World News| US News| Money| Science & Technology| Lifestyle| Conservatism 2.0Rabbis Gone Wild: Boston Edition
Seventy progressive rabbis, strutting like peacocks showing off their moral finery, versus one lonely truth-teller? I like the odds.
July 21, 2010 - by Stella Paul Page 1 of 2 Next -> View as Single PageShare |
Boston is famous for Harvard, Paul Revere, and now for 70 loony liberal rabbis, each blessed with an ego bigger than the Green Monster at Fenway Park, and wisdom smaller than a baked bean.
Already, their noxious stunt of June 10 is legend, astounding Jews from Boston to San Francisco, Israel and beyond. For on that day, the rabbis finally managed to bestir themselves about the notorious, Saudi-funded mega-mosque in Roxbury. Its founder, MIT graduate Abdurahman Alamoudi, is currently serving a 23-year sentence for al-Qaeda-linked terrorist pranks. Its trust president, Osama Kandil, is the director of an Islamic charity designated as terrorist by the U.S. government. Its trustee, Jamal Badawi, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial.
So what did these genius rabbis do? Did they demand an investigation into why Mayor Thomas Menino gave away $2 million of precious public land to the Islamic Society of Boston on which to build the mosque? Did they launch a public awareness campaign of the mosque’s terrifying link with Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the wart-faced “spiritual leader” of the Muslim Brotherhood who’s banned from the U.S. but served as the mosque’s trustee? Did they picket outside the home of Governor Deval Patrick, singing rousing protest songs and demanding he give back a $50,000 check he publicly accepted from a jihad-spouting imam for the purpose of training Massachusetts police in “Muslim cultural sensitivities”?
Of course not! These are far-left Reform and Reconstructionist rabbis we’re talking about and they worship only the progressive creed: putting barbarians first.
Instead, what these wise and wonderful rabbis chose to do was issue a public “Jewish fatwa” against Dr. Charles Jacobs, Boston’s heroic one-man truth squad about the mosque’s radical leadership. Yes, the Saintly Seventy all loudly signed their names to “An Open Letter to the Jewish Community,” published in the Jewish Advocate, in which they demanded that “Mr. Jacobs discontinue his destructive campaign against Boston’s Muslim community, which is based on innuendo, half-truths and unproven conspiracy theories. We call upon members of our community to reject the dangerous politics of division that Mr. Jacobs fosters.”
The rabbis then applauded their own “commitment to interfaith dialogue and cooperation. We stand together in our commitment to a community in which neighbors seek to know one another and join together for the common good.”
Finally, they closed with a reference to the Torah portion in which Israelite scouts are struck by fear: “Because they succumbed to their fears, God condemned this generation to die in the wilderness. We refuse to allow Mr. Jacobs to spread his calumnies and paralyze our community in fear.”
I’ll pause a moment to let the fumes of the rabbis’ galloping smug-itis clear the room.
Dr. Charles Jacobs is a morally serious man. We’re talking about a man who was given the Boston Freedom Award by Coretta Scott King for helping to emancipate enslaved black Africans in Sudan, in his work as founder of the American Anti-Slavery Group.
In 2007, Jacobs was named by The Forward as one of America’s top 50 Jewish leaders. He not only co-founded Boston’s branch of CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), to expose media bias against Israel, he also founded The David Project in 2002. This powerhouse organization trains college students to advocate for Israel and fight back against the demonization of Israel on campus.
Today, Dr. Jacobs heads Americans for Peace and Tolerance, an interfaith group he started in 2008 to safeguard American values from attack by radical Islamists and to support moderate Muslims.
This is the fine, brave man that 70 Boston rabbis defamed and tossed in the trash — and even potentially endangered by targeting him and his family for attack by vengeful Islamists.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the trashcan. It turns out Boston’s Jews did not relish the discovery that their spiritual leaders are preening ignoramuses.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
this will make you proud
Listen to what biggest business companies in the world have to say about Israel
THIS IS MAGNIFICENT, I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO WATCH IT, IT WILL TAKE YOU LESS THEN 5 MINUTES -- I KNOW THAT'S SOMETIMES A LONGER VIEW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHStBGk_D8Y
THIS IS MAGNIFICENT, I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO WATCH IT, IT WILL TAKE YOU LESS THEN 5 MINUTES -- I KNOW THAT'S SOMETIMES A LONGER VIEW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHStBGk_D8Y
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Piece by Tom Gross,
I cried when I read this, not for Rachel Corrie, but for the truly innocent Isralis Rachels who died from suicide bombings- they are the tragedy for whom a play should have been written-- NOT FOR RACHEL CORRIE!!
Sunday, 6th June 2010
The other Rachel
Fraser Nelson 9:25am
The boat the Israelis peacefully intercepted was called Rachel Corrie - named after a young American protester accidentally killed when offering herself as a human shield in Gaza. Her name became immortalised, some 30 songs have been written for her, a London play named after her and a film last year. But another Rachel, completely forgotten, is Rachel Thaler - a 16-year-old British citizen murdered by a Palestinian suicide bomber in 2002. Only one British publication has ever mentioned her: The Spectator. Here, below, is Tom Gross' article from 22 October 2005:
'Dead Jews aren't news: British newspapers care greatly about some victims of the Israel army, says Tom Gross, but not the Jewish victims of Palestinian terror - even if they are British
Rachel Thaler, aged 16, was blown up at a pizzeria in an Israeli shopping mall. She died after an 11-day struggle for life following a suicide bomb attack on a crowd of teenagers on 16 February 2002. Even though Thaler was a British citizen, born in London, where her grandparents still live, her death has never been mentioned in a British newspaper.
Rachel Corrie, on the other hand, an American radical who died in 2003 while acting as a human shield during an Israeli anti-terror operation in Gaza, has been widely featured in the British press. According to the Guardian website, she has been written about or referred to on 57 separate occasions in the Guardian alone, including three articles the Saturday before last.
