cyber-dilemma

(liberal guilt)




(my response - to the above post - some keying errors corrected)

The NYT article that you say is balanced is an apology for one of the great villains of the 20th century. The "myths" perspective is correct. The "fact" that Arafat merely wanted land is the real myth.

The truth test, or the best evidence as to Malley’s skewed views, (better uninformed views) is the line "to imagine that the 100-year conflict between Jews and Palestinians living in this region, with roots going back thousands of years more and tens of thousands of victims along the way, could be resolved in a fortnight without any of the core issues..".

There was no "Jews and Palestinians" conflict 100 years ago, nor ergo, no conflict "with roots thousands of years" ago. In 1900 there was no Arab nationalist movement let alone "Palestinians". Even leaving an illusion of such a thing as Arab nationalism in Israel in 1900 is anti-Jew and a significant lie. See THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM IN 1900 . Please do not respond to this by saying, "it is a literary technique on the part of Malley". It is not. It is an intentional usage of arab propaganda. Malley is anti-Jew and Obama for not doing his homework deserves the attention from the blogosphere.

- additional

Peretz on Obama in JPOST

The blinders of liberalism covering the eyes of logic and analysis have always surprised me. Just when I think that the logic sinks in, I tend to be taken aback at how deeply engrained some foolish beliefs truly are. In my post Obama? Oh My! I presented what I believed was a well-reasoned conclusion that Obama is just not worth the risk due to inconsistencies in his comments over the years concerning Israel and his associations. I based that position on historical interpretations of the Jew and Israel in the world and how Obama seems to fit into the posture those interpretations leave in their wake. Then I backed into the blog site above looking into Martin Peretz's commentary in Jpost (at the above link). And there I found numerous leftist Jews and Malley defenders all seemingly trying their hardest to insulate Obama. What I discovered was the lengths to which political inclination can shield a person from the truth. Read the NYT's piece written by Malley and draw your own conclusion. It may be worth your time to read the comments left on the Realistic Dove blog found at the top of this post responding to that blog's Malley post. Jews need to stay vigilant.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

24 January 2008

Obama? Oh My!

Jewish Leaders Question Obama's Stand on Middle East

17 Shevat 5768, January 24, '08
(IsraelNN.com) Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama still is reeling from negativity from the Jewish community, which is questioning his position on the Palestinian Authority (PA)-Israeli conflict. Earlier this week, seven Jewish democratic senators wrote an open letter condemning an e-mail campaign that falsely accused Sen. Obama of being a Muslim.

The American Jewish Committee (AJC) circulated a memo questioning Sen. Obama on his approach to Iran's nuclear development and on negotiations between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Israel. The Jewish Forward revealed the memo, which stated that Sen. Obama "appears to believe the Israelis bear the burden of taking the risky steps for peace, and that the violence Israel has received in return does not shift that burden. The AJC expressed "regret" that the internal memo was published.

The memo also notes that Sen. Obama previously has made statements favoring diplomatic talks with Iran and negotiating with Syria.



January 23, 2008

Barack Obama's Middle East Expert
By Ed Lasky

Barack Obama's real thinking about Israel and the Middle East continues to be an enigma. The words he chose in an address to AIPAC create a different impression than the composition of his foreign policy advisory team. Several advisors have evidenced a history of suspicion and worse toward Israel. One of his advisors in particular, Robert Malley, clearly warrants attention, as does the reasoning that led him to being chosen by Barack Obama.

A little family history may be in order to understand the genesis of Robert Malley's views. Normally, one should be reluctant in exploring a person's family background -- after all, who would want to be held responsible for the sins of one's father? However, when close relatives share a strong current of ideological affinity, and when a father has a commanding persona, it behooves a researcher to inquire a bit into the role of family in forming views. That said, Robert Malley has a very interesting father.

His father Simon Malley was born to a Syrian family in Cairo and at an early age found his métier in political journalism. He participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World. He wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations. In Paris, he founded the journal Afrique Asie; he and his magazine became advocates for "liberation" struggles throughout the world, particularly for the Palestinians.

Simon Malley loathed Israel and anti-Israel activism became a crusade for him-as an internet search would easily show. He spent countless hours with Yasser Arafat and became a close friend of Arafat. He was, according to Daniel Pipes, a sympathizer of the Palestinian Liberation Organization --- and this was when it was at the height of its terrorism wave against the West . His efforts were so damaging to France that President Valerie d'Estaing expelled him from the country.

Malley has seemingly followed in his father's footsteps: he represents the next generation of anti-Israel activism. Through his writings he has served as a willing propagandist, bending the truth (and more) to serve an agenda that is marked by anti-Israel bias; he heads a group of Middle East policy advisers for a think-tank funded (in part) by anti-Israel billionaire activist George Soros; and now is on the foreign policy staff of a leading Presidential contender. Each step up the ladder seems to be a step closer towards his goal of empowering radicals and weakening the ties between American and our ally Israel.

Robert Malley's writings strike me as being akin to propaganda. One notable example is an op-ed that was published in the New York Times (Fictions About the Failure at Camp David). The column indicted Israel for not being generous enough at Camp David and blamed the failure of the talks on the Israelis.

Malley has repeated this line of attack in numerous op-eds over the years, often co-writing with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Yasser Arafat (see, for example, Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors ). He was also believed to be the chief source for an article by Deborah Sontag that whitewashed Arafat's role in the collapse of the peace process, an article that has been widely criticized as riddled with errors and bias.
(excerpt - the remainder of the article is here.)




Just a few days ago, the heads of major Jewish organizations released a press release denouncing smear jobs on Obama but seemed to ignore what Obama is really about. One wonders why Abe Foxman, Marvin Hier and company are spending their time worrying about urban myths aimed at Obama's feelings instead of examining the candidate's positions. With all fairness, Obama is not as best as I can determine anti-Semitic (in that he has no hatred for Jews or Israel based upon economic, political or religious beliefs) although his long time pastor Jeremiah Wright probably is. I give credit to Obama for distancing himself from Wright's infatuation with Farrakhan.

However, Obama's history lends itself to an interpretation that he may be anti-Jew if he really concludes that Israel is to blame for the conflict in the middle east. I draw that conclusion based upon the available evidence: the AJC memo, his associations and interest in negotiating with Israel's enemies. A casual reading of the comments quoted in the Israel National News story of the AJC internal memo as reported by Forward, show a callousness towards Israel which causes concern.

Israel must never be pushed into "taking the risky steps for peace" as the memo reveals Obama supports. Such moves lead to an increase in terrorist attacks and the spilling of Jewish blood. All the more so, if attacks by lunatic barbarians who seem to be intentionally trying to provoke a significant military response from Israel by firing rockets into Sderot daily cannot evoke from Obama a sense of sympathy, what must one conclude? Obama, in order to hold this position, (if accurately reported) must not value Jewish life or feels that randomly dropping rockets on civilian population centers is a legitimate form of warfare. (Warfare for the underclass nationalist movements, etc.) An opinion such as that one leads the same casual observer to wonder what Obama must have learned in Midrassa.

The belief that the Jew must take his punishment and still be responsible for changing the scenario where the punishment is being meted out is anti-Jew. There is no way around this conclusion. But give Obama a benefit of the doubt. The underpinning of his belief is no different than that held by many others, primarily but not limited to the left in America today. The leading proponents for a mythical two-state solution are on the left. (Bush and Condi excluded). Blaming Israel is part of counter-culture mythology a function of a mis-interpretation of who is the aggressor and who is the victim, who has ill will toward whom. When Israel is viewed as the oppressor of the poor palestinians, a view held more so on the left than the right, the logical conclusion is that Israel must give something to compensate the victims of their anger. While the arabians are the weaker party in terms of the pali-Israel conflict, they are clearly not innocent. The left avoids studying how the situation got to where it is today; liberals need no justifications. Someone should ask Obama if he knows why there was a war in 1948 and if he believes that had a "palestine" been established at that time if there would be peace today. Why was the PLO established before Israel "occupied" Yesha? Why did the Six Day war occur? Readers of this blog know the answers to these questions. Does Obama? Hillary? One wonders whether Foxman, Hier and company have the seichal to ask?