The cult of Rachel Corrie doesn’t stop there. Last week the play, My Name is Rachel Corrie, reopened at the larger downstairs auditorium at the Royal Court Theatre (a venue which the New York Times recently described as “the most important theatre in Europe”). It previously played to sold-out audiences at the upstairs theatre when it opened in April. (It is very rare to revive a play so quickly.)
On 1 November the “Cantata concert for Rachel Corrie” – co-sponsored by the Arts Council – has its world premiere at the Hackney Empire.
But Rachel Thaler, unlike Rachel Corrie, was Jewish. And unlike Corrie, Jewish victims of Middle East violence have not become a cause célèbre in Britain. This lack of response is all the more disturbing at a time when an increasing number of British Jews feel that there has been a sharp rise in anti-Semitism.
Thaler is by no means the only Jewish Rachel whose violent death has been entirely ignored by the British media. Other victims of the Intifada include Rachel Levy (aged 17, blown up in a grocery store), Rachel Levi (19, shot while waiting for the bus), Rachel Gavish (killed with her husband, son and father while at home celebrating a Passover meal), Rachel Charhi (blown up while sitting in a Tel Aviv cafe, leaving three young children), Rachel Shabo (murdered with her three sons aged 5, 13 and 16 while at home), Rachel Ben Abu (16, blown up outside the entrance of a Netanya shopping mall) and Rachel Kol, 53, who worked at a Jerusalem hospital and was killed with her husband in a Palestinian terrorist attack in July a few days after the London bombs.
Corrie’s death was undoubtedly tragic but, unlike the death of these other Rachels, it was almost certainly an accident. She was killed when she was hit by an Israeli army bulldozer she was trying to stop from demolishing a structure suspected of concealing tunnels used for smuggling weapons.
Unfortunately for those who have sought to portray Corrie as a peaceful protester, photos of her burning a mock American flag and stirring up crowds in Gaza at a pro-Hamas rally were published by the Associated Press and on Yahoo News on 15 February 2003, a month before she died. (Those photos were not used in the British press.)
While Thaler’s parents, after donating their murdered daughter’s organs for transplant surgery, grieved quietly, Corrie’s parents embarked on a major publicity campaign with strong political overtones. They travelled to Ramallah to accept a plaque from Yasser Arafat on behalf of their daughter. They circulated her emails and diary entries to a world media eager to publicise them. They have written op-ed pieces, including a recent one in the Guardian.
The International Solidarity Movement (ISM), the group with which Corrie was affiliated, is routinely described as a “peace group” in the media. Few make any mention of the ISM’s meeting with the British suicide bombers Omar Khan Sharif and Asif Muhammad Hanif who, a few days later, blew up Mike’s Place, a Tel Aviv pub, killing three and injuring dozens, including British citizens. Or of the ISM’s sheltering in its office of Shadi Sukiya, a leading member of Islamic Jihad. Or of the fact that in its mission statement the ISM said “armed struggle” is a Palestinian “right”.
According to the “media co-ordinator” of the ISM, Flo Rosovski, “‘Israel’ is an illegal entity that should not exist” – which at any rate clarifies the ISM’s idea of peace.
Indeed, partly because of the efforts of Corrie’s fellow activists in the ISM, the Israeli army was unable to stop the flow of weapons through the tunnels near where she was demonstrating. Those weapons were later used to kill Israeli children in the town of Sderot in southern Israel, and elsewhere.
However, in many hundreds of articles on Corrie published in the last two years, most papers have been careful to omit such details. So have actor Alan Rickman and Guardian journalist Katharine Viner, co-creators of My Name is Rachel Corrie, leaving almost all the critics who reviewed the play completely ignorant about the background to the events with which it deals.
So in April, when reviewers first wrote about the play, they tended to take it completely at face value. “Corrie was murdered after joining a non-violent Palestinian resistance organisation,” wrote Emma Gosnell in the Sunday Telegraph. The Evening Standard, for example, described it as a “true-life tragedy” in which Corrie’s “unselfish goodness shines through”.
Only one critic (Clive Davis in the Times) saw the play for the propaganda it is. At one point Corrie declares, “The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaging in Gandhian non-violent resistance.” As Davis notes, “Even the late Yasser Arafat might have blushed at that one.” But ultimately the play, and many of the articles about Corrie that have appeared, are not really about the young American activist who died in such tragic circumstances. They are about promoting a hate-filled and glaringly one-sided view of Israel.'
(Tom Gross is a former Jerusalem correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph.)
Sunday, 6th June 2010
The other Rachel
Fraser Nelson 9:25am
The boat the Israelis peacefully intercepted was called Rachel Corrie - named after a young American protester accidentally killed when offering herself as a human shield in Gaza. Her name became immortalised, some 30 songs have been written for her, a London play named after her and a film last year. But another Rachel, completely forgotten, is Rachel Thaler - a 16-year-old British citizen murdered by a Palestinian suicide bomber in 2002. Only one British publication has ever mentioned her: The Spectator. Here, below, is Tom Gross' article from 22 October 2005:
'Dead Jews aren't news: British newspapers care greatly about some victims of the Israel army, says Tom Gross, but not the Jewish victims of Palestinian terror - even if they are British
Rachel Thaler, aged 16, was blown up at a pizzeria in an Israeli shopping mall. She died after an 11-day struggle for life following a suicide bomb attack on a crowd of teenagers on 16 February 2002. Even though Thaler was a British citizen, born in London, where her grandparents still live, her death has never been mentioned in a British newspaper.
Rachel Corrie, on the other hand, an American radical who died in 2003 while acting as a human shield during an Israeli anti-terror operation in Gaza, has been widely featured in the British press. According to the Guardian website, she has been written about or referred to on 57 separate occasions in the Guardian alone, including three articles the Saturday before last.