Stumble Upon Toolbar

14 December 2007

Q & A on "The Conflict"

Quiz Yourself on the 'Israeli Arab ("Palestinian") Conflict'
Posted on 12/14/2007 5:02:54 AM CST by PRePublic

1) When was the Arab immigration to [the historic Jewish land of] Israel -"Palestine" boosted?

A When they wanted to see Jewish holy sites.
B When [anti French and anti British] Arab nationalism spread across the middle east.
C When the Zionists Jews came and cultivated the deserted land.


2) What's [Arab "Palestinian" highest "national" icon] Yasser Arafat's country of origin?

A Israel ["Palestine"].
B Jordan.
C Egypt.

3) Why were there --initially-- more Arab immigrants ["residents"] than Jewish immigrants (Arab majority)?

A Because Jews didn't attempt to enter.
B Arabs were 'invited" to come.
C Because the British restricted only Jewish immigration, to appease the Arabs


4) Why did (some) Arabs leave "Palestine" Israel in 1948?

A Because the Zionists "told" them to.
B Because the UN told them to.
C Because the Arab leaders ordered them to evacuate [their reasoning: to facilitate annihilation plans] while they attempt to 'throw the Jews in the sea'.


5) What has been the term "Palestine" always referred to?

A a country.
B a flag.
C an area, always known to be historical Israel.


6) What was Arabs' reaction to UN's partition plan for a two state solution and have their conduct since then ever been legal?

A they embraced the UN.
B they ignored and didn't react at all.
C they refused, objected to the plan and illegally started attacking the newly reinstated state of Israel.


7) How many Jewish refugees were chased out from Arab Muslim countries after Israel was re-established?

A 300,000
B 500,000
C Between 800,000 & 900,000


8) When did Arabs, Muslims start attacking Jews in the holy land?

A In the 1940's
B In the 1930's
C In the 1920's


9) Why did Arabs attack Jews so many years [even] prior to the re-establishment of Jews' homeland?

A Because of losing sports games to the Jews.
B Because of the "occupation" by... the British...
C Because they were led by such racist leaders like Haj Amin Al-Husseini the Mufti, that so shamelessly kissed Adolf Hitler's ass (while Hitler played the Arabs to his anti Jewish agenda).


10) What is synonymous with the Arab Muslim leader the Mufti?

A Spirituality.
B Peaceful religion.
C [Christian] Armenian genocide 1915, Hebron massacre 1929, pact with Adolf Hitler, Farhud massacre in Baghdad 1941, SS Bosnian Muslim brigade's crimes on Serb Christians 1943.


11) What did/do Arabs call to any lost [armed] battle to the Zionists?

A Loss.
B Mistake
C A "massacre" .


12) When did that so called "occupation" occur and why?

A In the 1948, during the war of independence.
B In the 1950's, as part of an "expansion".
C In the 1967 war when Israel decided it 'had enough' of constant Arab unprovoked attacks on its innocent citizens, the Goliath combined nations of Arabs, as always, lost the war to little tiny Israel - "David", by all legal means it was not a "theft".


13) Why did/does Israel continue to 'hold' the territories captured in 1967?

A Power hungry.
B "oil"...
C 1) Historic rights, it was always pertaining to the Jews. 2) Because of security, buffer zone.


14) What has been Israelis' experience in giving gestures to the Arabs so far?

A Arabs behave better.
B No change.
C Arabs, Muslims become more radical, more violent [example: Hamas rose right after the Gaza give away] as they see Israel's kindness as weakness.


15) When did these Arabs, (mostly) sons and grandsons of immigrants start to call themselves as "Palestinians"?

A In the 1940's.
B In the 1950's.
C In the 1960's.


16) What did/do all Arab-Muslim leaders & "fighters" openly plan to do to the Jews in their many wars?

A To occupy them.
B To oppress them.
C [To "throw them all into the sea". or a modern version of:"wiping off map", or "drinking the blood of the Jews" - aka] Genocide.


17) Who started to give equality for minorities, including voting rights for [Arab] women in the middle east?

A Jordan.
B UAE
C Israel.


18) Where in the middle east, does it exist a 100% complete freedom of speech, freedom of the press?

A "Palestinian" authority.
B Egypt.
C Israel.




This quiz comes from "Freeper" PRePublic AKA - Free Israel Now blog (link on the right hand side). I have posted the first 18 questions. There are 66 in total which can be found be clicking back to the original post. One hint, all the answers are "C". This is an open book quiz meant to inform the reader on the arabian-Israel/Jewish conflict. While some of the questions are a little editorial in nature and some are basic facts of history, it is a good source to turn to for a quick glance at the basic nature of the arab problem and also a place to send those who are beginning to study the conflict for the first time. Yasher Koach to PRePublic on a nice job.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

29 November 2007

The New Low of Moral Equivalency

Rice Compares Israeli Policy, US Segregation

(IsraelNN.com) In a speech at the Annapolis conference, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice compared Israeli policy in Judea and Samaria to segregation between blacks and whites in the US south decades ago, according to the Washington Post. “I know what it is like to hear that you cannot go on a road... because you are Palestinian,” she said, referring to Israel’s policy of creating separate Jewish and Arab roads in areas where there have been repeated attacks.

Rice also expressed sympathy with Israelis, saying she knows what it is like to live with constant suicide bombings and other attacks because a local black church was bombed by white separatists when she was a child, killing one of her classmates and three other girls. “There is pain on both sides,” she said.




Back in the days of the old south, white communities were always hunkered down in bunkers waiting for the next round of attacks from the black side of town. These were vicious attacks, launched at white schools and community centers with the aim of forcing the white communities to surrender to the demands of the radical black leaders who believed that whites really had no place in the land and should leave it. The old South truly belonged only to the blacks and the whites through trickery and support from the outside, the racist white communities of Europe, were able to overcome the black owners of the land. Agreements to end the fighting were frequent and broken with the as much frequency as they were crafted, the black leaders unable to restrain their anger and hate for the whites.



Maybe some sort of fantasy as this was soring through the mind of Condi Rice when she said such ridiculous and ignorant words as quoted in the article from INN. The lack of the ability to draw a comparison between preventing attacks by barbarians and Jim Crow laws prevents a certain amount of discussion on this subject. Ideas need to have common ground in order to be comparable.

I sympathize with the fact that Ms. Rice has a childhood memory of a tragic event. Many of us have those memories. In Israel's case everyday a new tragic memory is prevented by security forces. The immensity of difference is unmeasurable. Maybe Condi should contemplate what it might be like to multiply her memory by many factors then she may actually come to realize the stupidity of her lack of morality in her moral equivalence.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

10 November 2007

Fred Thompson's Israel Position

Fred Thompson's Position on Israel

Israel

The United States is committed to the security of Israel and the safety of the Israeli people. The historical, familial and cultural ties of our peoples are the basis of this commitment. It is strengthened by the shared values and shared interests of our nations. Our mutual goal is an economically and militarily strong Israel at peace with its neighbors. We must exercise our traditional leadership role in the region and continue our longstanding support to Israel to achieve this vision.


Key Issues

Security Cooperation. Security assistance to Israel is a key pillar of U.S. foreign policy and provides a cost-effective way to ensure the security of one of America's closest allies. The new U.S.-Israel security agreement forms the basis of this relationship and will help both the United States and Israel counter common threats in the Middle East and advance mutual goals. Meanwhile, we must also continue comprehensive strategic dialogues, joint military training, and cooperation on development programs such as missile defense.

Iran. Iran remains the world's premier state sponsor of terrorism, has attempted to undermine regional stability, and has repeatedly threatened Israel. Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, longer-range missiles, and modern conventional forces. And it is led by a tyrant who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Iran also supports terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, such as Hamas and Hizballah, and is responsible for supplying weapons to extremists who are killing U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. A nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. Its sponsorship of terrorism must end as well. We must work with the oppressed people of Iran to bring about regime change, while also working with other responsible democracies to isolate the regime and stop its illicit activities.

Syria. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and is determined to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction and advanced ballistic missiles as it builds up its military forces. Its active meddling in Lebanon's internal affairs, and its support of Hezbollah, are destabilizing and must also end. Belligerent public statements by Syrian officials toward Israel and the military build-up along the Golan Heights continue to undermine the possibility of peace talks between Syria and Israel. Serious and sustained international pressure is integral to bringing about change in Damascus.