The cult of Rachel Corrie doesn’t stop there. Last week the play, My Name is Rachel Corrie, reopened at the larger downstairs auditorium at the Royal Court Theatre (a venue which the New York Times recently described as “the most important theatre in Europe”). It previously played to sold-out audiences at the upstairs theatre when it opened in April. (It is very rare to revive a play so quickly.)
On 1 November the “Cantata concert for Rachel Corrie” – co-sponsored by the Arts Council – has its world premiere at the Hackney Empire.
But Rachel Thaler, unlike Rachel Corrie, was Jewish. And unlike Corrie, Jewish victims of Middle East violence have not become a cause célèbre in Britain. This lack of response is all the more disturbing at a time when an increasing number of British Jews feel that there has been a sharp rise in anti-Semitism.
Thaler is by no means the only Jewish Rachel whose violent death has been entirely ignored by the British media. Other victims of the Intifada include Rachel Levy (aged 17, blown up in a grocery store), Rachel Levi (19, shot while waiting for the bus), Rachel Gavish (killed with her husband, son and father while at home celebrating a Passover meal), Rachel Charhi (blown up while sitting in a Tel Aviv cafe, leaving three young children), Rachel Shabo (murdered with her three sons aged 5, 13 and 16 while at home), Rachel Ben Abu (16, blown up outside the entrance of a Netanya shopping mall) and Rachel Kol, 53, who worked at a Jerusalem hospital and was killed with her husband in a Palestinian terrorist attack in July a few days after the London bombs.
Corrie’s death was undoubtedly tragic but, unlike the death of these other Rachels, it was almost certainly an accident. She was killed when she was hit by an Israeli army bulldozer she was trying to stop from demolishing a structure suspected of concealing tunnels used for smuggling weapons.
Unfortunately for those who have sought to portray Corrie as a peaceful protester, photos of her burning a mock American flag and stirring up crowds in Gaza at a pro-Hamas rally were published by the Associated Press and on Yahoo News on 15 February 2003, a month before she died. (Those photos were not used in the British press.)
While Thaler’s parents, after donating their murdered daughter’s organs for transplant surgery, grieved quietly, Corrie’s parents embarked on a major publicity campaign with strong political overtones. They travelled to Ramallah to accept a plaque from Yasser Arafat on behalf of their daughter. They circulated her emails and diary entries to a world media eager to publicise them. They have written op-ed pieces, including a recent one in the Guardian.
The International Solidarity Movement (ISM), the group with which Corrie was affiliated, is routinely described as a “peace group” in the media. Few make any mention of the ISM’s meeting with the British suicide bombers Omar Khan Sharif and Asif Muhammad Hanif who, a few days later, blew up Mike’s Place, a Tel Aviv pub, killing three and injuring dozens, including British citizens. Or of the ISM’s sheltering in its office of Shadi Sukiya, a leading member of Islamic Jihad. Or of the fact that in its mission statement the ISM said “armed struggle” is a Palestinian “right”.
According to the “media co-ordinator” of the ISM, Flo Rosovski, “‘Israel’ is an illegal entity that should not exist” – which at any rate clarifies the ISM’s idea of peace.
Indeed, partly because of the efforts of Corrie’s fellow activists in the ISM, the Israeli army was unable to stop the flow of weapons through the tunnels near where she was demonstrating. Those weapons were later used to kill Israeli children in the town of Sderot in southern Israel, and elsewhere.
However, in many hundreds of articles on Corrie published in the last two years, most papers have been careful to omit such details. So have actor Alan Rickman and Guardian journalist Katharine Viner, co-creators of My Name is Rachel Corrie, leaving almost all the critics who reviewed the play completely ignorant about the background to the events with which it deals.
So in April, when reviewers first wrote about the play, they tended to take it completely at face value. “Corrie was murdered after joining a non-violent Palestinian resistance organisation,” wrote Emma Gosnell in the Sunday Telegraph. The Evening Standard, for example, described it as a “true-life tragedy” in which Corrie’s “unselfish goodness shines through”.
Only one critic (Clive Davis in the Times) saw the play for the propaganda it is. At one point Corrie declares, “The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaging in Gandhian non-violent resistance.” As Davis notes, “Even the late Yasser Arafat might have blushed at that one.” But ultimately the play, and many of the articles about Corrie that have appeared, are not really about the young American activist who died in such tragic circumstances. They are about promoting a hate-filled and glaringly one-sided view of Israel.'
(Tom Gross is a former Jerusalem correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph.)
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Please check out Bill Hudaks' press release on Flotilla Fiasco
HUDAK ASSERTS UNEQUIVOCAL SUPPORT OF ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF
June 4th – (Danvers, MA) Bill Hudak, United States Congressional Candidate for the 6th District of Massachusetts, earlier today stressed the importance of the United States asserting its firm support of Israel. See complete article:
http://www.hudakforcongress.com/blog/june-friday-2010/hudak-asserts-unequivocal-support-israels-right-defend-itself
People may also find it published as a Note on Bill Hudak's Facebook page.
http://tinyurl.com/22wyr6z
June 4th – (Danvers, MA) Bill Hudak, United States Congressional Candidate for the 6th District of Massachusetts, earlier today stressed the importance of the United States asserting its firm support of Israel. See complete article:
http://www.hudakforcongress.com/blog/june-friday-2010/hudak-asserts-unequivocal-support-israels-right-defend-itself
People may also find it published as a Note on Bill Hudak's Facebook page.
http://tinyurl.com/22wyr6z
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Bill Hudak's Position Paper on US/ISRAEL relationship
Hudak Issues Position Paper on IsraelBill Hudak for U.S. Congress
United States – Israel Relationship
Position Paper May 20, 2010
My support for the nation of Israel is solid and unwavering.