Hizballah. As Iran's proxy against Israel and the West, Hizballah remains a terror network that poses a direct threat to Israel and U.S. interests in the region. Hizballah has continued to rearm in preparation for another fight with Israel despite its obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701. The group's stranglehold over Southern Lebanon has increased and continues undermine Lebanese sovereignty. Hizballah is a terror organization that must be disarmed and disbanded.

Hamas. Hamas is another terrorist organization that must also be disarmed and disbanded. The United States should not recognize any Palestinian government run by Hamas, nor provide it financial assistance until Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist, renounces violence and terrorism, and adheres to all previous Palestinian agreements with Israel. The continued build-up of advanced weaponry by Hamas is a sign that the group does not desire peace and, though Israel should demonstrate restraint, it may be forced to take action against this growing threat.

Peace Process. Achieving the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security is the surest way to bring about an end to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It is also essential to advancing the prosperity and security of both peoples. But to achieve this goal, Israel must have a reliable and credible partner in peace who will take serious steps to build trust and confidence, to include disbanding militias, ending terrorism, and cracking down on extremists. This will require the active support of other states in the region. Israel retains the right to take measures to defend itself, such as conducting counter-terrorist operations and completing its security barrier.

A Solid Record of Support
Fred Thompson's statements and Senate record demonstrate strong and clear support for Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Speaking Out Against Iran and Syria. "The terror masters in Tehran and Damascus make only the most minor distinction between America and Israel. They say that America is the Great Satan, and Israel is the Little Satan, and both must be destroyed. The US must make it clear that we will not allow Iran to become a nuclear threat….In addition to pursuing sanctions and other traditional means, we need to take other steps to reach out to the Iranian people and help them get rid of their hated regime. Our goal is peace and freedom. The US must willingly accept its accustomed role of leadership in this effort." (Thompson Statement Before the Republican Jewish Coalition on 10/16/07)

Affirming U.S. Support of Israel. "During last night's debate in New Hampshire, I was appalled that none of the leading Democrats would stand up for Israel's right to defend itself against Iran--a country intent on acquiring nuclear weapons and whose leader has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. A Thompson Administration would stand by Israel and all of our friends in the region. We would not wait for U.N. permission to support an ally or defend our interests abroad. The U.N. has not shown sufficient resolve toward stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions." (Thompson Press Release, 9/27/07)

Defending Israel's Reaction To Missile Launches From Gaza. In defending Israel's military response to these attacks he stated, "Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, NY? I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel's restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza. We would use whatever means necessary to win the war." (Haaretz, 9/12/07)

Senate Record. Fred Thompson supports legislation that advances the United States' and Israel's security and interests. During his time in the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson voted for a number of measures important to both countries, including-


  • A Senate Resolution in 2002 Expressing Solidarity With Israel And Reaffirming
  • Commitment To Israel's Right To Self-Defense

  • The Iran and Libya Sanctions Act Extension of 2001

  • A Senate Resolution in 2001 Expressing Solidarity With Israel In Common Struggle Against Terrorism

  • The China Nonproliferation Act he authored, which imposed sanctions on proliferators of WMD.

  • The Iran Nonproliferation Act Of 2000

  • A Senate Resolution in 1999 Expressing Opposition To Unilateral Declaration Of Palestinian State

  • The Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act Of 1998

  • The Jerusalem Embassy Act Of 1995



Rudys FoPo

Back in August, I reviewed Rudy's foreign policy piece that appeared in Foreign Affairs. I pointed out there that Rudy's position on the Palis and negotiations with Israel was really no different than the Bush position. Annapolis may alter that opinion, only time will tell. Well, now an official Fred position on the Israel has been published on the Fred'08 website. Fred's position also echoes the Bush position. Again, we see the terms: mutual respect, trust, respect, credible peace partner, disbanding militias, and ending terrorism, mostly the same catch words.

Fred is strong on Hezbollah and Hamas, while labeling Syria and Iran, state sponsors of terrorism, which is fightin' words. Overall a pretty good statement but nothing revolutionary. Fred's record though, unlike Rudy who has no "official" record, is there for the world to see in the official record of the US Senate.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

12 October 2007

End the Olmert Occupation of Israel

PA Demands Kotel as Failed Taba Accords Revived

by Hana Levi Julian

(IsraelNN.com) Israel and the Palestinian Authority have agreed to take a second look at the principles discussed during the January 2001 Taba Summit between then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak and then-Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said this week that he has accepted the principles reached during the negotiations but that had not been formalized in a final document, as a basis for current negotiations, according to an unnamed PA official quoted by the Maariv newspaper.

The source said that the PA has also agreed to the same principles as a basis for talks but has not formulated that in a formal manner.

“The problem is that Olmert has internal opposition from Barak,” said the source referring to the former PM who recently returned to politics and became Defense Minister.

“The gaps between Olmert and Abu Mazen are not large,” he said. “In one-on-one talks with Abu Mazen, Olmert has already agreed to Taba but he has not announced this formally.” He predicted that an agreement of principles would be reached by the time of the Mideast summit scheduled for November 26 in Annapolis, Maryland.

PA “Accepts”, but Demands Jews Throw on ‘Kotel’
PA negotiator Adnan Husseini, a senior advisor the PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, said the PA now accepts the Taba agreement that Arafat turned down six years ago, according to Voice of Israel government radio.

However, he rejected Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall as well as the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Givat Ze’ev and Ma’aleh Adumim.

Husseini said Thursday night that the Western Wall “is part of Islamic heritage that cannot be given up, and it must be under Muslim control.” He also insisted that the entire Old City belongs to the Muslims.

Abbas earlier had agreed that a land swap would allow Israel to retain sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall in the Old City.

Summary of Taba Accords:

The concessions by Israel in Taba six years ago included:
• Jerusalem would be designated as an open city, with Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall and Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem and PA sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods in the city. Each side would define their part of Jerusalem as its capital. The issue of the Temple Mount had not been resolved and the PA has now demanded the Western Wall as well.
• Israel agreed to withdrawal from Judea and Samaria over a 36-month period and withdrawal from the Jordan Valley over an additional 36-month period, to be replaced by an international force. Arafat rejected these ideas.
• Israel proposed handing over blocs of land occupied by Arab residents, and retaining so-called “settlement blocs” within Judea and Samaria.. Arafat rejected this.
• Israel agreed to withdraw from 97 percent of its territory restored in the 1967 Six-Day War. Arafat rejected this too.
• Israel agreed to a limited so-called Right of Return, which would allow some 5,000 foreign Arab descendants of those who fled the country during the 1948 War of Independence. Barak proposed that the Arabs be allowed to immigrate (a) to Israel, (b) to Israeli swapped territory or (c) to the PA state. A second proposal offered to Arafat included (a) rehabilitation and relocation within the current Arab host country or (b) relocation to a third country. Arafat rejected these proposals.
• Both sides agreed to phase out the UNRWA agency that administered internationally-funded programs among the PA population, within five years.
• Both sides agreed the PA state would have sovereignty over its airspace.
• Both sides were willing to make a commitment to fight terror and cooperate on security issues.
• Both sides agreed to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and that the June 1967 lines would become the basis for permanent borders between Israel and the new PA state.


background story from One Jerusalem: PA Advisor Wants More Of Jerusalem




I guess in the eyes of the main-stream or as Rush calls it the "drive-by media", acceptance of the ridiculous conditions for "peace" set at Taba represents further evidence that the PA is the moderate negotiating partner vis a vis Hamas which would never accept such "limited" conditions.

The provisions of the Taba plan would leave Israel hardly stronger or strategically better off but with an arab terror organization in control of 97% of Samaria, Judea and Gaza (not mentioned directly) including control of the airspace. Why the insistence of maintaining seemingly endless talks with these people raises questions as to the sanity of the Israeli side?

Jerusalem will always be, not a point of contention as the conventional wisdom crowd would have you believe, but a beacon of hope and strength for the Jews. Jerusalem is indeed the single issue which SHOULD unite all Jews and will prevent any major accord with the arabians, unless the arabians give up claims to the Jewish holy city. Organizing to oppose the government's negotiating strategy and to remind these wayward and rebellious Jews that in the words of MBD "Jerusalem is not for sale" is underway drawing heavy weights such as Rav. Elyashiv (see story).