Israel and the United States share common fundamental values of individual freedom, democracy, religious faith, and the pursuit of free enterprise and open markets. For over sixty years, Israel has been America’s solid ally in the Middle East, the one nation in the Middle East with the conviction to stand on these principles for the good of its own people as well as its Muslim neighbors. Israel’s desires and commitments to peace in the region have been steadfast, despite the constant threat and acts of terror launched against it by its neighbors.
If elected to the United States Congress from the Sixth District of Massachusetts, I pledge to continue to advance America’s commitments to stand by its ally, to insure Israel’s qualitative military advantage as it seeks peace through strength, to oppose efforts by Iran to obtain or develop nuclear weapons, and to support Israel’s desire to successfully achieve a two state solution negotiated on its own accord.
Peace Through Strength
I strongly believe that the only way in which Israel can achieve a lasting peace is to rest assured that the United States will stand firmly behind it militarily and economically. In that regard, we must continue our commitment to assure Israel’s qualitative military advantage, provide aid, and assure economic superiority. That commitment must be full and total, and publicly acknowledged.
Israel’s military must maintain the ability to defend itself against any conventional threats by its surrounding neighbors and the organized terrorist threats in the region. I support the ten year security agreement reached in August 2007 which will continue to provide approximately three billion dollars in annual aid to Israel to help Israel deal with existing threats. This assistance not only helps Israel maintain its military advantage, but boosts America’s own national security, provides overseas markets for our goods, and creates jobs here at home.
I also oppose efforts by anti-Israel factions which seek to use the United Nations to undermine and demean Israel’s determination to remain strong in its quest for peace. Unlike my opponent, Congressman John Tierney, who only voted “present”, I would have immediately joined the other 344 House members and voted in favor of H.R. 867, to openly condemn the Goldstone Report and to urge the Obama administration to completely disregard it going forward. That report contained a myriad of flaws inherent in it from the outset, and the subject matter was neither objectively investigated nor fairly reported in its
conclusions. In particular, the Goldstone report’s false accusations that Israel committed war crimes simply because it defended itself and its innocent civilian populations, as well as Palestinians, against a barrage of Hamas launched missiles and attacks, can never be justified or supported.
My commitment to support Israel’s quest for peace through strength would go farther than other recent actions by the Obama administration generally, and the congressman of this district in particular. Those actions evidence a clear erosion of our nation’s previous steadfast support of Israel which, unless checked immediately, threatens to increase tensions rather than foster peace.
President Obama’s failure to meet with and accord Prime Minister Netanyahu during his trip to Washington the full courtesy owed to the leader of one of our staunchest allies in order to force some type of concession was an insult unbecoming the head of our nation. Congressman Tierney’s signature on a petition with 44 other democratic representatives urging President Obama to force Israel to open its borders to Gaza signals his desire to support Hamas over Israel; an act which demonstrates his waning support of Israel in favor of the Arab states. It further shows an indifference to the safety of the Israeli population as dropping the blockade would allow further violent attacks on Israel’s people and sovereignty. I would never have signed or supported such a petition; instead, to the contrary, unlike Congressman Tierney, I would have signed the bipartisan letter addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama urging reaffirmation of a strong U.S./Israeli relationship.
Without reservation, it is my position that America must constantly strive to support Israel publicly. Israel’s agreement to self-impose a moratorium on construction of apartments in the West Bank was not an agreement to cease such in Jerusalem, and the public condemnation of announcements for further homes in Jerusalem by Vice President Biden and others was counterproductive to Israel’s efforts to seek peace. This type of public criticism only serves to encourage Palestine and the Arabs to wait for the United States to pressure Israel to make concessions rather than enter the negotiations in a neutral, good faith manner. We must constantly strive to resolve any U.S. – Israel misunderstandings or differences which may arise in private, through trust and confidence, rather than airing them publicly.
Israel’s Self-Negotiated Two State Solution
I strongly support Israel’s attempt to negotiate, on its own, a two state solution directly with its Arab neighbors. The United States must strongly support that initiative, and coordinate closely with Israel, but avoid efforts by outside entities to impose solutions.
Israel has clearly demonstrated its desire to negotiate, and as gestures of good faith has previously withdrawn unilaterally from Gaza and Lebanon. In return, terrorist entities, including Hamas and Hizbullah, now control those regions and remain by their terrorist ideology and acts constant threats to the safety and autonomy of Israel. Certainly, we must be mindful of those historical facts going forward, and stand with Israel’s desire to self-negotiate only with those non-terrorist entities who can truly partner and enforce a peaceful solution.
Accordingly, I support a peace negotiated by Israel for a two-state solution, but that solution must be premises on several factors: (1) Jerusalem, must remain the undivided capital of Israel, (2) Israel’s security must be strictly assured and not imposed by outside parties, (3) there must be guarantees that Palestinians will abide by agreements which have been signed by their past leaders, (4) Israel’s borders must be secured and the safety of its people must be assured. I believe that a strict return to the 1967 borders would be counter to these objectives and would oppose efforts for a strong and lasting peace.
Above all, the United States must always support Israel by encouraging the Arab states to recognize Israel’s right to exist. We must always be mindful that the Hamas charter, in particular, provides that Israel exists only as long as the Muslims desire it to exist; in effect, calling for its ultimate demise. Encouraging other Arab states to adopt our mutual belief in democracy, freedom, and free enterprise offers the greatest potential to lessen tensions going forward.
The Iranian Threat
Iran remains as the largest threat to Israel and a true danger to our own interests. For nearly 20 years, it engaged in a secret nuclear program until it was exposed in 2002. Iran is a leading sponsor of terrorism, and a nuclear armed Iran would threaten the region and world in a completely unacceptable manner.
Iran President Ahmadinejad has made clear that he does not believe the Holocaust ever occurred, has expressed his view that Israel should be destroyed, and has expressed his disrespect for all Jews. Iran supports Hamas and Hizbullah in Gaza and Lebanon, respectively, and is clearly intent on wiping Israel off the map. Not content on its own region, Iran is also pursuing alliances with terrorists in Argentina and Venezuela. Its desire to obtain nuclear weapons can have only one purpose in mind: to advance its interests and threaten the safety of the Middle East and the world.
I strongly support all measures designed to compel Iran to cease efforts to develop a nuclear capability and to cause them to cease efforts in the regard, and would strongly support and propose efforts to sanction Iran severely in an effort to compel compliance. This includes concluding, and strengthening, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009, H.R. 2194 (passed by the House and Senate, and now in conference) in light of evidence that Iran is clearly engaging in deception to advance development of nuclear weapons. I also support the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009, H.R. 1327, authorizing state pension funds to divest from companies that invest in Iran, and would work toward bringing those principles to conclusion.
United States – Israel Relationship
Position Paper May 20, 2010
My support for the nation of Israel is solid and unwavering.
Israel and the United States share common fundamental values of individual freedom, democracy, religious faith, and the pursuit of free enterprise and open markets. For over sixty years, Israel has been America’s solid ally in the Middle East, the one nation in the Middle East with the conviction to stand on these principles for the good of its own people as well as its Muslim neighbors. Israel’s desires and commitments to peace in the region have been steadfast, despite the constant threat and acts of terror launched against it by its neighbors.
If elected to the United States Congress from the Sixth District of Massachusetts, I pledge to continue to advance America’s commitments to stand by its ally, to insure Israel’s qualitative military advantage as it seeks peace through strength, to oppose efforts by Iran to obtain or develop nuclear weapons, and to support Israel’s desire to successfully achieve a two state solution negotiated on its own accord.
Peace Through Strength
I strongly believe that the only way in which Israel can achieve a lasting peace is to rest assured that the United States will stand firmly behind it militarily and economically. In that regard, we must continue our commitment to assure Israel’s qualitative military advantage, provide aid, and assure economic superiority. That commitment must be full and total, and publicly acknowledged.
Israel’s military must maintain the ability to defend itself against any conventional threats by its surrounding neighbors and the organized terrorist threats in the region. I support the ten year security agreement reached in August 2007 which will continue to provide approximately three billion dollars in annual aid to Israel to help Israel deal with existing threats. This assistance not only helps Israel maintain its military advantage, but boosts America’s own national security, provides overseas markets for our goods, and creates jobs here at home.
I also oppose efforts by anti-Israel factions which seek to use the United Nations to undermine and demean Israel’s determination to remain strong in its quest for peace. Unlike my opponent, Congressman John Tierney, who only voted “present”, I would have immediately joined the other 344 House members and voted in favor of H.R. 867, to openly condemn the Goldstone Report and to urge the Obama administration to completely disregard it going forward. That report contained a myriad of flaws inherent in it from the outset, and the subject matter was neither objectively investigated nor fairly reported in its
conclusions. In particular, the Goldstone report’s false accusations that Israel committed war crimes simply because it defended itself and its innocent civilian populations, as well as Palestinians, against a barrage of Hamas launched missiles and attacks, can never be justified or supported.
My commitment to support Israel’s quest for peace through strength would go farther than other recent actions by the Obama administration generally, and the congressman of this district in particular. Those actions evidence a clear erosion of our nation’s previous steadfast support of Israel which, unless checked immediately, threatens to increase tensions rather than foster peace.
President Obama’s failure to meet with and accord Prime Minister Netanyahu during his trip to Washington the full courtesy owed to the leader of one of our staunchest allies in order to force some type of concession was an insult unbecoming the head of our nation. Congressman Tierney’s signature on a petition with 44 other democratic representatives urging President Obama to force Israel to open its borders to Gaza signals his desire to support Hamas over Israel; an act which demonstrates his waning support of Israel in favor of the Arab states. It further shows an indifference to the safety of the Israeli population as dropping the blockade would allow further violent attacks on Israel’s people and sovereignty. I would never have signed or supported such a petition; instead, to the contrary, unlike Congressman Tierney, I would have signed the bipartisan letter addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama urging reaffirmation of a strong U.S./Israeli relationship.
Without reservation, it is my position that America must constantly strive to support Israel publicly. Israel’s agreement to self-impose a moratorium on construction of apartments in the West Bank was not an agreement to cease such in Jerusalem, and the public condemnation of announcements for further homes in Jerusalem by Vice President Biden and others was counterproductive to Israel’s efforts to seek peace. This type of public criticism only serves to encourage Palestine and the Arabs to wait for the United States to pressure Israel to make concessions rather than enter the negotiations in a neutral, good faith manner. We must constantly strive to resolve any U.S. – Israel misunderstandings or differences which may arise in private, through trust and confidence, rather than airing them publicly.
Israel’s Self-Negotiated Two State Solution
I strongly support Israel’s attempt to negotiate, on its own, a two state solution directly with its Arab neighbors. The United States must strongly support that initiative, and coordinate closely with Israel, but avoid efforts by outside entities to impose solutions.
Israel has clearly demonstrated its desire to negotiate, and as gestures of good faith has previously withdrawn unilaterally from Gaza and Lebanon. In return, terrorist entities, including Hamas and Hizbullah, now control those regions and remain by their terrorist ideology and acts constant threats to the safety and autonomy of Israel. Certainly, we must be mindful of those historical facts going forward, and stand with Israel’s desire to self-negotiate only with those non-terrorist entities who can truly partner and enforce a peaceful solution.
Accordingly, I support a peace negotiated by Israel for a two-state solution, but that solution must be premises on several factors: (1) Jerusalem, must remain the undivided capital of Israel, (2) Israel’s security must be strictly assured and not imposed by outside parties, (3) there must be guarantees that Palestinians will abide by agreements which have been signed by their past leaders, (4) Israel’s borders must be secured and the safety of its people must be assured. I believe that a strict return to the 1967 borders would be counter to these objectives and would oppose efforts for a strong and lasting peace.
Above all, the United States must always support Israel by encouraging the Arab states to recognize Israel’s right to exist. We must always be mindful that the Hamas charter, in particular, provides that Israel exists only as long as the Muslims desire it to exist; in effect, calling for its ultimate demise. Encouraging other Arab states to adopt our mutual belief in democracy, freedom, and free enterprise offers the greatest potential to lessen tensions going forward.
The Iranian Threat
Iran remains as the largest threat to Israel and a true danger to our own interests. For nearly 20 years, it engaged in a secret nuclear program until it was exposed in 2002. Iran is a leading sponsor of terrorism, and a nuclear armed Iran would threaten the region and world in a completely unacceptable manner.
Iran President Ahmadinejad has made clear that he does not believe the Holocaust ever occurred, has expressed his view that Israel should be destroyed, and has expressed his disrespect for all Jews. Iran supports Hamas and Hizbullah in Gaza and Lebanon, respectively, and is clearly intent on wiping Israel off the map. Not content on its own region, Iran is also pursuing alliances with terrorists in Argentina and Venezuela. Its desire to obtain nuclear weapons can have only one purpose in mind: to advance its interests and threaten the safety of the Middle East and the world.
I strongly support all measures designed to compel Iran to cease efforts to develop a nuclear capability and to cause them to cease efforts in the regard, and would strongly support and propose efforts to sanction Iran severely in an effort to compel compliance. This includes concluding, and strengthening, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009, H.R. 2194 (passed by the House and Senate, and now in conference) in light of evidence that Iran is clearly engaging in deception to advance development of nuclear weapons. I also support the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009, H.R. 1327, authorizing state pension funds to divest from companies that invest in Iran, and would work toward bringing those principles to conclusion.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Great Article by Alan Dershowitz
The Anti-Israel Lobby
Apr 23, 2010 12:08 am | Alan M. Dershowitz
J-Street can no longer claim to support the Jewish state.
comments | read more
J Street has gone over to the dark side. It claims to be “a pro-Israel, pro peace lobby.” It has now become neither. Its Executive Director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, has joined the off key chorus of those who falsely claim that Israel, by refusing to make peace with the Palestinians, is placing the lives of American soldiers at risk.
This claim was first attributed to Vice President Joe Biden and to General David Petraeus. It was quickly denied by them but continued to have a life of its own in the anti-Israel media. It was picked up by Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer, Pat Buchanan and others on the hard right and hard left who share a common disdain for the Jewish state. It is the most dangerous argument ever put forward by Israel bashers. It is also totally false.
It is dangerous for two reasons. First, it seeks to reduce support for Israel among Americans who, quite understandably and correctly, care deeply about American soldiers being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel has always understood this and that’s why it is one of the few American allies who has never asked the United States to put its troops in harm’s way in defense of Israeli citizens. If Americans were to believe the falsehood that Israel were to blame for American deaths caused by Islamic extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan, support for the Jewish state would suffer considerably.
It is also dangerous because its implication is that Israel must cease to exist: the basic complaint that Muslim extremists have against Israel is not what the Jewish state does, but what it is: a secular, non-Muslim, democracy that promotes equal rights for women, gays, Christians and others. Regardless of what Israel does or doesn’t do, its very existence will be anathema to Muslim extremists. So if Israel’s actions were in fact a cause of American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan–which they are not–then the only logical solution would be Israel’s disappearance. This might be acceptable to the Walts, Mearsheimers and Buchanans of the world, but it is surely not acceptable to Israel or anyone who claims to be pro-Israel.
Finally, the argument is totally false as a matter of fact. At the same time that Israel was seeking to make peace in 2000-2001 by creating a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza with a capital in East Jerusalem, Al Qaeda was planning the 9/11 attack. So Israel’s “good” actions did nothing to make America safe from Islamic terrorism. On the other hand, when Israel took tough action against Gaza last year in Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s “bad” actions did not increase American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, there is absolutely no relationship between Israel’s actions and the extent of American casualties. It is a totally phony argument based on equal parts of surmise and bigotry.
Yet this dangerous and false argument, which is being hotly debated within the Obama Administration, has now received the imprimatur of J Street. In the letter to the New York Times on April 21, 2010, Jeremy Ben-Ami, speaking on behalf of J Street, included the following paragraph:
“An analysis of the Obama administration’s calculus on Middle East policy should reflect that many in the Jewish community recognize that resolving the conflict is not only necessary to secure Israel’s future, but also critical to regional stability and American strategic interests.”
Although Ben-Ami doesn’t explicitly make a direct connection between Israeli actions and American casualties, his use of the phrase “critical to…American strategic interests,” is a well-known code word, especially these days, for the argument that there is a connection between Israeli actions and American casualties.
In lending support to that dangerous and false argument, J Street has disqualified itself from being considered “pro-Israel.” The argument is also anything but “pro peace,” since it will actually encourage Islamic extremists to target American interests in the hope that American casualties will be blamed on Israel. It will also encourage the Palestinian leadership to harden its position, in the expectation that lack of progress toward peace will result in Israel being blamed for American casualties.
Truth in advertising requires that at the very least J Street stop proclaiming itself as pro-Israel. As long as it was limiting its lobbying activities to ending the settlements, dividing Jerusalem and pressing for negotiations, it could plausibly claim the mantle of pro-Israel, despite the reality that many of its members, supporters, speakers and invited guests are virulently anti-Israel. But now that it has crossed the line into legitimating the most dangerous and false argument ever made against Israel’s security, it must stop calling itself pro-Israel. Some of its college affiliate groups have already done that. They now describe themselves as pro peace because they don’t want to burden themselves with the pro Israel label. J Street should follow their lead and end its false advertising. Or else it should abandon its anti-Israel claim that Israel is damaging American strategic interests.
=
Apr 23, 2010 12:08 am | Alan M. Dershowitz
J-Street can no longer claim to support the Jewish state.
comments | read more
J Street has gone over to the dark side. It claims to be “a pro-Israel, pro peace lobby.” It has now become neither. Its Executive Director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, has joined the off key chorus of those who falsely claim that Israel, by refusing to make peace with the Palestinians, is placing the lives of American soldiers at risk.
This claim was first attributed to Vice President Joe Biden and to General David Petraeus. It was quickly denied by them but continued to have a life of its own in the anti-Israel media. It was picked up by Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer, Pat Buchanan and others on the hard right and hard left who share a common disdain for the Jewish state. It is the most dangerous argument ever put forward by Israel bashers. It is also totally false.
It is dangerous for two reasons. First, it seeks to reduce support for Israel among Americans who, quite understandably and correctly, care deeply about American soldiers being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel has always understood this and that’s why it is one of the few American allies who has never asked the United States to put its troops in harm’s way in defense of Israeli citizens. If Americans were to believe the falsehood that Israel were to blame for American deaths caused by Islamic extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan, support for the Jewish state would suffer considerably.
It is also dangerous because its implication is that Israel must cease to exist: the basic complaint that Muslim extremists have against Israel is not what the Jewish state does, but what it is: a secular, non-Muslim, democracy that promotes equal rights for women, gays, Christians and others. Regardless of what Israel does or doesn’t do, its very existence will be anathema to Muslim extremists. So if Israel’s actions were in fact a cause of American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan–which they are not–then the only logical solution would be Israel’s disappearance. This might be acceptable to the Walts, Mearsheimers and Buchanans of the world, but it is surely not acceptable to Israel or anyone who claims to be pro-Israel.
Finally, the argument is totally false as a matter of fact. At the same time that Israel was seeking to make peace in 2000-2001 by creating a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza with a capital in East Jerusalem, Al Qaeda was planning the 9/11 attack. So Israel’s “good” actions did nothing to make America safe from Islamic terrorism. On the other hand, when Israel took tough action against Gaza last year in Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s “bad” actions did not increase American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, there is absolutely no relationship between Israel’s actions and the extent of American casualties. It is a totally phony argument based on equal parts of surmise and bigotry.
Yet this dangerous and false argument, which is being hotly debated within the Obama Administration, has now received the imprimatur of J Street. In the letter to the New York Times on April 21, 2010, Jeremy Ben-Ami, speaking on behalf of J Street, included the following paragraph:
“An analysis of the Obama administration’s calculus on Middle East policy should reflect that many in the Jewish community recognize that resolving the conflict is not only necessary to secure Israel’s future, but also critical to regional stability and American strategic interests.”
Although Ben-Ami doesn’t explicitly make a direct connection between Israeli actions and American casualties, his use of the phrase “critical to…American strategic interests,” is a well-known code word, especially these days, for the argument that there is a connection between Israeli actions and American casualties.
In lending support to that dangerous and false argument, J Street has disqualified itself from being considered “pro-Israel.” The argument is also anything but “pro peace,” since it will actually encourage Islamic extremists to target American interests in the hope that American casualties will be blamed on Israel. It will also encourage the Palestinian leadership to harden its position, in the expectation that lack of progress toward peace will result in Israel being blamed for American casualties.
Truth in advertising requires that at the very least J Street stop proclaiming itself as pro-Israel. As long as it was limiting its lobbying activities to ending the settlements, dividing Jerusalem and pressing for negotiations, it could plausibly claim the mantle of pro-Israel, despite the reality that many of its members, supporters, speakers and invited guests are virulently anti-Israel. But now that it has crossed the line into legitimating the most dangerous and false argument ever made against Israel’s security, it must stop calling itself pro-Israel. Some of its college affiliate groups have already done that. They now describe themselves as pro peace because they don’t want to burden themselves with the pro Israel label. J Street should follow their lead and end its false advertising. Or else it should abandon its anti-Israel claim that Israel is damaging American strategic interests.
=
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Article by Victor Davis Hanson
Why, until now, has America always bucked the tide against Israel?
By Victor Davis Hanson
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Current American relations with our once-staunch ally Israel are at their lowest ebb in the last 50 years.
The Obama administration seems as angry at the building of Jewish apartments in Jerusalem as it is intent on reaching out to Iran and Syria, Israel's mortal enemies. President Obama himself, according to reports, has serially snubbed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A new narrative abounds in Washington that Israel's intransigence with its Arab neighbors now even endangers U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East. Obama is pushing Netanyahu's Likud government to make concessions on several fronts, from supplying power and food to Gaza, to hastened departure from the West Bank.
These tensions follow the Obama administration's new outreach to the Muslim world. Obama gave his first interview as president to the Middle East newspaper Al Arabiya, in which he politely chided past U.S. policy on the Middle East.
In his June 2009 Cairo address, the president again sought to placate the Islamic world — in part by wrongly claiming that Islamic learning had sparked the European Renaissance and Enlightenment.
Lost in all this reset-button diplomacy is introspection on why past American presidents sought to support Israel in the first place. We seem to forget why no-nonsense Harry Truman, against worldwide opposition, ensured the original creation of the Jewish state — or why more than 60 percent of Americans in most polls continue to side with Israel in its struggle to survive.
In contrast, most of the rest of the world does the math and concludes Israel is a bad investment. It has no oil; its enemies possess nearly half the world's reserves.
There is no downside in criticizing Israel, but censuring some of its radical Arab neighbors might prompt anything from an oil embargo to a terrorist response.
There are about 7 million Israelis; the Muslim and Arab population in the Middle East numbers in the hundreds of millions.
According to the academic cult of multiculturalism, it is fashionable to see pro-American, democratic and capitalist Israel as a symbol of a pernicious Western culture of oppression; its enemies are seen as underdog liberationists.
No wonder that in the ongoing dispute, most of the world adds up the pluses and minuses and concludes that it is wiser to side with Israel's foes than to become its friend. But why, until now, has America always bucked the tide?
The reason is not the so-called "Jewish lobby" here in the U.S., but because a clear majority of non-Jews supported Israel. They saw that in a sea of autocracy, Israel is a democracy and a free and open society, one quite different from its neighbors.
I suspect that when there is a final two-state settlement, Arabs wishing to remain inside Israel will be treated far more humanely as citizens than any Jews who stay on the West Bank and take their chances as residents of the new Palestinian state. We suspect that when Israel pulls back from lands won after the 1967 war, there will remain prominent calls in the Arab world to continue the withdrawal — and finish Israel altogether.
Holocaust denial is still a staple in intellectual circles of the Middle East, and serially embraced by the Iranian government.
Fashionable anti-Israeli sentiment is de rigueur in European elite society. Nearly a third of all country-specific resolutions passed by United Nations Commission on Human Rights have damned Israel — far more than anything directed at the mass-murdering regimes of Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or the Taliban.
In contrast, America's traditional bipartisan support for Israel put the world on notice that the United States would never allow another Holocaust — or the destruction of Israel, or even serial attacks against it.
Yet if we are seen as neutral, just watch the rest of the world get the message and start piling on. Anti-Jewish terrorism will gear up again. Frontline entities like Hezbollah, Syria and Iran will ready their missiles without worry of American anger. Iran will assume we are resigned to its acquisition of the bomb. And the UN will again begin providing cover by issuing its pro forma denunciations of Israel, counting on a newly diffident United States to vote "present."
Perhaps the Obama administration genuinely believes that by pressuring Israel and reaching out to its enemies, it can at last achieve peace. Perhaps a few key figures in this administration simply do not like or trust the Jewish state — support for which now polls only 48 percent among Democratic voters (versus 85 percent among Republicans).
No matter. This administration should take a deep breath and review history. It would learn that when Israel is alone, its opportunistic enemies pile on. And then war becomes more, not less, likely.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and military historian, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal. Comment by clicking here.
Archives
© 2010, TMS
By Victor Davis Hanson
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Current American relations with our once-staunch ally Israel are at their lowest ebb in the last 50 years.
The Obama administration seems as angry at the building of Jewish apartments in Jerusalem as it is intent on reaching out to Iran and Syria, Israel's mortal enemies. President Obama himself, according to reports, has serially snubbed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A new narrative abounds in Washington that Israel's intransigence with its Arab neighbors now even endangers U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East. Obama is pushing Netanyahu's Likud government to make concessions on several fronts, from supplying power and food to Gaza, to hastened departure from the West Bank.
These tensions follow the Obama administration's new outreach to the Muslim world. Obama gave his first interview as president to the Middle East newspaper Al Arabiya, in which he politely chided past U.S. policy on the Middle East.
In his June 2009 Cairo address, the president again sought to placate the Islamic world — in part by wrongly claiming that Islamic learning had sparked the European Renaissance and Enlightenment.
Lost in all this reset-button diplomacy is introspection on why past American presidents sought to support Israel in the first place. We seem to forget why no-nonsense Harry Truman, against worldwide opposition, ensured the original creation of the Jewish state — or why more than 60 percent of Americans in most polls continue to side with Israel in its struggle to survive.
In contrast, most of the rest of the world does the math and concludes Israel is a bad investment. It has no oil; its enemies possess nearly half the world's reserves.
There is no downside in criticizing Israel, but censuring some of its radical Arab neighbors might prompt anything from an oil embargo to a terrorist response.
There are about 7 million Israelis; the Muslim and Arab population in the Middle East numbers in the hundreds of millions.
According to the academic cult of multiculturalism, it is fashionable to see pro-American, democratic and capitalist Israel as a symbol of a pernicious Western culture of oppression; its enemies are seen as underdog liberationists.
No wonder that in the ongoing dispute, most of the world adds up the pluses and minuses and concludes that it is wiser to side with Israel's foes than to become its friend. But why, until now, has America always bucked the tide?
The reason is not the so-called "Jewish lobby" here in the U.S., but because a clear majority of non-Jews supported Israel. They saw that in a sea of autocracy, Israel is a democracy and a free and open society, one quite different from its neighbors.
I suspect that when there is a final two-state settlement, Arabs wishing to remain inside Israel will be treated far more humanely as citizens than any Jews who stay on the West Bank and take their chances as residents of the new Palestinian state. We suspect that when Israel pulls back from lands won after the 1967 war, there will remain prominent calls in the Arab world to continue the withdrawal — and finish Israel altogether.
Holocaust denial is still a staple in intellectual circles of the Middle East, and serially embraced by the Iranian government.
Fashionable anti-Israeli sentiment is de rigueur in European elite society. Nearly a third of all country-specific resolutions passed by United Nations Commission on Human Rights have damned Israel — far more than anything directed at the mass-murdering regimes of Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or the Taliban.
In contrast, America's traditional bipartisan support for Israel put the world on notice that the United States would never allow another Holocaust — or the destruction of Israel, or even serial attacks against it.
Yet if we are seen as neutral, just watch the rest of the world get the message and start piling on. Anti-Jewish terrorism will gear up again. Frontline entities like Hezbollah, Syria and Iran will ready their missiles without worry of American anger. Iran will assume we are resigned to its acquisition of the bomb. And the UN will again begin providing cover by issuing its pro forma denunciations of Israel, counting on a newly diffident United States to vote "present."
Perhaps the Obama administration genuinely believes that by pressuring Israel and reaching out to its enemies, it can at last achieve peace. Perhaps a few key figures in this administration simply do not like or trust the Jewish state — support for which now polls only 48 percent among Democratic voters (versus 85 percent among Republicans).
No matter. This administration should take a deep breath and review history. It would learn that when Israel is alone, its opportunistic enemies pile on. And then war becomes more, not less, likely.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and military historian, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal. Comment by clicking here.
Archives
© 2010, TMS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)