The pali cause, for what its worth will not be advanced when their liars negotiators go one record stating the phony islamic claims to the Kosel or any of Jerusalem for that matter. (see the sidebar link "Islam's Temple Mount").

The Jewish people must unite over the issue of Jerusalem. The Israeli electorate must unite over the disposal of the morally and spiritually failed Olmert government. Shas and Yisroel Beitenu are the empowering and enabling Olmert to continue this reckless abandonment of the land and thereby ancient Jewish dreams and both parties' leaderships should be held accountable.

In closing, here are some comments by the late Lubavitcher Rebbe ZTL, in response to a letter he received from 1970 concerning Jerusalem. Olmert is very lucky he didn't have to contend with the Rebbe.



Jerusalem Is Only For Am Yisrael

November 20, 1970
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Concerning your letter dealing with my words regarding Jerusalem, which were challenged, saying that there is no basis for what I said ... I only wish it were true. But to my sorrow, the present situation clearly refutes the contention that there is no basis for my words. What aggravates this impression is that they (the Israeli Government) are numbing public opinion — with the usual slogans. I warned about this also, and they know that the only thing which is holding them (the Israeli leaders) back now is lack of convincing propaganda, which will satisfy the Jewish masses. Now with regard to the politicians, they have already toyed with many different phraseologies, among them one which I mentioned (they want to turn The City of the Great King[112] into “The City of Three Kings”).

There is presently “no King over the Jewish people, and each man does according to what is right in his eyes,”[113] since we are, after all, living in a democratic society. [They will then decide the issue of Jerusalem] as “three partners,” in order of quantity, of course, which is the deciding factor in a democracy; first come the Christians, then the Muslims, and only then ... (Yesterday, the most important newspaper here, the New York Times, printed the latest approach, which was taken from the words of the Foreign Minister in the name of the Government: “It is the desire of the Israeli Government to retain “political control” over Jerusalem, and not to compromise on places upon which Israel’s security depend, like the Golan Heights and certain other points on the West Bank of the Jordan.” This is sufficient evidence for whoever understands.)

May it be G-d’s Will that in approaching the month of redemption,[114] the month of Kislev, we should be saved — even before the coming of Moshiach — from the modern-day Hellenists.[115] Through the spreading of the wellsprings of Chassidus, which is the central theme of the holiday of redemption Yud-Tes Kislev, each individual will light flames using pure oil, which has not been tampered with by the hand of a stranger, or even lit by one, illuminating both the house and the outside world simultaneously, in an increasing and illuminating manner.


Respectfully, with blessings for true health
and good news in all mentioned here
and with blessings of Mazal Tov
on the birth of your grandchild,
may he live and be well,

/Signed: Menachem Schneerson/

Stumble Upon Toolbar

What Words Offend Arabs? The Truth.

Children's Poetry Booklet Recalled After Arabs Complain
(Israeli censorship kowtows to Arabs.
When Will We Tell The Truth Without Fear)

(IsraelNN.com 7 Sivan 5768/June 10, '08) Ynet's web site and Arab complaints against a ten-year-old boy's poem about terrorists has resulted in the recall of all of the Nes Ziona municipality's children's poetry booklets.

Ynet boasts that its coverage of the poem resulted in its being recalled.

The text of the poem (Ynet's translation):

Ahmed's bunker has surprises galore: Grenades, rifles are hung on the wall. Ahmed is planning another bombing!What a bunker Ahmed has, who causes daily harm.Ahmed knows how to make a bomb. Ahmed is Ahmed, that's who he is, so don't forget to be careful of him.We get blasted while they have a blast!Ahmed and his friends could be wealthy and sunny, if only they wouldn't buy rockets with all their money.

Poetry competition director Marika Berkowitz, who published the booklet, was surprised at the protests and told Ynet: "This is the boy's creation and this is what he wanted to express. Of course there should be a limit, but I think the there is no racism here. 'Ahmed' is a general term for the enemy. These are the murmurings of an innocent child."

The Education Ministry told Ynet: "The local authority that published the booklet should have guided the students in a more correct manner through the schools. The district will investigate the issue with the local authorities."
4Torah.com
4Torah.com Search from Pre-Approved Torah sites only
Photobucket
Custom Search

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter