New York City – Hester Street 100 Year later


What has happened to the religious Jewish life to the immigrant families that landed in New York City 100 years ago?


 “There’s a quiet Holocaust happening in the United States – assimilation,”  “American Jewry assimilated because the parents were forced to work on Shabbat. Thus, millions of Jews were cut off.”

MK Yisrael Eichler (UTJ) 28/12/17

Jews in New York had a great history. However they have forgotten  their roots in Judaism and have gone off the path. Of stead of concentrating on Torah education and Talmud they concentrated on “Science” and “Social Justice”. Of stead of raising a Jewish Family with Torah with the mother being proud that her son is  a Rabbi, they want their son to be a Doctor or Lawyer. What has the Reform produced in their “Rabbis”? What do they do to grow and develop the Jewish Family of stead of worrying about everyone else. Just look at the news and see all the intermarriage. Some will say “What is the big deal about intermarriage?” If you want to have a family who will pass on the Jewish life, Customs and Ways. Who will teach your children about Shabbat and the Holidays if they don’t live them day by day with the family? Who will teach them morals and ethics but by learning them by being with their parents by watching them live and interact with others? Life is not a video game but something you actually have to do. Remember you learn more from your parents by watching them then from a formal book education. We all carry “baggage” from our families while growing up, some good and some that needs to be looked at.

From Pew: A Portrait of Jewish Americans 2013

Trends in the Size of the Jewish Population

Using the 1957 Current Population Survey as a benchmark, it appears that the number of adult Jews by religion rose about 15% over the last half-century, while the total U.S. population more than doubled over the same period.12 As a result, national surveys that repeatedly have asked Americans about their religion (Gallup, the American National Election Studies, the General Social Surveys and the American Religious Identification Surveys) show a decline, over the long term, in the percentage of U.S. adults who say their religion is Jewish…

Caroline Glick The American Jewish Community’s Moment to Choose

 Examples of what has happened to Jews in New York City:

Friday, March 4, 2016

Guest Post: Greek Jews Syrian Jews

* * * Greek NYC Jews and Syrian NYC Jews * * *

a short historical essay by

the moderator of the Derech Emet Yahoo Group:
that teaches a big lesson about Jewish continuity.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Over the past 35 years, I noticed that the highest intermarriage rates [between Jews and non-Jews] are found in communities where Reform Judaism is most dominant, and the lowest intermarriage rates are found in communities where Reform Judaism does not exist.

Around the 1920s [of the Common Era], tens of thousands of Jews came from Greece to New York City, and tens of thousands of Jews came from Syria to New York City. In the 1920s, the numbers of Greek Jews and Syrian Jews in New York City were approximately equal. Their observance of Jewish rituals was also approximately equal.

Around that time, the Greek Jews of NYC decided to follow Reform Judaism, while the Syrian Jews followed Orthodox Judaism.

By the 1980s, the Greek Jews of NYC [and the USA] were so few in number that there was only ONE Greek Synagogue in NYC, and that ONE Greek Synagogue functioned mostly as a museum. The very few Greek Jews of NYC were intermarrying with Gentiles at a very high rate, and very few participated in any kind Jewish activities. One Greek Jew who I personally spoke to had decided to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day instead of Purim.

By the 1990s, the Syrian Jews of NYC had grown exponentially, with many new synagogues that did not exist in previous decades, and more-than-enough new Syrian Jews to fill those new synagogues with active members. Their rate of intermarriage with non-Jews was LESS THAN ONE PERCENT [<1%].

By year 2015, the Greek Jews of NYC were so few in number that their community had basically ceased to exist. They had no schools, and only that one synagogue which mostly functioned as a museum.
By year 2015, the Syrian Jews of NYC continued to grow rapidly, with less than 1% intermarriage and many new synagogues that did not exist in the 1990s. The number of schools run by-and-for Syrian Jews also increased dramatically.

The Syrian Jews of NYC also added new mikvahs to their infrastructure, while the Greek Jews of NYC had no mikvahs.
By year 2015 the Syrian Jews of NYC had two of their own monthly magazines, while the Greek Jews had none.
In the early 1980s the Greek Jews still had their own social club, called The Pashas. In 2017, I could not find The Pashas with Google, despite several attempts to search for keywords like “Pashas” and “Greek Jews”. The Pashas seem to have vanished.
In dramatic contrast, the Sephardic Community Center (which is misnamed, because it is really the Syrian-Jewish Community Center) has often been filled to capacity or near-capacity since it was built in year 1982, which is impressive, when you consider the large size of the SCC building.

The Sephardic Bikur Cholim (which is misnamed, because it is really the Syrian-Jewish Bikur Cholim) is very active with many programs and its own building. The Greek Jews of NYC do not have their own Bikur Cholim organization.
Between 1980 and 2015, more than a dozen new siddurim and machzorim were published by Syrian Rabbis. Total number of Greek siddurim and machzorim published between 1950 and 2017: zero.

Initially, the only significant difference between the Greek Jews of NYC and the Syrian Jews of NYC was that the Greek Jews chose Reform Judaism while the Syrian Jews chose Orthodox Judaism.
Less than a century later, the Greeks Jews [of NYC], who chose Reform Judaism, have vanished; while the Syrian Jews [of NYC], who chose Orthodox Judaism, enjoy a rapidly-growing community and seem to have a bright future.

PS: This short essay reveals a piece of Jewish History which is known to only very few individuals.
Therefore, I feel it is my responsibility to publicize it, before it becomes forgotten.

PS: The Persian Jewish community of NYC, which has never known Reform Judaism, also has an extremely low intermarriage rate. While I do not have exact statistics for Persian Jews, their intermarriage rate seems to be so low that it cannot possibly threaten their future.

 Is this what has happened to the religious Jewish life?

Sophia’s the pomeranian’s Bark Mitzvah w/Lee Day & Rabbi Otis on Nat Geo Wild Spoiled Rotten Pets

The Jews are dieing because of Jewish intermarriage

Jewish intermarriage

Jewish intermarriage

From Pew: “The new Pew Research survey finds that, overall, 56% of married Jews have a Jewish spouse, while 44% of Jewish respondents are married to a non-Jew. Among Jews by religion who are married, 64% have a Jewish spouse and 36% have a non-Jewish spouse. By comparison, Jews of no religion are much more likely to be in mixed marriages; just 21% of married Jews of no religion are married to a Jewish spouse, while 79% are married to a non-Jewish spouse.”

They are also marrying later:

Remaining in the nest is also a trend for young men – in fact, even more so when compared with their female peers. Last year, 42.8% of young men lived with their family, a higher share than women but not one that surpasses the highest rates on record like the women’s share does. Read more at

Remaining in the nest is also a trend for young men – in fact, even more so when compared with their female peers. Last year, 42.8% of young men lived with their family, a higher share than women but not one that surpasses the highest rates on record like the women’s share does. Read more at

Protester burn Israeli flag outside DNC, Byron Tau/ Wall Street Journal

Protester burn Israeli flag outside DNC, Byron Tau/ Wall Street Journal

My test for whether people are really "pro-Israel" stands, and J-Street has flunked.

My test for whether people are really “pro-Israel” stands, and J-Street has flunked.

The Jewish Soul is dieing because of Materialism and Assimilation.

An American Passover Greeting Card 2015 A family was ordering a McDonald's like Clown Passover Happy Meal Voice on Speaker: "Welcome to the Seder Shack. May I take your order?" Father: "Yes, We'll have three Matzo Meals, some Maror Nuggets with the special Seder Sauce, and a SuperSize kosher grape juice shake." Son: "Dad, don't forget the collectible Elijah cation figure!" The Card States: "Passover in the not-so-distant future."

An American Passover Greeting Card 2015
A family was ordering a McDonald’s like Clown Passover Happy Meal
Voice on Speaker: “Welcome to the Seder Shack. May I take your order?”
Father: “Yes, We’ll have three Matzo Meals, some Maror Nuggets with the special Seder Sauce, and a SuperSize kosher grape juice shake.”
Son: “Dad, don’t forget the collectible Elijah cation figure!”
The Card States: “Passover in the not-so-distant future.”

Overall trends of Jews in America

  • 79% intermarriage rate.
  • 67% of Secular Jews are not raising their children Jewish
  • 71% of intermarried families & 32% Jews had a Christmas tree
  • 70% of children that didn’t receive a Jewish education (ie, went to public schools) ultimately intermarried.

Compared with older Jews, younger Jews are more likely to have no denominational attachment and somewhat more likely to be Orthodox Jews.


From Pew: “Compared with older Jews, younger Jews are more likely to have no denominational attachment and somewhat more likely to be Orthodox Jews.” [In other words the younger Jews have gone away from the Conservative/Reform and have either dropped out of the Jewish Community or have returned to their roots and become a Baal Teshuvah. ]

This says it all.

יום הזיכרון

Jews by religion are more likely to have participated in these kinds of programs than are Jews of no religion.

Jews by religion are more likely to have participated in these kinds of programs than are Jews of no religion.

Let’s start from Square One. If you DO NOT differentiate yourself as a Jew by living in a Jewish Community, by keeping Kosher (Real Kosher not “Kosher-Style”). By keeping Shabbat and the Holidays of stead of working 7 day a week like a Slave. By sending your children to a Jewish Day School of stead of Public School. To dress as a Jew of stead of a Goy (non Jew). Then how will your children know that they are Jewish? I will not even go into making Aliyah which is the real goal of Jews for the last 2000 years of not having an independent country to call their own. You can water something down till it is nothing and you can not tell what it is. This is the current state of Jews in America. Reform Judaism is so watered down that anyone with a brain will realize that they are now a Goy a non Jew and act like it. Just look at the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, who married a non Jew and now acts like a non Jew, or they can take action to correct the matter and return to their real Jewish roots becoming a Baal Teshuvah. Namely to return to your People, God and Country.

Assimilation adds hatred to the people of Israel in the Land of Israel and throughout the world. Jews who live with non-Jews will convert them properly and marry them, if they want to receive a soul from heaven. Do not to say ‘we are modern,’ modern is rebellion against the Holy One, Blessed be He. Those who do not observe the Commandments are against the Holy One, blessed be He.

The Jews who live outside the land of Israel, the Creator of the world begged you many times already to immigrate to the Land of Israel now, it is urgent! You have the opportunity to come up now with great property, like they left Egypt with great property. Today it’s exactly the same. Today you can still leave with great property, but if you do not leave, in a while you will be expelled by anti-Semitism, ISIS, the refugees and the infiltrators; you will be expelled from all over the world.

Message from Rabbi Nir Ben Artzi, shlita, Parashat Tazria-Metzora, 27 Nissan 5777 (23.4.17)

The choice is yours. “The Red Pill or the Blue Pill”.

“You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”

You are in the Matrix! You have felt it for all your live. It is like a splinter in your mind. So follow the white rabbit. Don’t worry about over-sleeping and being late for work. You’re soon to find out your job or career or whatever is irrelevant anyway, once you come to the realization that modern society is merely the modern day equivalent of the Colonial American slave plantation, just with benefits like a corner office and vacation time. It’s your choice, The Blue Pill or the Red Pill. – from the movie The Matrix

The Kumatrix: Aliyah Revolution

 Where are the Reform children, the Reform Schools?

Not to worry the Reform and other non Torah ways are dieing out in America.
According to the Pew Research Institute survey of American Jews; The total fertility rate (TFR) for US Reform is 1.7 /Secular 1.4 (Replacement is 2.3). Compare this to Israeli Haredim rate is 6.9. (Many Haredim women have 17-21 Children in Jerusalem)
The Reform will be very surprised by the new data by the Pew Research Center Israel’s Religiously Divided Society

From Pew:”Among married Jews, those who have Jewish spouses are much more engaged in the Jewish community in these ways than are those married to non-Jews.”

By several conventional measures, Jews tend to be less religious than the U.S. public as a whole. Orthodox Jews are a clear exception in this regard, exhibiting levels of religious commitment that place them among the most religiously committed groups in the country.

By several conventional measures, Jews tend to be less religious than the U.S. public as a whole. Orthodox Jews are a clear exception in this regard, exhibiting levels of religious commitment that place them among the most religiously committed groups in the country.

US 2013-Fertility rate

From Pew:”Among married Jews, those who have Jewish spouses are much more engaged in the Jewish community in these ways than are those married to non-Jews.”

American and Israeli Jews: Twin Portraits From Pew Research Center Surveys

Most American Jews are part of organized Jewish denominations or “streams,” which include the relatively large Reform and Conservative movements as well as Orthodox Judaism. In Israel, only about 5% of Jews identify as either Reform or Conservative. Instead, Jews in Israel generally place themselves into one of four informal categories of Jewish religious identity. These labels – Haredi (ultra-Orthodox), Dati (religious), Masorti (traditional) and Hiloni (secular) – are not connected to formal Jewish organizations or denominations, but instead are loose identity groups (similar, for example, to an American Christian calling herself an “evangelical” rather than a “Southern Baptist”).

intermarriage in the US vs. Israel If you want a Jewish spouse and have your children marry Jewish spouses make Aliyah

Pew Research Center

Pew Research Center Research Center

Ben Shapiro: Why Jews Vote Leftist?

New Reform curriculum: Further alienating Jews from Israel?

Framing Israel: The Distortions of the New Boycott-Driven School Curriculum

Max Samarov & Amanda Botfeld Researchers, StandWithUs  10January2016

The next phase in anti-Israel academic indoctrination is already here – at Hebrew schools across the country.
A new curriculum for Reform Hebrew schools in the United States, already being used by more than 10 such schools, is threatening to alienate young Jews further from Israel than they already are.

Produced by Reform Rabbi Laurie Zimmerman, the new Kindergarten-12th grade course of study is entitled “Reframing Israel.” Assuming that the default approach to Israel among Jews is positive and sympathetic, the title does not bode well for supporters of Israel.

it is crucial to note that the main author and the majority of contributors to Reframing Israel are part of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. This includes the writer of the curriculum’s “historical overview of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
Below is a short summary of these examples by which the new Reform curriculum attempts to “reframe Israel” in the minds and hearts of young, relatively-uninformed Jews:

  •  The historical relationship between the Jewish people and Israel is downplayed. It is never comprehensively stated that Jews are indigenous to Israel; that Israel is the birthplace of their identity, language, religion, and culture; that Jews maintained a continuous presence in Israel for over 3,000 years; and that exiled Jews maintained their unique connection to the land throughout their history.
  • The overview whitewashes the centuries of the institutionalized oppression, discriminatory taxation, and violence that Jews faced under Muslim rule across the Middle East, including in the Holy Land. Anti-Semitism is mentioned only in relation to Europe, and not the Middle East.
  • In “teaching” about Israel’s War of Independence in 1948, the new course states that the Arabs who originally attacked the Jews were “no match for the well-trained and equipped Haganah” – ignoring that these Arab forces were British-equipped and supported, and were able to besiege Jerusalem for weeks at a time. It might be added, too, that the Jewish yishuv did not see great success in repelling the Arab offensives, and only when the British left and the Arab nations attacked did the Jewish side begin, slowly, to emerge victorious.
  • The controversial account of the Deir Yassin “massacre” is covered uncritically, while the numerous accounts of Jewish civilians being killed by Arabs during the war are never mentioned. Deir Yassin is where Arabs shot at Israeli food-transports bringing food to besieged Jerusalem. In addition, it is by now well-known that not 250 villagers were “massacred,” but rather between 100-120 were killed in bitter, house-to-house fighting.
  • Israel is blamed for the Palestinian refugee issue, but Arab leaders are not held responsible for the simultaneous dispossession and plight of 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab states.
  • The curriculum’s overview states that “neither side embraced” the 1937 Peel Report, which called for the establishment of a tiny Jewish state and a much larger Arab state. It does not point out, however, the differences between the parties’ respective “lack of embrace”: The Arab leadership unequivocally rejected any possibility of Jewish statehood, while Zionist leaders signaled that they were interested in negotiating.
  • Regarding the UN’s 1947 Partition Plan, the overview states that the Jews celebrated it, while the Arabs rejected it. It explains the Arabs’ objections – yet does not explain why many Jews did not accept it. For instance, it notes that the “recently-arrived” Jews made up 30% of the population yet were awarded 56% of the area – but does not mention that 70% of the Jewish land was arid desert, or that Jerusalem was to be an internationalized city, or that many of the Arabs were just as recently-arrived as some of the Jews.
  • Yasser Arafat’s rejection of a far-reaching Israeli peace offer in 2000 is presented as an Israeli “claim,” rather than a known fact. Similarly ignored is an Israeli offer in 2008 to give up almost all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza for peace, and its rejection by Mahmoud Abbas.
  • The BDS movement – which calls for the “right of return” for “Palestinian refugees and their descendants” – is presented entirely uncritically: BDS is described as having “attracted significant global support,” with opposition coming only from “Jewish organizations” – when in fact Western political leaders, major American academic institutions, and the mainstream Jewish community oppose BDS.
  • “Most egregious,” write Samarov and Botfeld, “is how the violent racism of prominent Palestinian leaders and organizations is whitewashed or ignored.”

This is what you have to look forward to living in America!

EMP, Space Weather

Are you ready for Blackouts?

It’s time to come home! Nefesh B’Nefesh: Live the Dream 1-866-4-ALIYAH UK 0800 075 7200 Come home to the Land of Emuna

Nefesh B'Nefesh: Live the Dream 1-866-4-ALIYAH UK 0800 075 7200 Come home to the Land of Emuna

Click the Banner for www.

US & CAN 1-866-4-ALIYAH | UK 0800 075 7200 | Israel 02-659-5800 www.
Alyah : mode d’emploi Choisissez celle qui vous correspond et inscrivez-vous sur notre site Internet en cliquant ICI ou par téléphone, en appelant le Global Center au 0800 916 647
The Jewish Agency Global Service Center

The Mitzvah to Live in Eretz Yisrael

One should always live in the Land of Israel, even in a city where the majority are idol worshippers, and not in chutz la Aretz, even in a city where the majority are Jews. (Kesubos 110); also included in the Rambam (Hilchos Melachim Chapter 5)

Said the Holy One Blessed be He: A small group in the Land of Israel is dearer to Me than a full Sanhedrin outside the Land. (Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin 86)

There are ten measures of Torah in the world. Nine are in Eretz Israel. and one in the rest of the world. (Esther Rabba)

Better is a dry piece of bread with tranquility in it than a house full of quarrelsome feasts (Mishle 17:1): Better is a dry piece of bread with tranquility in it: R. Yochanan said, “This refers to Eretz Israel, for even if a person eats (dry) bread and salt every day while dwelling in Eretz Israel, he is assured a portion in the World to Come…Than a house full of quarrelsome feasts: This refers to Chutz LaAretz, which is full of violence and robbery.” (Yalkut Shimoni 2:956)

Settling Eretz Israel is a Mitzvah that encompasses all the Torah, for all those who walk in it four Amot have a portion in the World to Come which is all life. (Or ha Chayim ha Kaddosh Devarim 30:20)

“It is preferable to dwell in the deserts of Eretz Israel than the palaces of Chutz LaAretz” (Bereshit Rabba 39:8).

This is what you are missing not living in Israel. A very very large family that really cares about you!

בית מקדש שלישי בירושלים Third Beit HaMikdash Holy Temple in Jerusalem; And rebuild Jerusalem the holy city soon in our days! Blessed are You, O Lord, Who will rebuild Jerusalem in His mercy.

בית מקדש שלישי בירושלים Third Beit HaMikdash Holy Temple in Jerusalem
And rebuild Jerusalem the holy city soon in our days! Blessed are You, O Lord, Who will rebuild Jerusalem in His mercy.

3rd Temple Golden Menorah

3rd Temple Golden Menorah

Efrat Chief Rabbi Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, a Kohen himself, gets measured for his own set of Kohanim garments

Efrat Chief Rabbi Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, a Kohen himself, gets measured for his own set of Kohanim garments

lLamb Korbanot (Temple offerings)


Gal Gadot – גל גדות
I am sending my love and prayers to my fellow Israeli citizens. Especially to all the boys and girls who are risking their lives protecting my country against the horrific acts conducted by Hamas, who are hiding like cowards behind women and children…We shall overcome!!! Shabbat Shalom!
#weareright #freegazafromhamas #stopterror #coexistance #loveidf

IDF Praying at Western Wall

IDF Praying at Western Wall

Rabbi Hier :’Jewish Diaspora is dependent on Israel’

Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of Simon Wiesenthal Center says to Arutz Sheva that without Israel there will be no more Jews.
Yoni Kempinski, 26/04/17 17:25
Rabbi Marvin Hier, the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, was chosen to be the first non-Israeli citizen to light the ceremonial torch on Israel’s Independence Day next week.

Rabbi Hier spoke with Arutz Sheva about the honor he felt in being given the role. He said that the Jewish Diaspora is now dependent on the State of Israel for its survival.

“I had the privilege, one time in my life, to meet [Israel’s first Prime Minister] David Ben Gurion,” he said. “I’ll never forget what he told us.”

Rabbi Hier recalled that Ben Gurion told the group of American youths: “Tell your parents and grandparents, thank them for supporting the State of Israel, because without the Diaspora, we would not have been able to create the State of Israel.”

“But he said, ‘tell them also, there will come a time when the Diaspora will be totally dependant on the State of Israel.

Rabbi Hier said that “that time is now. If, God forbid, something happened to the State of Israel, every Jew living in chutz la’aretz (outside of Israel) – there would be no Jews. We are all dependent on the State of Israel.”


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Next Year in Jerusalem

Pesach (Passover) seder is in a few days.

What does Next Year in Jerusalem mean to you?

If you are not living in Israel, you need to move to Israel NOW!!
Look at all the things you are missing.

Pesach Shopping

You know exactly what you can buy in every Store. and in many store everything is without Kitniyot.

The White plastic film covering the shelves of Chametz is what our local store dose, but a lot of stores remove all Chametz completely weeks before Pesach.

All the Dairy is Kosher for Pesach at least a week before Pesach.

I personal like Rami Levi Mehadrin in Givat Shaul, Jerusalem. The products have no Kitniyot.

A Country of Chessid (Kindness)

The IDF helping with Pesach Food Boxes for the poor.

Sephardic Chief Rabbi Yosef “Today thank God most of the nation of Israel is here in the land of Israel.”

Be part of the Majority. Make Aliyah Today!

It’s time to come home! Nefesh B’Nefesh: Live the Dream 1-866-4-ALIYAH UK 0800 075 7200 Come home to the Land of Emuna

Nefesh B'Nefesh: Live the Dream 1-866-4-ALIYAH UK 0800 075 7200 Come home to the Land of Emuna

Click the Banner for www.

Be sure to try out a Wonder Pot-סיר פלא. It is great when you do not have a Kosher for Pesach large oven. You can use it like an oven on the stovetop.

Wonder Pot (Hebrew: סיר פלא‎, seer peh-leh) is an Israeli invention for baking on top of a gas stove rather than in an oven. It consists of three parts: an aluminium pot shaped like a Bundt pan except smooth-sided rather than fluted, a hooded cover perforated with venting holes, and a thick, round, slightly domed metal disc with a center hole that is placed between the pot and the flame.A Wonder Pot can be used to bake cakes, casseroles, rice, potatoes, apples, and even meat and chicken.

Pesach Wonder Pot סיר פלא Recipe Baked Potato סיר פלא-תפוחי אדמה

  • Place 6 – 10 small or Medium Potatoes in the bottom of the Wonder Pot סיר פלא, they can even be standing up,
  • Place lid on and Bake on Medium Heat
  • Check the Potatoes
    Medium Potatoes – 1 hour: If they are soft and done. If not fully baked cook for another 30 minutes

You can also Cut up Potatoes, Yams, Sweet Potatoes, Carrots, Beets, or any vegetable into chunks or slices. Drizzle Olive Oil on top and Bake


Wonder Pot-סיר פלא-potato-תפוחי אדמה

Pesach Wonder Pot סיר פלא RecipePotato Knishes

first boil the clean potatoes

first boil the clean potatoes

Chop up fresh onions and fresh large garlic then Brown then together in Olive oil be sure to use fresh garlic of stead of the small dried garlic from China

Chop up fresh onions and fresh large garlic then Brown then together in Olive oil
be sure to use fresh garlic of stead of the small dried garlic from China

Be sure to use fresh garlic of stead of the small dried garlic from China

Be sure to use fresh garlic of stead of the small dried garlic from China

After boiling the Potatoes, drain the Potatoes and peel them

After boiling the Potatoes, drain the Potatoes and peel them

Mix everything except matzoh meal then roll into big balls and roll in matzoh meal

Mix everything except matzoh meal then roll into big balls and roll in matzoh meal

The Wonder Pot: bottom flame heat diffuser, the Pot and top cover with holes to let the heat out

The Wonder Pot: bottom flame heat diffuser, the Pot and top cover with holes to let the heat out

Place the heat flame diffuser on the center of the burner facing down so that the center dimple is facing down and the rim is up

Place the heat flame diffuser on the center of the burner facing down so that the center dimple is facing down and the rim is up

Place The Wonder Pot, סיר פלא, on top of the flame heat diffuser so that the bottom grove of the pot is on the rim of the flame heat diffuser.

Place The Wonder Pot, סיר פלא, on top of the flame heat diffuser so that the bottom grove of the pot is on the rim of the flame heat diffuser.

Put the Potato Knishes in wonder baker all around, and bake for ½ hour and check and then another ½ hour til cooked, check so it doesn’t burn. Use a medium flame. Absolutely delicious.

Put the Potato Knishes in wonder baker all around, and bake for ½ hour and check and then another ½ hour til cooked, check so it doesn’t burn. Use a medium flame.

Use a medium to low flame. Absolutely delicious.

Use a medium to low flame. Absolutely delicious.

It's done

It’s done

Pesach Wonder Pot סיר פלא Recipe

Potato Knishes

5 Cups mashed potatoes

3 eggs

¾ Cup matzoh meal

salt and pepper to taste

chopped up fresh garlic optional

2 onions

olive oil to line pot

Brown onions and garlic (if using) in pan. Mix everything except matzoh meal and roll into big balls and roll in matzoh meal, place in wonder baker all around, and bake for ½ hour and check and then another ½ hour til cooked, check so it doesn’t burn. Use a medium flame. Absolutely delicious.

Carol Umbehocker’s Delicious Squash Kugel for Passover

Baked Squash Kugel for Passover

3 lb. (1.36 Kg) Yellow summer squash

½ Cup chopped onions

½ Cup Matzoh meal

2 eggs

1/2 Cup of vegetable oil or 1 stick margarine (Kitniyot) divided in half

1 teaspoon Salt or to taste

1 Tablespoon. sugar

½ teaspoon pepper to taste

Wash and cut up the squash. Boil until tender. Drain thoroughly, then mash. Add all ingredients to squash and ½ stick of melted margarine.

Melt remaining margarine. Pour mixture into baking dish then spread melted margarine over top and sprinkle with matzo meal.

Bake at 350 degrees F or 180 degrees C for 1 hour or until top is brown.

Try fresh steamed vegetables as a side dish

Try the Potato Knishes with steamed vegetables

Try the Potato Knishes with steamed vegetables

Potato Knishes-13

Pesach Wonder Baker Pot סיר פלא Recipe-Wonder Pot Classic Cake By: Yaara Holtzman

“מתכוני פסח מיוחדים ל”סיר פלא

זוכרים את ’סיר-הפלא יש לו תחייה מחודשת מכינים בו עוגות, שאגב לא מביישות אף אופה מקצועית, על… הגאז!

מאת: יערה הולצמן

זוכרים את ’סיר-הפלא?’ כן, סיר המתכת העגול עם החור, שהסבתות שלנו, השתמשו בו בימי ה’צנע’? ובכן, יש לו תחייה מחודשת! היות ולהרבה משפחות אין תנור מיוחד לפסח ולא כולם נוהגים להכשיר את התנור הרגיל. לפיכך, מכינים עוגות, שאגב לא מביישות אף אופה מקצועית, על… הגאז!



עוגת ’סיר פלא’ קלאסית


  • 6 ביצים מופרדות
  • 1 כוס סוכר
  • ¾ כוס קמח תפוחי אדמה
  • ¾ כוס שמן
  • 1 כוס אגוזים קצוצים
  • 1 כפית קינמון
  • 1 תפוח עץ או גזר
  • 1 אבקת אפיה

אופן ההכנה:

מערבבים את החלמונים עם ¾ כוס סוכר ומוסיפים את קמח תפוחי האדמה, האגוזים, אבקת האפייה, השמן והקינמון. מגררים תפוח עץ או גזר ומוסיפים לתערובת.

בנפרד, מקציפים את החלבונים עם ¼ כוס סוכר. מוסיפים לתערובת בתנועות קיפול.

משמנים את ’סיר הפלא’ ושופכים פנימה את התערובת. סוגרים את הסיר. מחממים את טבעת המתכת המיוחדת שרוכשים עם סיר ’ואופים’ ע”ג אש בינונית – נמוכה, למשך ¾ שעה.

עוגת שלוש שכבות


  • 6 ביצים מופרדות
  • 2 כפות קקאו
  • 2 כפות קמח תפוחי אדמה
  • 1 חבילה קוקוס
  • 3 כפות שמן
  • 2 כפות יין
  • 1 אבקת אפייה

אופן ההכנה:

להקציף חלבונים עם 1 כוס סוכר. בנפרד להקציף חלמונים עם ½ כוס סוכר. להוסיף לתערובת החלמונים שמן, קקאו, קמח תפוחי אדמה ויין.

Cake_sirpelaמחצית מקערת החלבונים המוקצפים להכניס לקערת החלמונים בתנועות עטיפה. לקצף החלבונים הנותר להוסיף את הקוקוס.

לשמן את ’סיר הפלא’ ולשפוך את מחצית מתערובת החלמונים לסיר.

להוסיף את קצף החלבונים והקוקוס ולשטח על גבי השכבה השנייה בעזרת כף.

לשפוך את יתרת תערובת החלמונים מלמעלה. לסגור את הסיר. לחמם את טבעת המתכת המיוחדת שרוכשים עם הסיר ו’לאפות’ ע”ג אש בינונית – נמוכה, למשך ¾ שעה.

* הכותבת יערה הולצמן, למדה עיצוב, ועבדה בתור ארט-דירקטורית וקופירייטרית במשרדי פרסום שונים. כיום היא עסוקה בעיקר בגידול ילדים, בישול וספונג’ה, ובין לבין היא גם “חוטאת” בכתיבה.

* מובא באדיבות אתר aish של “אש התורה” שהיא רשת בינלאומית וא-פוליטית של מרכזים לחינוך יהודי.

Special Passover Wonder Pot recipes

{This is a traslation into English via Google}
Remember the wonder pot has a reassertion prepare cakes, which by the way is not put to shame even a professional baker, the … gas!
By: Yaara Holtzman

Remember the ‘wonder pot?’ The metal pot with a round hole, our grandmothers, used during H’tzna? Well, it has a revival! Since many families have no special oven for Passover and not all of them tend to use the regular oven. Therefore, make cakes, which by the way is not put to shame even a professional baker, the … gas!

Wonder Pot Classic Cake


6 eggs, separated
1 cup sugar
¾ cup potato flour
¾ cup oil
1 cup chopped nuts
1 teaspoon cinnamon
1 apple or carrot
1 baking powder


Mix the egg yolks with ¾ cup sugar and add the flour, potatoes, nuts, baking powder, and cinnamon oil. Grate an apple or carrot and add to the mixture.

Separately, beat the egg yolks with ¼ cup sugar. Fold add to the mix.

Grease the ‘Wonder pot and pour in the mixture. Close the pot. Place the metal ring on the Burner Flang facing up, put the Wonder pot on the ring and bake ‘with on medium heat – Low, for ¾ hour.

Three-layer cake


1 ½ cup sugar
6 eggs, separated
2 tablespoons cocoa
2 tablespoons potato flour
1 package coconut
3 tablespoons oil
2 tablespoons wine
Baking powder 1


Whisk egg whites with 1 cup of sugar. Separately whisk egg yolks with ½ cup sugar. Add the egg yolk mixture of oil, cocoa, flour, potatoes and wine.

Half a bowl of whites put in a bowl of egg yolks wrapping movements. Egg whites add the remaining coconut.

Lubricate the ‘Wonder pot and pour half of the egg yolk mixture into the pot.

Add the egg whites and coconut and flatten onto the second layer with a spoon.

Pour the remaining egg mixture on top. Close the pot. Place the metal ring on the Burner Flang facing up, put the Wonder pot on the ring and ‘bake’ with on medium heat – Low, for ¾ hour.

* The author Yaara Holtzman, studied design and worked as art director and copywriter in various advertising agencies. She is currently busy with raising children, cooking and mop up, and in between is also a “sinner” in writing.

Excerpted courtesy of a aish of “Aish HaTorah” which is an international network and a-political centers of Jewish Education.

From Here is a Torte without Potato flour or Potato Starch that normally contains Sulfites used as a preservative or whitening agent that is lethal to asthmatics.

Mock Chestnut Torte

by Marcy Goldman | Epicurious 1998

A Treasury of Jewish Holiday Baking

Mock Chestnut Torte
Yield: Makes 14 to 18 servings



  • 1/2 cup (1 stick) unsalted Passover margarine
  • 1/3 cup plus 2 tablespoons granulated sugar
  • 6 large eggs, separated
  • 1 1/2 cups cooked and mashed sweet potatoes, fresh or canned
  • 1 teaspoon Passover rum extract (optional)
  • 10 ounces good-quality semi-sweet chocolate, melted and cooled
  • 1/4 teaspoon salt

Chocolate Ganache Glaze

  • 1/2 cup water
  • 6 ounces semi-sweet chocolate, coarsely chopped


  • (optional)
  • Unsweetened cocoa powder, sifted
  • Curls of semi-sweet chocolate
  • Pureed strawberries or raspberries


Preheat the oven to 350°F. Line a 9-inch springform pan with baking parchment.
In a mixing bowl, cream the unsalted margarine or butter with the 1/3 cup sugar. Blend in the egg yolks, then the mashed sweet potatoes, rum extract (if using), and cooled chocolate.

In another bowl, with clean beaters, whip the egg whites gently until they are a bit foamy. Then add in the salt and whip on a higher speed, slowly dusting in the two tablespoons of sugar to form stiff, glossy (but not dry) peaks. Fold one third of the egg whites into the sweet potato/chocolate mixture and work them in well to loosen the batter. Then, gently fold in the remaining egg whites, blending well but taking care not to deflate the mixture. Spoon the batter into the prepared pan and bake for about 40 minutes. The cake rises and looks dry, and slightly cracked on top when done. The middle should be soft but firm. Cool in the pan for 20 minutes, then remove to a wire rack. At this point, the cake can be frozen for up to a month. Even if serving it the same day, chill the cake for an hour or two before finishing it with the ganache glaze.
Chocolate Ganache Glaze:
In a double boiler, bring the water to a gentle boil and add the chopped chocolate all at once. Remove from the heat and stir briskly with a wire whisk until all the chocolate melts and you have a thick glaze or sauce-like topping. Refrigerate for an hour or so. (You can also make this ahead and refrigerate it for up to a week or two. Simply warm it to the right temperature for glazing the cake.)

Invert the cake onto a cardboard circle or cake board so that the smooth, flat bottom faces up. Do not be dismayed if this is not a high cake — it is a torte and is meant to be a little less than statuesque. Pour the glaze over the cake and, using a metal spatula, even out the glaze and spread it along the sides.

Instead of the glaze, you can also simply sift some cocoa over the top of the cake or decorate it with curls of chocolate (using a vegetable peeler and a warmish chocolate bar). The cake can also be offered with a pureed raspberry or strawberry sauce, garnished with chocolate shavings, or left as is, with a citrus leaf, a sweetheart rose, or several berries in the center.
Source Information
Reprinted with permission from A Treasury of Jewish Holiday Baking by Marcy Goldman. © 2009 Whitecap Books, Ltd.

Real Pesach in Jerusalem

The Passover Recipe That You DON’T Want to Miss!

Sephardic Chief Rabbi Yosef “Today thank God most of the nation of Israel is here in the land of Israel.”

Be part of the Majority. Make Aliyah Today!

It’s time to come home! Nefesh B’Nefesh: Live the Dream 1-866-4-ALIYAH UK 0800 075 7200 Come home to the Land of Emuna

Nefesh B'Nefesh: Live the Dream 1-866-4-ALIYAH UK 0800 075 7200 Come home to the Land of Emuna

Click the Banner for www.

Now that the majority of Jews are in their homeland we can have Korban Pesach!

Bring out the Mint jelly!

Kotel, Western Wall, Jerusalem, Shavuot

Is Korban Pesach Obligatory Today?

Holy Temple Myth Busters: Part I – Introduction

Published on Dec 19, 2016

We must wait for Moshiach to build the Holy Temple. Fact or myth?

The Holy Temple will descend ready-made from heaven. Fact or myth?

Building the Holy Temple will cause World War III. Fact or myth?

Rabbi Chaim Richman provides the answers from the sources of Torah wisdom to these questions and many more in this multi-part series which will bust all of the myths that have come to clutter Jewish thought concerning the building of the Holy Temple and its significance to the entire world.

This video was made possible in part by the Shraga family of the USA, and by the Temple Institute, Inc., a 501 (c) 3 non-profit organization .

Jerusalem is the center of the World


*breaking the glass: BT Talmud Berachot 30,31

*fruit was lost: Sotah 9, 12

*all the Torah’s commandments are for all of israel to fulfill – Rambam, Igeret HaShmad (Letter on Persecution), Yitzchak Shilat Edition, Volume I, pp. 57-58

*Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments number 20

*Rashi on BT Sukkah 41:a, Ezekiel 43:11 (“so that they keep: They will learn the matters of the measurements from your mouth so that they will know how to do them at the time of the end.”)

The sources can also be found at…

Holy Temple Myth Busters: Part II: Falling from Heaven

Published on Feb 6, 2017

The Holy Temple will descend ready-made from heaven. Fact or myth?

Rabbi Chaim Richman provides the answers from the sources of Torah wisdom to this question and many more in this multi-part series which will bust all of the myths that have come to clutter Jewish thought concerning the building of the Holy Temple and its significance to the entire world.

This video was made possible in part by the Shraga family of the USA, and by the Temple Institute, Inc., a 501 (c) 3 non-profit organization.

Jerusalem is the center of the World.


Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvot, Shoresh Shlishi

Rambam, 13 Principles of Faith, Introduction to Tractate Sanhedrin

Rambam, Igeret HaShmad

Deut. 29:28

Rambam, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 9,1

Sefer HaIkarim 3:16

Maharal Tiferet Yisrael 51

‘clearly according to halacha it is a mitzva for Israel to build the Beit HaMikdash, Rambam Hilchot Beit HaBechira 1,1

Aruch L’Ner on Sukkah 41.A, on Rashi ‘Ei Nami’

Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvot 20

Or HaChaim on Shemot 25:8

Sifre BaMidbar, 92

S’Mag, Positive Commandments 163

Sanhedrin 17.b, Shavuot 15.a, Jerusalem Sanhedrin 1,3,

Rambam Hilchot Beit HaBechira 6,11

The Mitzvot are for Israel to Fulfill (G-d commands, we fulfill); G-d does not do the commandments:

Ramchal Derech Hashem 1:2:2; Makot 23b; Devarim 6:24-25; 30:11; Bereshith Rabbah 44:1; Vayikra Rabbah 13:3; Tanchuma, Shemini 8; Midrash Tehillim 18:25; Yalkut Shimoni 2:121; Rambam Moreh Nevuchim 3:26-27; Avodat HaKodesh, Chelek HaAvodah 3; Shnei Luchot HaBrit, Shaar HaGadol 1:48b; Maharal Tiferet Yisrael 7.

Opinions of Rashi/Tosafot: Sukkah 41:a, Rosh Hashana 30:a, Shavuot 15:b

source for information about R. Y. ben Chanina B’reishith Rabbah 64

Ezekial 43:11, Rashi says ‘so that they will know to do them’

source for R. Yehiel of Paris…Kaftor Va’Ferach, Rabbi Ashtori HaParchi, Chapter 6

The sources can also be found at…

Holy Temple Myth Busters: Part III: Mashiach vs the People

Published on Mar 23, 2017

We must wait for the messiah to build the Holy Temple. Fact or myth?

Quoting directly from Israel’s most illustrious sages, Rabbi Richman explodes myth after myth concerning Moshiach and his role in the building of the Holy Temple.

From previous chapters in the Temple Institute’s Holy Temple Myth Busters Series:

The Holy Temple will descend ready-made from heaven. Fact or myth?

Building the Holy Temple will cause World War III. Fact or myth?

Rabbi Chaim Richman provides the answers from the sources of Torah wisdom to these questions and many more in this multi-part series which will bust all of the myths that have come to clutter Jewish thought concerning the building of the Holy Temple and its significance to the entire world.

This video was made possible in part by the Shraga family of the USA, and by the Temple Institute, Inc., a 501 (c) 3 non-profit organization.


Maimonides Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Beit HaBechira 1,1

Maimonides Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 11,1

Maimonides Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 12
Malachi 3:1

Pesikta Rabati 36

Maimonides, Sefer Igeret HaShmad

The sources can also be found at…

Holy Temple Myth Busters: Part IV: Korban Pesach: To Be Or Not To Be?
Published on Apr 3, 2017
The Passover Offering is a thing of the past. It’s not relevant today. Fact or myth?Quoting directly from Israel’s most illustrious sages, Rabbi Richman explains why it is not only possible to bring the Korban Pesach today, but it is imperative to do so.From previous chapters in the Temple Institute’s Holy Temple Myth Busters Series:We must wait for the messiah to build the Holy Temple. Fact or myth?The Holy Temple will descend ready-made from heaven. Fact or myth?Rabbi Chaim Richman provides the answers from the sources of Torah wisdom to these questions and many more in this multi-part series which will bust all of the myths that have come to clutter Jewish thought concerning the building of the Holy Temple and its significance to the entire world.This video was made possible in part by the Shraga family of the USA, and by the Temple Institute, Inc., a 501 (c) 3 non-profit organization.SOURCES FOR THIS VIDEO:Exodus Chapter 12Numbers 9:13Kritot 22:bRambam Hilchot Teshuva 8, 1Rambam Hilchot Biyat HaMikdash, Chapter 4, 7Chasam Sofer Responsa, Yoreh Deah #236R. Ashtori HaParchi, Kaftor V’Ferach, Chapter 6Ya’avetz Responsa, Section I, #99Maharatz Chajes, Kuntrus Acharon, Avodat HaMikdash 76Rambam Hilchot Beit HaBechira Chapter 6, 15Rambam end of Hilchot Klei HaMikdash, Maharatz Chajes Kuntrus Acharon Chapter 2HaRav Tzvi Hersch Kalisher, Drishat Tzion, Additions to Ma’amar Kadishin, Ma’alat Eretz Noshavat 5, Neilat Sha’arimRambam Hilchot Beit HaBechira Chapter 7, 23HaRav Yitzchak Itinga, Respona Mahari, Sec. I, Orach Chaim 88The sources can also be found at…

Kohanim are ready

Kohanim are ready

These sheep are in Jerusalem outside our window

Arab Sheep grazing on Jewish Jerusalem land

Arab Sheep grazing on Jewish Jerusalem land

OU Torah Tidbits

OMER CHART 5777 Click to download PDF file Download 1225omer .pdf

Right Click to Download image. You can use it as Computer Wallpaper to remind you to count the Omer.

Rabbi Sacks

Why Civilisations Die

In her recent “The Watchman’s Rattle”, subtitled ‘Thinking our way out of extinction’, Rebecca Costa delivers a fascinating account of how civilisations die. Their problems become too complex. Societies reach what she calls a cognitive threshold. They simply can’t chart a path from the present to the future.

The example she gives is the Mayans. For a period of three and a half thousand years, between 2600BCE and 900CE, they developed an extraordinary civilisation, spreading over what is today Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Belize with an estimated population of 15 million people.

Not only were they master potters, weavers, architects and farmers. They developed an intricate cylindrical calendar system, with celestial charts to track the movements of the stars and predict weather patterns. They had their own unique form of writing as well as an advanced mathematical system. Most impressively they developed a water-supply infrastructure involving a complex network of reservoirs, canals, dams and levees.

Then suddenly, for reasons we still don’t fully understand, the entire system collapsed. Sometime between the middle of the eighth and ninth century the majority of the Mayan people simply disappeared. There have been many theories as to why it happened. It may have been a prolonged drought, overpopulation, internecine wars, a devastating epidemic, food shortages, or a combination of these and other factors. One way or another, having survived for 35 centuries, Mayan civilisation failed and became extinct.

Rebecca Costa’s argument is that whatever the causes, the Mayan collapse, like the fall of the Roman Empire, and the Khmer Empire of thirteenth century Cambodia, occurred because problems became too many and complicated for the people of that time and place to solve. There was cognitive overload, and systems broke down.

It can happen to any civilisation. It may, she says, be happening to ours. The first sign of breakdown is gridlock. Instead of dealing with what everyone can see are major problems, people continue as usual and simply pass their problems on to the next generation. The second sign is a retreat into irrationality. Since people can no longer cope with the facts, they take refuge in religious consolations. The Mayans took to offering sacrifices.

Archeologists have uncovered gruesome evidence of human sacrifice on a vast scale. It seems that, unable to solve their problems rationally, the Mayans focused on placating the gods by manically making offerings to them. So apparently did the Khmer.

Which makes the case of Jews and Judaism fascinating. They faced two centuries of crisis under Roman rule between Pompey’s conquest in 63 BCE and the collapse of the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 CE. They were hopelessly factionalised. Long before the Great Rebellion against Rome and the destruction of the Second Temple, Jews were expecting some major cataclysm.
What is remarkable is that they did not focus obsessively on sacrifices, like the Mayans and the Khmer. Instead they focused on finding substitutes for sacrifice. One was gemillat chassadim, acts of kindness. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai comforted Rabbi Yehoshua, who wondered how Israel would atone for its sins without sacrifices, with the words, “My son we have another atonement as effective as this: acts of kindness, as it is written (Hosea 6:6), ‘I desire kindness and not sacrifice'” (Avot d’Rabbi Natan 8).

Another was Torah study. The sages interpreted Malachi’s words (1:11), “In every place offerings are presented to My name”, to refer to scholars who study the laws of sacrifice. (Menachot 100a). “One who recites the order of sacrifices is as if he had brought them” (Taanit 27b).
Another was prayer. Hosea said, “Take words with you and return to the Lord … We will offer our lips as sacrifices of bulls” (Hosea 14:2-3), implying that words could take the place of sacrifice. “He who prays in the house of prayer is as if he brought a pure oblation” (Talmud Yerushalmi, B’rachot 5:1).

Yet another was T’shuva. The Psalm (51:19) says “the sacrifices of God are a contrite spirit.” From this the sages inferred that “if a person repents it is accounted to him as if he had gone up to Jerusalem and built the Temple and the altar and offered on it all the sacrifices ordained in the Torah” (Vayikra Rabba 7:2).
A fifth was fasting. Since going without food diminished a person’s fat and blood, it counted as a substitute for the fat and blood of a sacrifice (B’rachot 17a). A sixth was hospitality. “As long as the Temple stood, the altar atoned for Israel, but now a person’s table atones for him” (B’rachot 55a). And so on.

What is striking in hindsight is how, rather than clinging obsessively to the past, sages like Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai thought forward to a worstcase-scenario future. The great question raised by Tzav, which is all about different kinds of sacrifice, is not “Why were sacrifices commanded in the first place?” but rather, given how central they were to the religious life of Israel in Temple times, how did Judaism survive without them?
The short answer is that overwhelmingly the prophets, the sages, and the Jewish thinkers of the Middle Ages realised that sacrifices were symbolic enactments of processes of mind, heart and deed that could be expressed in other ways as well. We can encounter the will of God by Torah study, engage in the service of God by prayer, make financial sacrifice by charity, create sacred fellowship by hospitality and so on.

Jews did not abandon the past. We still refer constantly to the sacrifices in our prayers. But they did not cling to the past. Nor did they take refuge in irrationality. They thought through the future and created institutions like the synagogue and house of study and school that could be built anywhere and sustain Jewish identity even in the most adverse conditions.

That is no small achievement. The world’s greatest civilisations have all, in time, become extinct while Judaism has always survived. In one sense that was surely Divine Providence. But in another it was the foresight of people like Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai who resisted cognitive breakdown, created solutions today for the problems of tomorrow, who did not seek refuge in the irrational, and who quietly built the Jewish future.

Surely there is a lesson here for the Jewish people today: Plan generations ahead. Think at least 25 years into the future. Contemplate worst-case scenarios. Ask what we would do, if… What saved the Jewish people was their ability, despite their deep and abiding faith, never to let go of rational thought, and despite their loyalty to the past, to keep planning for the future.

JerusalemCats Comment: On the other hand you have this:

This is a very short clip of a much longer video from the The Ruderman Family Foundation on facebook.

Israeli MP Amir Ohana, explains the israeli priority 

From Esser Agaroth: Rashi suggests the possibility that only 20% of Israel left Egypt, at the time of our great exodus from there. How so?
וַיַּסֵּב אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָעָם דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר, יַם-סוּף; וַחֲמֻשִׁים עָלוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. (שמות יג,יח)

But God led the people about, by the way of the wilderness by the Red Sea; and the children of Israel went up (hamushim) armed out of the land of Egypt. (Ex. 13:18)

On the word hamushim, he offers an alternative translation to “armed.”

דבר אחר: חמושים אחד מחמשה יצאו, וארבעה חלקים מתו בשלשת ימי אפילה.

Another thing: one fifth of five [fifths] left, and four parts (fifths) died in the [plague of the] three days of darkness.

Several sources, such as the Kol HaTor, suggest parallels between our exodus from exile in Egypt and how we will complete our exodus from the current exile of Edom, including the possibility that only four fifths of us will make it out this time as well.

Who knows? There might even be three days of darkness. However, this time final time around, will these days of darkness necessarily be physical?

Instead, they could be spiritual, and unfortunately, the may have already begun for European [or American] Jewry.

May our recalling of the exodus from Egyptian exile this Pesach (Passover) inspire those Jews still entrenched in Europe, to complete their own Exodus.

JerusalemCats Comment: Something to think about: What percentage of Jews made it out of Spain in 1492. 10%? What percentage of Jews made it out of Europe in 1939 before the Holocaust. 10%?

From Holocaust Encyclopedia

The Jewish communities of eastern Europe were devastated. In 1933, Poland had the largest Jewish population in Europe, numbering over three million. By 1950, the Jewish population of Poland was reduced to about 45,000. The Soviet Union had the largest remaining Jewish population, with some two million Jews. Romania’s Jewish population was nearly 757,000 in 1930 and fell to approximately 280,000 (1950). Most of these demographic losses were due to the Holocaust, the rest to postwar emigration from Europe.

Before the Nazi takeover of power in 1933, Europe had a vibrant and mature Jewish culture. By 1945, most European Jews—two out of every three—had been killed. Most of the surviving remnant of European Jewry decided to leave Europe. Hundreds of thousands established new lives in Israel, the United States, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, South America, and South Africa.

Caroline Glick The American Jewish Community’s Moment to Choose
As for the risks living in Israel with Hamas, Fatah (PA) and the other crazies;To quote General George S. Patton

“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. “

 “You (the Arabs) have a choice, The peace of prosperity or the peace of unburied death. The choice is yours”

Just look at all the attacks to the Jewish Community in the US!

Come home to Israel while you still can.

It’s time to come home! Nefesh B’Nefesh: Live the Dream 1-866-4-ALIYAH UK 0800 075 7200 Come home to the Land of Emuna

Nefesh B'Nefesh: Live the Dream 1-866-4-ALIYAH UK 0800 075 7200 Come home to the Land of Emuna

Click the Banner for www.

Mistakes That Destroy The Marriage (A Must Watch Lecture)


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Sydney, It’s time to come home

Jewish Parents in Victoria, Australia, Please for the safety of your children think about making Aliyah. At lest send them ahead to Israel where they are safe.

I am deeply concerned that we are running out of time before we go over the cliff and public schools will become no-go zones for Jewish students. Increasingly today, being Jewish is a liability and makes you an easy scapegoat in an educational system where antisemitism is a deeply entrenched problem that is being swept under the rug and brushed aside by principals.
Dr Dvir Abramovich, Chairman of the Anti-Defamation Commission


Bibi Netanyahu:”I want you to continue studying Hebrew. Be proud Jews. Be proud Australians. And come to Israel.”

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been mobbed by Jewish primary school students during a visit to Moriah College in Sydney.
23 Feb 2017 – 5:24 PM  UPDATED YESTERDAY 5:24 PM
They were told to be on their best behaviour. They were told to sing in their most beautiful voices. And most importantly, to smile.

But the excitement was just too much for hundreds of Jewish primary school children to remember the messages from their head teacher when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu walked into their assembly hall at Moriah College in Sydney’s eastern suburbs.

Up leapt dozens of children from the neat lines they were sitting in on the floor, while dozens more school choir members jumped down from a tiered stand where they had been patiently waiting, sending Mr Netanyahu’s huge security team into a spin.

As the grim-faced, dark-suited security guards tried unsuccessfully to stop the mini mob, Mr Netanyahu grinned and shook their hands and gave them high-fives.

Squeals of excitement rang out as he and his wife Sara made their way to some seats at the side of the hall.

The Netanyahus were accompanied by Malcolm Turnbull and his wife Lucy, who are regular visitors to Moriah’s high-security Bondi Junction campus as it sits in the heart of the prime minister’s Wentworth electorate.

After listening to the choir sing Jerusalem of Gold, Israel’s unofficial national anthem, Mr Netanyahu had some questions for the children.

“How many of you want to come to Israel?” he asked. A sea of arms reached into the air.

“How many of you speak Hebrew?” Again, more arms went up.

“Here’s what I want to ask you to do. I want you to continue studying Hebrew. Be proud Jews. Be proud Australians. And come to Israel.”

As he bid them shalom, the children cheered and leapt to their feet to swarm around him so they could have pose for photos while some chanted his nickname, “Bibi, Bibi”.

Finally he managed to make his way out of the hall so he could drop by on a Hebrew lesson and deliver a speech to the college’s high school students.

The young children he left behind in the hall were buzzing with excitement.

But their head teacher wasn’t quite as happy.

“I think you could have behaved with a bit more decorum,” she told them.

Hundreds of high school students in a separate auditorium restricted themselves to standing ovations for Mr Netanyahu after he delivered a speech focused on the “fierce courage” of the Jews and their determination to have their own homeland in the state of Israel.

“Jews were transformed as the Jewish state transformed Jewish history and Jews’ destiny,” he said.

“You are part of that destiny. You are part of the reborn Jewish people.”

PM Netanyahu and Australian PM Turnbull Visit Moriah College in Sydney

Jewish Agency logo The Jewish Agency Global Service Center

The Global Service Center is our one-stop Aliyah and Israel Experience Hotline, open throughout the day, in seven languages.

If you have questions, we’ve got answers. Whether you are considering a short or long-term visit to Israel, or you are thinking about moving to Israel permanently, or you are looking for home hospitality with Israelis, we can help you get started.We look forward to hearing from you at the Global Service Center. We’re open from 8:00 – 22:00 (Israel time), six days a week, and we can talk to you in English, French, Spanish, Russian, Portuguese, Hebrew, or Amharic.

Let us answer your questions



NewZealandNew Zealand


Jewish boys taunted in shocking cases of anti-Semitic bullying at Melbourne schools

By Adam Carey October 3, 2019

A 12-year-old Jewish student was forced to kneel down and kiss the shoes of a Muslim classmate, while a five-year-old boy was allegedly called a “Jewish cockroach” and repeatedly hounded in the school toilets by his young classmates.

The two incidents this year – the first involving a year 7 boy at Cheltenham Secondary College and the second a prep student at Hawthorn West Primary School – have prompted the Anti-Defamation Commission to sound an alarm about what it says is a “rapidly spreading” crisis involving anti-Semitic bullying in Victorian state schools.

Both boys, whose parents have asked to remain anonymous, have since left the schools where the incidents occurred, with the five-year-old boy currently being home schooled.

The older boy’s act of kissing another student’s shoes, under threat of being swarmed by several other boys, was filmed, photographed and shared on social media.

No disciplinary action has been taken against the group of boys involved in the incident, which took place in a public park.

The mother said she was bitterly disappointed by the response of Cheltenham Secondary College and the Education Department.

The school and the department have denied having responsibility for the incident, because it did not take place on school grounds, the mother said.

“I took such offence with the Education Department, because there was nothing they did to protect my son at all, at any point in time – that’s what’s cut me up,” she said.

The mother sought out the parents of the Muslim boy, who were horrified by their son’s actions.

“We sat down, his parents, the two boys and myself, around the table and explained the velocity of [the bullying] and what it meant to us as parents as far as building bridges between Jews and Muslims in society and not creating division like that photo does,” she said.

One of the boys who watched on was later suspended for five days for assaulting the Jewish student in the school locker room.

The Jewish boy was punched in the face and left with a bruised back and had skin gouged out of his shoulder, his mother said.

Death threats sent to Jewish boy forced to kiss Muslim’s shoes

Jewish 12-year-old in Australia who was forced to kiss Muslim peer’s shoes receives messages threatening that he’ll be slaughtered.
Marcy Oster, JTA, 10October2019

The Jewish boy who was forced to kneel and kiss the shoes of a Muslim classmate has been sent threatening text messages.

The messages were sent Friday after photos of the incident were splashed across the front pages of newspapers in Australia and around the world, the Daily Mail reported. The photo was first published by the Australian Jewish News.

The messages told the 12-year-old boy that he would be slaughtered and asked if he wanted to “talk about suicide,” according to the report.

Victoria Police confirmed to the Daily Mail Australia that they were investigating a report of such text messages but would not comment further.

Dvir Abramovich, chairman of B’nai B’rith’s Anti-Defamation Commission, called the threats “vile and deplorable.” He said the boy’s parents now want a broader inquiry into anti-Semitism in schools.

Abramovich has helped the family to relocate the boy from Cheltenham Secondary College in suburban Melbourne to a Jewish school.

The incident did not take place on the school’s campus. Reports said a group of older students threatened the boy with violence if he did not comply.

Opinion from Dr Dvir Abramovich, Chairman of the Anti-Defamation Commission

Antisemitism in Victorian schools is a monumental and hidden crisis

By Dvir Abramovich October 4, 2019

A 12-year-old Jewish boy from Cheltenham Secondary College is lured to a park and threatened with gang violence unless he kisses the feet of a Muslim boy who films this evil ritual. Later, the young man is beaten up so badly that he loses consciousness and is hospitalised.

A 5-year-old Jewish kid at Hawthorn West Primary is bullied by five classmates because he is circumcised and called a “Jewish vermin and cockroach”. Emotionally scarred, he eventually leaves, effectively forced out by an administration whose only solution is to suggest that the child use the staff bathroom. These heartbreaking episodes are just the tip of the iceberg.

We need to accept a hard truth: Anti-Semitism in Victorian schools is a monumental and hidden crisis that is keeping Jewish parents, who are terrified about the physical and mental safety of their children, up at night. The phones at the Anti-Defamation Commission ring off the hook daily with chilling reports of harassment of Jewish students, and the situation has become so bad that there is no telling where this descent will end.

I am deeply concerned that we are running out of time before we go over the cliff and public schools will become no-go zones for Jewish students. Increasingly today, being Jewish is a liability and makes you an easy scapegoat in an educational system where antisemitism is a deeply entrenched problem that is being swept under the rug and brushed aside by principals.

I well up with emotion when I hear of Jewish kids being subjected to physical assaults, bigoted stereotypes and insults, exclusion, degrading text messages and social media lynching. The day is not too far off when young people will have to hide their Jewish faith so as not to be singled out and vilified by their classmates. The victims are traumatised, filled with feelings of despair and abandonment, convinced that the system has failed them. And they are right.

Not infrequently, distraught parents are concerned that the anti-Semitic abuse will escalate if they notify the school since their child will become an even-bigger target. Some remain silent believing that the school leadership will not be sympathetic to their complaint. In fact, some administrators trivialise the attacks as a childish aberrations, as “kids being kids”, or blame the victims (“it’s your child’s fault since they provocatively choose to exhibit their Judaism” or “we are a non-Jewish school so if you don’t like it, leave”), are very slow to respond, and do not impose the appropriate punishment. In effect, they are enabling the wrongdoers by sending a crystal-clear message that Jewish pupils are fair game.

The elephant in the room is that very few of our elected representatives are actually speaking out about the darkening clouds that are gathering. And so, this cancer of intolerance, which is spreading like wildfire, must end. All of it. Because we literally have no choice and because that is not who we are as a nation. Good intentions and words are not enough. We now need bold action by the state and federal governments that matches the scale of the runaway problem we face, and which effectively tackles this menace at every single step. One solution is to institute mandatory reporting so schools are obliged to notify the Education Department when such incidents occur. Such reporting will then necessitate the investigation of each individual case and if warranted, appropriate penalties for the perpetrators.

Countering religious bigotry in the long run also hinges on making anti-bias and Holocaust education compulsory in every class. One example is the Anti-Defamation Commission’s Click Against Hate program, a free, groundbreaking educational program, which equips students with the skills to respond to the hate they encounter in schools, urging them to action when it happens to them or when they see it happening to others. Further training for teachers and headmasters is also urgently needed so they understand that antisemitism is a threat to our way of life and that inaction is not an option. It’s time for the adults in the room to stand up and protect the defenceless and vulnerable – our children.

Dr Dvir Abramovich is Chairman of the Anti-Defamation Commission.

Rabbi Meir Kahane HY”D “Jews MUST make ALIYAH to Israel!”
Speaking about Australia:

CSIRO: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Using science and research to solve issues and make a difference to industry, people and the planet. National science agency.

The Hungry Microbiome: why resistant starch is good for you
Bowel cancer is the second most common cancer in Australia. Research shows that eating fibre rich in resistant starch is one way we can combat this threat. This animation shows how resistant starch moves through the intestine, feeds the healthy bacteria of the gut Microbiome and helps prevent cancer. More information on our website:

Video transcript available here:…


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

BDS Know the Facts

From the Leftist:

Dr. Einat Wilf on Zionism – Full Interview

How can the Jews honestly deal with these crazy people, you can’t!

Terrorists In Suits

Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy (MSA) today released its “Terrorists in Suits” report, which reveals over a whopping 100 links shared between the internationally-designated terrorist organizations Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and at least 13 anti-Israel BDS promoting NGOs.

Click to Download the report Click to download PDF file MSA-Terrorists-In-Suits-English-1

Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs has released a report exposing the antisemitic agenda being the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS). “BDS is an anti-Semitic campaign led by supporters of terror with one purpose: the elimination of the Jewish state.”
Click to Download the report Click to download PDF file MSA-report-Behind-the-Mask

War by Other Means A History of Anti-Israel Boycotts, From the Arab League to BDS David May Research Analyst

War by Other Means
A History of Anti-Israel Boycotts, From the Arab League to BDS
David May Research Analyst

War by Other Means

A History of Anti-Israel Boycotts, From the Arab League to BDS

David May Research Analyst 20January2020
Click to download PDF file Click to download the report fdd-report-war-by-other-means-a-history-of-anti-israel-boycotts-from-the-arab-league-to-bds

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign, or BDS, is the most recent iteration of a century-old effort to attack the legitimacy and economic viability of the Jewish state and its precursors. Arabs initiated boycotts of Jewish businesses in the Holy Land in the early 20th century, with the goal of preventing the establishment of a Jewish state. The Arab League declared a comprehensive boycott in 1945, first to reinforce these efforts, then to reverse the outcome of Israel’s War of Independence. In other words, these countries sought the annihilation of the Jewish state.

In pursuit of its boycott, the Arab League sought to leverage the disparity between the size and wealth of its members’ oil-rich markets and the diminutive Israeli economy. The former represented a tantalizing prospect for companies large and small. To access them, however, the Arab League insisted that companies not trade with Israel or even with other companies that did. The boycott forced numerous major corporations to avoid or cut ties with the Jewish state.

American anti-boycott measures and inconsistent enforcement by Arab League member states convinced many companies to reject the boycott. The Arab League boycott lost further steam during the Palestinian-Israeli peace process in the 1990s, which saw the Palestinian Authority officially accept economic relations with Israel. When the peace process unraveled, however, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) revived the boycott.

Western activists and NGOs helped develop the campaign’s infrastructure, including the July 2005 “Call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Against Israel,” from which the campaign takes its name. BDS has borrowed heavily from the anti-apartheid campaign that brought down the South African regime in the 1990s. The attempt to conflate Israel and apartheid South Africa is libelous and disingenuous, as Israel grants equal rights to all its citizens, Arab and Jewish alike. Nevertheless, BDS has found receptive audiences on college campuses and among certain NGOs and church groups.

While BDS pressure campaigns have convinced some sizable firms to break off relations with Israel or cancel significant projects, Israel’s emergence as a global technology leader has frustrated the campaign. Israel enjoys significant investment by major multinationals, such as Google, IBM, and Intel. In macroeconomic terms, Israel continues to grow at an impressive rate, while inflation remains low. With its per capita income approaching that of Italy and South Korea, Israel has cemented its place in the top tier of global economies.

This is what Israel had before the leftist Peace Plans

Israel and land re-liberated in the 1967 Six Day War


Israel Map after Six Day War of 1967

Our Historic Homeland Land under King David

Map of the 12 Tribes of Israel

Map of the 12 Tribes of Israel

The Arabs and their Leftist Supporters need to grow up, get a life and think of the bigger picture of the Middle East. Forget about the past and think of your future. Unless your future is Death like Hamas. The Jews of Israel need to develop the land of Israel and forget about the Arabs. The Arabs Claim Nakba, the Jews that were expelled from Islamic countries have the same claims against the Islamic Countries.

Why Are There Still Palestinian Refugees?

If you think there are Palestinian people look at their roots, their surname or family name.

UNRWA’s Anti-Semitic Teachers Exposed in 130-Page UN Watch Report

‘Unprecedented’ UN report on anti-Sermitism

Landmark UN report details right-wing, left-wing, and Islamic anti-Semitism.
Arutz Sheva Staff, 23September2019

The United Nations released an interim report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief on the “Combatting anti-Semitism to Eliminate Discrimination and Intolerance Based on Religion or Belief.” This report to the Human Rights Council follows recent addresses by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on anti-Semitism and religious freedom.

The report summarizes that anti-Semitic violence, discrimination, and expressions of hostility are “serious obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief,” and the “frequency of antisemitic incidents appears to be increasing in magnitude” as does the “prevalence of anti-Semitic attitudes and the risk of violence against Jewish individuals and sites ” is significant. If left unchecked by governments, anti-Semitism “poses risks not only to Jews, but also to members of other minority communities.”

The report has a number of key findings, including the rise of anti-Semitism from three main sources: “growing use of antisemitic tropes by white supremacists including neo-Nazis and members of radical Islamist groups”; increase in “‘left-wing’ antisemitism [that] employ anti-Semitic narratives or tropes in the course of expressing anger at policies or practices of the Government of Israel”; and “notes claims that the objectives, activities and effects of the Boycott Divestement Sanctions (BDS) movement are fundamentally anti-Semitic.” The report notes that in the US in 2017, 58 percent (1,749) of religiously-motivated bias “were driven by anti-Semitic bias.”Governments also enact laws and policies that restrict Jewish practice, including limiting kosher slaughter methods or barring Jews from political participation in higher office.

The report identifies steps that government, civil society organizations, and the media can take to limit expressions of anti-Semitism. These include using the “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism” that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance drafted in 2016, investing in education and training, and requiring governments to acknowledge that “anti-Semitism poses a threat to stability and security, and that antisemitic incidents require prompt, unequivocal responses from leaders,” with party leaders “promptly, clearly, and consistently reject[ing] manifestations of anti-Semitism within their parties and in the public discourse.”

In response to the report, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, commented that “we welcome the release of this unprecedented report on the subject of anti-Semitism. The report reflects the organizational change towards Israel. The assertion that the BDS movement encourages anti-Semitism is an important UN statement. As I have said many times, anti-Semitism has no place in our society, and must be denounced everywhere and from every platform.”

What Starts Online, Doesn’t Stay There

New Damning Report Exposes the Dangerous Connection Between BDS Movement and Jew Hatred

By David Lange 17December2019

Click to Download the .PDF file Click to download PDF file The+New+Anti-Semites

The Zachor Legal Institute and have released a damning new reportThe Zachor Legal Institute and have released a damning new report that exposes the BDS faux ”civil rights” movement for what it is – a delegitimization campaign with genocidal aims, rather than the human rights movement that it purports to be.

Backed by a staggering 23 Jewish and Christian American non-governmental organizations, this report shows how hate groups on the Left and Right are joining forces, with the backing of designated foreign terror organizations, to inject this movement of intolerance and delegitimization into social justice campaigns, schools, government and society as a whole.

It is a long read but it is a vital resource in understanding exactly what we are dealing with. (I have dealt with some aspects of this phenomenon on this blog, but this report is next level).

Read the entire thing.

And mark my words: the haters are going to be pushing back hard against this report because it exposes them for the world to see.


Rabbi Sacks on The Mutation of Antisemitism

A legal argument that BDS is effectively discrimination against Jews

By Elder of Ziyon 17January2020

Eugene Kontorovich, testifying before Congress this week in the hearing “Confronting the Rise in Anti-Semitic Domestic Terrorism”, submitted his statement that included a legal argument that BDS is discriminatory against Jews that I had never heard before.

It makes no difference that these calls to boycott are aimed at Israel, rather than at Jews per se. Israel is the largest Jewish community in the world and is home to the plurality—and soon the majority—of the world’s Jews. Refusals to deal that target Israel alone and not any other country offer a clear proxy for engaging in anti-Semitism under the cloak of political legitimacy. Partial boycotts are boycotts. Furthermore, discrimination need not be 100% congruent with the targeted class to be discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws make it clear that the use of proxies for race, sexual orientation, and so forth can be discriminatory.

His footnote points to Pacific Shores Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach 

Proxy discrimination is a form of facial discrimination. It arises when the defendant enacts a law or policy that treats individuals differently on the basis of seemingly neutral criteria that are so closely associated with the disfavored group that discrimination on the basis of such criteria is, constructively, facial discrimination against the disfavored group. For example, discriminating against individuals with gray hair is a proxy for age discrimination because “the ‘fit’ between age and gray hair is sufficiently close.

Some young people have grey hair, many older people do not. But to say that you are only discriminating against hair color and not age is obviously disingenuous because there is an obvious correlation between the two. Similarly, boycotting Israel, as the only Jewish state and the only state with a majority Jewish population, especially when other states whose egregious human rights violations do not attract any sort of boycott, is in effect antisemitic.
comments on the post:

Eugene Kontorovich’s argument in effect is people may not think what they do hurts Jews but the intent is irrelevant. Its the effect that matters.

And under this test, if the effect hurts Jews, its antisemitism, period.
Charlie in NY
There have always been two standards against which to measure whether certain laws are discriminatory: intent or effect. In one case, the issue is whether the law discriminated by design, in the other, you examine the results of a seemingly neutral law. If it disproportionately effects a particular group, its effect is deemed discriminatory.

As an aside, it should be evident that BDS is not interested in hurting Arab Israelis, only the Jewish ones. It’s the flip side of the BBC piously informing its listeners that when a Palestinian Arab yells “Yahood” he doesn’t mean “Jew” he means “Israeli” – left unsaid even there is that, at best, he really means “Israeli Jew” – and so, it’s come full circle.

The Nakba of Arabic Jews

Rabbi Lord Sacks on Anti-Semitism

Bari Weiss and Deborah Lipstadt discuss the rise of antisemitism at home and abroad


Trump signs executive order to combat anti-Semitism on college campuses

Jennifer Kabbany – Fix Editor 11December2019

‘My administration will never tolerate the suppression, persecution or silencing of the Jewish people’

President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order that aims to fight anti-Semitism — particularly on college campuses — by clarifying that federal laws protect against discrimination against Jewish people and warning public institutions could lose funding if they ignore “the vile, hate-filled poison of anti-Semitism.”

“This action makes clear that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits the federal funding of universities and other institutions that engage in discrimination, applies to institutions that traffic in anti-Semitic hate,” Trump said in a ceremony right before signing the order.

“This is our message to universities,” Trump said. “If you want to accept the tremendous amount of federal dollars that you get every year, you must reject anti-Semitism. It’s very simple.”

Brooke Goldstein at the Nuremberg Symposium – May 4, 2016

The Arabs and their BDS leftist supporters completely ignore Syria

Gathering evidence of Syria war crimes in ‘The Assad Files’

UK Media – Are there any Rules? – A talk by Adam Levick of CAMERA’s UK Media Watch

The secret history BDS hides from you

BDS at the Extremes

A story in Commentary about choices and behaviors within anti-Trump organizations pointed me towards this interesting (and accessible) piece of academic research that discusses experiments on the impact extreme tactics have on popular support for political causes and organizations.

The paper looks at what “counter-normative, disruptive, or harmful” political tactics do for two key goals of any social movement: (1) raising the profile of a movement and its causes and (2) gaining support from the wider public (which can take the form of increased membership, donations, or general friendliness towards the movement’s goals).

In theory, profile-raising and support-building should go hand-in-hand since the public needs to know about a group and understand its mission and purpose before they can support it.  But in our media-saturated age, it often requires extreme tactics to gain attention – especially when competing with other causes, or with other individuals and organizations claiming to represent your issue.

This is where extreme tactics such as “inflammatory rhetoric, blocking traffic, and damaging property” come into play since such rhetoric and actions are likely to get you on the nightly news (as well as more web site hits and social media likes) than quietly cultivating the public through rational discourse.  But, as it turns out, even those friendly to causes such as animal rights, Black Lives Matter or the anti-Trump movement (the subjects of the study linked above) become less likely to support those causes if their proponents turn to such extreme tactics.

In the meaty discussion section of their piece (starting at page 17 if you want to skip the description of their experiments), the authors of the study try to answer the question of why social movements turn to such tactics, given that they seem to be empirically counterproductive.  One explanation they suggest is that participants don’t understand or appreciate the negative impact of extreme tactics, confusing increased attention with increased support.

The authors also qualify their findings by pointing out that some activists might have goals outside of winning popular support, towards which extreme tactics might make sense, priorities such as “winning funding, impacting powerful elites, psychologically empowering disadvantaged individuals, fostering commitment in existing supporters, and cathartic expression.”

To this list I would add another item drawn from experience dealing with the decades-long extremism of the BDS “movement:” fantasy-politics in which the public does not even exist to protestors, except as props in a drama taking place within the protestor’s own individual and collective heads.

Scientific evidence that the BDSer’s choice of tactics is likely to limit their effectiveness is a useful thing to know.  But such insights can also guide our choices in fighting against BDS and other forms of anti-Israel propaganda, highlighting the importance of tactics and language that will make those we want to persuade feel not just good about us but good about themselves for supporting our cause.

Comment: In other words the BDS protesters are Violent and CRAZY!

JerusalemCats Comment: To the BDS Nazis and their supporters:
You have no idea how evil the terrorist are that you are supporting.

  • They will kidnap your children,
  • They will murder your children,
  • They will murder you anywhere in the world,
  • Whatever Race or Color,
  • Man or Woman,
  • Gay or Straight,
  • Rich or Poor,
  • Liberal or Conservative,
  • Democrat or Republican.
  • It does not matter what they call themselves – Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah or ISIS, They are all the same.
  • Our main enemy is not Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah or ISIS but the real Puppet-masters; The US and The EU

How to counter the 20 most popular anti-Israel arguments

INTO THE FRAY: The anti-BDS effort

BDS is not an attempt to delegitimize Israel, but a product of Israel’s delegitimization; it is a consequence, not a cause, of that delegitimization

Dr. Martin Sherman, 11 January 2018

The Palestinian narrative claims that the Jews of Israel are colonialist interlopers who stole the land from the Palestinians, its rightful owners. The narrative makes no distinction between Tel Aviv and Hebron. All of Israel is a crime against the Arab world. All of Israel is illegitimate. – Caroline Glick, June 1, 2017.

I recently participated in a rather animated televised debate on the new English language channel, ILTV, dealing with the BDS campaign against Israel.

Given the objective time constraints of such a program, it is inevitable that one cannot fully elaborate on all the points raised in it, or adequately articulate arguments to underpin the positions taken on it. Accordingly, I should like to devote this week’s column to a more detailed, orderly and comprehensive presentation of the issues I broached in that debate.

Sign of a welcome change of attitude?

Late last month, it was announced that the Israeli government had approved a plan to set up a fund of $72 million to counter the ongoing international BDS campaign against Israel. According to this plan, the funds will be allocated to a yet-to-be-established not-for-profit organization whose board will be made up of government officials and donors from abroad, and which will oversee what is reportedly to be the first major “civil-society infrastructure servicing the State of Israel and the pro-Israel community in the fight against the de-legitimization of Israel.”

The planned initiative appears to signal a welcome—and long overdue—change in the hitherto dismissive attitude of Israeli officialdom towards public diplomacy and towards the pernicious effects such disregard was having not only on Israel’s international standing, but also on the predicament it created for pro-Israeli advocates abroad.

This detrimental insensitivity was starkly displayed by none other than the person who ought to have been most alive to it – Israel’s then-incumbent Foreign Minister, Avigdor Liberman, a few years ago, in a regrettable exchange with a young pro-Israeli activist at an international conference in New York.

During question time from the audience, Liberman was asked by a young pro-Israel undergraduate activist (Justin Hayet of Binghamton University): “What is the Foreign Ministry doing to stand with college students, like myself, to fight BDS on campus?

A small step in the right direction

Dispensing with any semblance of civility, and any expression of encouragement for the voluntary efforts of young pro-Zionist activists in defense of Israel on hostile campuses, Liberman brusquely conveyed to him that endeavors like his were essentially unnecessary, and largely a waste of time—since, according to the then-Foreign Minister, BDS should not be a great source of concern for Israel. (For Hayet’s impassioned and dismayed response – see here)

Liberman’s response was, of course, disturbing and, as I wrote back then: “it encapsulated all the misperceptions, and mismanagement that have characterized Israel’s diplomatic strategy. In particular, it spotlighted the incomprehension and incompetence Israeli officialdom has displayed in the conduct of our public diplomacy, going a long way to explain Israel’s growing international beleaguerment.”

Accordingly, the newly announced initiative appears, overall, to be a step in the right direction, and seemingly heralds a refreshing, new awareness of the vital importance of public diplomacy in the nation’s strategic arsenal.

Indeed, in some aspects it resembles—albeit on a far smaller scale—measures I have long advocated.

Almost half a decade ago, I called for setting up an extra-ministerial “national authority for the conduct of strategic diplomacy” which would “interface with Zionist NGOs and help finance their pro-Israel activities, enhance their impact and expand their reach – as a counterweight to the massive funding that post- and anti-Zionist NGOs receive from foreign governments”.

Moreover, given the strategic importance and urgency of enhancing Israel’s public diplomacy performance, I urged assigning 1% of the state budget (then $1 billion, now considerably more) for this purpose annually —far more (almost ten-fold!) than the budget planned for the newly envisaged entity.

“Intellectual warriors, not slicker diplomats”

In broad brush strokes, I set out the kind of activities, with which this strategic diplomacy authority would be tasked, and for which the prescribed budget would be utilized.

 • Its activities would be assertively offensive, geared to uncompromisingly attacking and exposing the mendacious and malicious nature of Israel’s adversaries – a necessary condition for international understanding of Israel’s policy imperatives.

• Its staff would not be professional diplomats but articulate and committed intellectual ideologues, neither bound by the constraints of diplomatic protocol nor versed in the niceties of diplomatic etiquette but rather adept in the mechanism of mass media, cyberspace and social networks (see my “Intellectual warriors, not slicker diplomats”).

• Their task would not be to interact with foreign counterparts but to wage diplomatic warfare, at home and abroad, with a $1bill. budget at their disposal to saturate the Web with polished, professional Zionist content – on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and by means of full-page “infomercials” in the leading printed media.”

In this, there is a fair amount of overlap between my prescription and the reportedly planned operation of the nascent anti-BDS non-profit initiative.

There are, however, some important differences—apart from those of scale—between the two proposals. These relate to substantive issues of scope, focus and ongoing proactivity.

Focusing on the symptoms, not the sickness

According to press reports, the creators of the planned entity envisage it operating on “a regular basis to counter pressure applied to artists, performers and commercial enterprises not to engage with Israel. But it would shift into high gear at sensitive periods such as fighting, waves of terrorist attacks, and anti-Israel votes at international forums

Clearly, then, it would appear that the nature of the planned operation will be essentially reactive, rather than proactive, designed almost exclusively to deal with –i.e. rebuff, negate, discredit—BDS-related attacks against Israel, with the level of intensity of such activities determined by largely exogenous events such as hostile military or diplomatic offensives against Israel.

These are grave shortcomings, which are liable to seriously undercut the efficacy of the prospective initiative—for two different, but interrelated, reasons, the one substantive, the other methodological.

The first of these relates to the restriction of the focus to BDS related activity. In many ways, this is like focusing on the symptoms of an illness, rather than on its origins, in search of a remedy. Sadly, it is likely to be just as ineffective.

For what is crucial to realize is that, in essence, BDS is not an attempt to delegitimize Israel, but rather a product of Israel’s delegitimization. In other words, it is a consequence, rather than a cause of that delegitimization.

Two incompatible narratives

On reflection, this should be an almost self-evident truth. After all, if Israel was perceived internationally as legitimate, anything remotely resembling the BDS campaign against it would be inconceivable.

Accordingly, without contending with the underlying sources of the delegitimization of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, there is little hope of effectively stifling the impulses that give rise to phenomena such as the BDS movement.

In this regard, it is crucial to grasp two things:

The first is, as Caroline Glick alludes to in the introductory excerpt above, the Palestinian narrative and the Zionist narrative are, for all intents and purposes, inconsistent with each other. In other words, they are mutually exclusive narratives.

Accordingly, enhancing the legitimacy of one necessarily implies undermining the legitimacy of the other. (For a more detailed elaboration of this matter see Deciphering delegitimization).

The second is that it is the Palestinian narrative, and its perceived legitimacy that underpins the legitimacy of the claim for Palestinian statehood. In other words, undermining the legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative undermines the validity of the claim for Palestinian statehood.

Thus, as I have argued elsewhere, “for the notion of a secure Israel [as the nation-state of the Jews] to regain legitimacy, the notion of a Palestinian state must be discredited and removed from the discourse as a possible means of resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict.”  

A viable Israel as “occupation”

Jerusalem Cats Comment: We need to listen to Rabbi Meir Kahane and transfer the hostile Palestinians out of Eretz Israel,

But the converse is also true: As long as the Palestinian narrative is perceived as legitimate—and, hence, the claim for Palestinian statehood is seen as valid—the legitimacy of a secure Israel will always be challenged—and hence vulnerable to measures that arise from that challenge, such as the BDS campaign.,

For those who find this too disturbingly adversarial to accept, I would refer them to an article authored by Omar Dajani and Ezzedine Fishere, published in the prestigious “Foreign Affairs” and entitled “The Myth of Defensible Borders”. In it, the authors – an adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team and an adviser to the then-Egyptian foreign minister, respectively—write, not without significant justification: “A policy of defensible borders would… perpetuate the current sources of Palestinian insecurity, further delegitimizing an agreement in the public’s eyes…

They therefore conclude “… Palestinians are likely to regard defensible borders as little more than occupation by another name.”

Consequently, for any settlement to be perceived as legitimate in the eyes of the Palestinian public, Israel must resign itself to being indefensible—as claims for it to be defensible (i.e. viable) would delegitimize it as an occupier!


Thus, as I pointed out in The political algorithms of the Arab Israeli conflict, there is a chain of algorithmic-like reasoning, which inexorably demonstrates that Israel’s acceptance of the legitimacy of Palestinian national claims has, in effect, laid the foundations for the assault on its own legitimacy.

An inconvenient, but inevitable, conclusion

The architects of any anti-BDS enterprise will ignore this reasoning at the peril of fatally undermining the success of their endeavor.

For as long as the Palestinian-Arabs are perceived as having a legitimate claim to statehood, any counterclaim by Israel to ensure its viability will be perceived as thwarting that claim –thereby, ipso facto, delegitimizing such counterclaims—and, hence, exposing the very legitimacy of the notion of a viable Israel to attack—such as the BDS initiative.

Accordingly, just as focusing on reducing the temperature of a patient suffering from a severe infection will not cure that infection, so focusing on BDS will not remedy the delegitimization drive against Israel. Just as the source of the infection must be diagnosed and treated, so must the sources of the delegitimization of Israel.

Clearly then, if the Palestinian narrative is diagnosed as the source of the de-legitimization of the Zionist narrative, then the re-legitimization of the latter calls for the de-legitimization of the former. No amount of politically-correct gobbledygook, decrying such a stark “zero-sum” assessment, can obscure this inconvenient, but inevitable, conclusion.

The operational implications of this are clear.

The BDS campaign is not—and cannot—be treated as a “stand alone” problem. To eradicate it, one must eradicate its root causes—and since the roots of BDS sprout from the delegitimization of the Zionist narrative, the causes of this delegitimization must be eradicated.  However, as the delegitimization of the Zionist narrative can be traced to the legitimization of the incompatible, mutually exclusive Palestinian narrative, the unavoidable imperative is that for any anti-BDS initiative to be successful in the long run, it must focus efforts on the discrediting and delegitimizing of the Palestinian narrative.

Expose mendacious myths underpinning a fallacious narrative

Accordingly, any successful long term anti-BDS strategy cannot confine itself to responding to manifestations of anti-Israel calls for boycotts, sanctions or divestment—however infuriating these might be, and however telling such responses may be.

It must go on a genuine, proactive offensive against the primary sources of those calls—by resolutely and relentless exposing the mendacious myths that underpin the fallacious Palestinian narrative, while highlighting how these contrast with the fact-based foundations of the Zionist narrative.

After all, if the Palestinian narrative is discredited and delegitimized, who would want to instigate boycotts, sanctions or divestments in order to endorse or promote it?


Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

This is what the Arabs Can get if they have a brain and each sect and tribe can live in “peace”

One proposed map if the Middle East

 The Arabs need to think twice before their Imams scream “Kill  the Jews”

Mahmoud Abbas Contradicts the Palestinian Narrative on Refugees

If they want death and destruction then treat them like the Nazis that they are. Do the same thing to them as the Allies did to Nazi Germany in World War 2.

Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini and Adolf Hitler December 1941

Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini and Adolf Hitler December 1941
Haj Amin al-Husseini who was, in many ways, as big a Nazi villain as Hitler himself. To understand his influence on the Middle East is to understand the ongoing genocidal program against the Jews of Israel. Al-Husseini was a bridge figure in terms of transporting the Nazi genocide in Europe into the post-war Middle East. As the leader of Arab Palestine during the British Mandate period, al-Husseini introduced violence against moderate Arabs as well as against Jews. Al-Husseini met with Adolf Eichmann in Palestine in 1937 and subsequently went on the Nazi payroll as a Nazi agent. Al-Husseini played a pivotal behind-the-scenes role in instigating a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq in 1941 as he urged Nazis and pro-Nazi governments in Europe to transport Jews to death camps, trained pro-Nazi Bosnian brigades, and funneled Nazi loot into pro-war Arab countries.
On 20 November1941, al-Husseini met the German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and was officially received by Adolf Hitler on 28 November.
Al-Husseini’s own account, as recorded in his diary, states that Hitler expounded his view that the Jews were responsible for World War I, Marxism and its revolutions, and this was why the task of Germans was to persevere in a battle without mercy against the Jews,
According to the official report of the meeting, on November 28, 1941, Adolf Hitler told Husseini that the Afrika Korps would “liberate” Arabs in the Middle East and that “Germany’s only objective there would be the destruction of the Jews.”
“SS leaders and Husseini both claimed that Nazism and Islam had common values as well as common enemies – above all, the Jews,” the report states.
In fall 1943, it says, Husseini went to the Croatia, a German ally, to recruit Muslims for the Waffen-SS.


READY TO ROAST MARSHMALLOWS, KIDS?: A Gaza summer camp. Were any of these children among the “civilian casualties” that Hamas is claiming? (screenshot: from a Reuters slideshow in June)

READY TO ROAST MARSHMALLOWS, KIDS?: A Gaza summer camp. Were any of these children among the “civilian casualties” that Hamas is claiming? (screenshot: from a Reuters slideshow in June)

Jewish Students need to defend themselves against the BDS thugs. Know your rights; You are not a Dhimmi, a Floor Rag or a Target for Nazis. Defend yourselves! If there is “Blood on the Street” make sure that it is their “Blood on the Street” and not yours. Learn to protect yourself. Create a local JDL (JEWISH DEFENSE LEAGUE) chapter, learn self defense, Join the IDF before University with the Lone Soldiers Program.

Colleges and Universities cannot, for even a moment, tolerate or excuse the violences advocated by the BDS twisted totalitarian mindset. The BDS thugs should be made to pay for encouraging a campaign of violence on campus. BDS is not “Free Speech” under US law. (United States v. O’Brien). BDS is illegal in Israel and BDS Threats of violence and intimidation against the Jews and their supporters are illegal everywhere.

BDS is about Hate and Antisemitism

BDS leader succinctly describes what they consider “success”
Haaretz has a piece about how a large number of artists are coming to perform in Israel this year despite the BDS movement:
Most Israeli producers say that the boycotters like Roger Waters have failed:…
But Haaretz also had to interview BDSers as well. Like Ronnie Barkan:“One can note a significant change in the way the world perceives Israel. It’s now seen as a leper state maintaining a cruel occupation, apartheid and a colonial enterprise. This is what is believed on all campuses in the United States and even in some Jewish communities there. Communities are becoming increasingly critical of Israel’s crimes, with the fastest-growing organization being the Jewish Voice for Peace…”

Here he admits the entire point of BDS is to portray Israel as a “leper state maintaining a cruel occupation, apartheid and a colonial enterprise.”…
It is very simple. BDS is about crazed, irrational hate, that has far more in common with antisemitism than with human rights. And Ronnie Barkan shows this perfectly.

Palestinian Media: Fake News, Real Harm. But Why?

All About the Facts

FLOTILLA: We Con the World

The Truth About Jerusalem

The names of the three boys who were kidnapped on Thursday night have been cleared for publication. They are Naftali Frankel, 16 from Nof Ayalon near Modi'in; Gilad Shaar, 16, from Talmon in the West Bank near Ramallah, and Eyal Yifrach, 19 from Elad in central Israel near Petah Tikva. Naftali Frankel is a dual American-Israeli citizen. Please Pray for Them Yaakov Naftali ben Rachel Devorah Gilad Michael ben Bat Galim Eyal ben Iris Teshurah

Hamas kidnapped and Murdered 3 teenage boys in June 2014 which started the Gaza War. The names of the three boys who were kidnapped on Thursday night 12June2014 ט״ו בְּסִיוָן תשע״ד have been cleared for publication. They are Naftali Frankel, 16 from Nof Ayalon near Modi’in; Gilad Shaar, 16, from Talmon in the West Bank near Ramallah, and Eyal Yifrach, 19 from Elad in central Israel near Petah Tikva. Naftali Frankel is a dual American-Israeli citizen.

‘Blacklist’ of BDS groups released

Full list of organizations to be prevented entry into Israel published. Interior Minister: ‘These people slander the Land.’

Ido Ben Porat, 07 January 2018

The Israeli government has compiled a list anti-israel organizations backing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement whose activists will not be allowed to enter Israel.

These organizations operate consistently against the State of Israel, the government has argued, while putting pressure on other organizations, institutions and countries to boycott Israel.

The organizations’ activities are carried out through a false propaganda campaign aimed at undermining Israel’s legitimacy in the world.

The names of the boycott organizations will be transferred to the Immigration and Population Authority in the Ministry of the Interior for the purpose of preventing entry into Israel.

Interior Minister Aryeh Deri said, “As head of the Entry into Israel Law, I made it clear that I will use my authority to prevent the entry of members of organizations and individuals whose sole purpose is to harm the State of Israel and its security. These people take advantage of the law and our hospitality to act against Israel and slander the Land. I will work against this in every way. ”

Minister of Strategic Affairs Gilad Erdan said that “the consolidation of the list is another step in our struggle against the incitement and lies of the boycott organizations. No country would allow visitors who come to harm the country to enter it, and certainly when the goal is to destroy Israel as a Jewish state.”

The complete list:


• AFPS( (The Association France Palestine Solidarité)

• BDS France

• BDS Italy

• ECCP (The European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine)

• FOA (Friends of Al-Aqsa)

• IPSC (Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign)

• Norgeׂׂ (The Palestine Committee of Norway) Palestinakomitee

• PGS- (Palestine Solidarity Association in Sweden) Palestinagrupperna i Sverige

• PSC (Palestine Solidarity Campaign)

• War on Want

• BDS Kampagne


• AFSC (American Friends Service Committee)

• AMP (American Muslims for Palestine)

• Code Pink

• JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace)

• NSJP (National Students for Justice in Palestine)

• USCPR (US Campaign for Palestinian Rights)

Jerusalem Cats Comment: What about “Americans for Peace Now’ – Supporters of the self hating, anti Israel group Shalom Achshav or New Israel Fund which pays for many leftist NGOs in Israel to cause problems in Israel.

Latin America

• BDS Chile

South Africa

• BDS South Africa


• BNC (BDS National Committee)

The real and unabridged ‘Black List’ of BDS groups

Israel’s publicized current Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) blacklist is a partial one at best.

Lee Kaplan, 08 January 2018

14 Friends of Palestine (Marin, California)


Black Lives Matter

Boston 2 Palestine

Campus Action Network (part of Al Sharpton’s Action Network)

Christian Peacemaker Teams (Part of American Friends Service Committee)

Friends of Sabeel (FOSNA) with headquarters In Bethlehem, Christian anti-Semites

General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) San Francisco State

Global Exchange-Medea Benjamin’s group

Interfaith Peace Builders-Santa Cruz, California

Middle East Childrens’ Alliance in Berkeley, California

Mondoweiss website

Muste Foundation N.Y.

Norcal ISM, Free Palestine Movement, Free Gaza Movement (all three are Paul Larudee)

National Lawyers Guild

Presbyterian Synod

Rachel Corrie Foundation For Peace and Justice

South Bay Mobilization-San Jose, California

US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (

United Church of Christ Palestine/Israel Network

United Methodist General Board of Church and Society

Vermonters for Just Peace

WESPAC Foundation-N.Y.

Women in Black

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

The above groups are  the more active ones, but there are many more. Also excluded from the list:

 Al Awda Palestine Right to Return Coalition (One leader lives in Beit Sahour)

Olive Tree Initiative is in many California colleges subsidized by taxpayers

In addition, major Muslim groups that promote BDS in the US are:

Arab Action Network-Chicago

CAIR -Council on American Islam ic Relations

If Americans Knew- San Rafael, California


Muslim Public Affairs Committee

Muslim Students Association (most colleges)

Still other groups active in promoting BDS:

American Nazi Party

Columbia BDS a.k.a. Apartheid Divest

Council for the National Interest -Saudi backed anti-Semites

Duke Divest-Duke University

International ANSWER-a Marxist coalition of groups seeking socialist takeover

International Socialist Organization- Marxists who advocate violent overthrow of US government

Jews For Justice For Palestinians- UK based ISM group

La Voz De Azatlan – Chicano group advocates US Southwest be ceded to Mexico

La Raza-Chicano Revolutionary group

Middle East Studies Association

Nation of Islam-Farrakhan

Veterans For Peace-Seattle

Veterans Today-Fake Veterans website

Who Profits – Dalit Baum  (In Israel and USA)

Despite media narrative, Palestinians are far from ‘woke’

By on 26December2018
Here’s the headline accompanying a Dec. 25th Independent article about Palestinian reaction to upcoming Israeli elections, written by their Mid-East correspondent Bel Trew.

At first glance, the headline likely wouldn’t seem controversial.  However, if you reflect upon the assumption of the text, you can see an illustration of a larger pattern of media bias in their coverage the region.  The headline is culled from a paragraph in which a Palestinian Christian named Sami laments the prospects for peace and a two-state solution if another Likud government is formed – a government the Indy reporter described as “the most right-wing” in Israeli history.

Leaving aside the question regarding whether the current government is indeed the most right-wing in history, this framing, which permeates the article, sets up a dichotomy between putatively ‘far-right’ Israelis – in the context of a media which normally uses the word “right” as a pejorative – and, presumably, the more ‘progressive’ Palestinians who “fear” Israel’s dangerous rightward lurch.

Though this political contrast is the subtext of the article, Trew never explicitly assigns an ideology to the Palestinians, which is consistent with the manner in which reporters refrain from analyzing the ideology of Palestinians and their leaders – an omission nurtured by the tendency to view Palestinians as victims only, devoid of agency.  The media frame the conflict almost exclusively in terms of what Israel does or doesn’t do, which denies news consumers a fuller understanding of the conflict.

If journalists were to take Palestinian views and decisions seriously, their readers would see that Palestinians and their leaders are far more ‘right-wing’ than Israelis and their leaders on matters ranging from the treatment of women, support for violence and attitudes towards minorities. Polls from Pew Global and Anti-Defamation League (in 2013 and 2014) reveal the following:

  • 40% of Palestinians think suicide bombing is sometimes justified.
  • 89% of Palestinians think homosexuality is immoral.
  • 89% of Palestinians think women must always “obey” their husband.
  • 89% of Palestinians favor the imposition of sharia law into their society.
  • 45% of Palestinians think honour killings are sometimes justifiable.
  • 93% of Palestinians hold antisemitic views.

Palestinians, it seems, are not quite the peace and social justice warriors of media lore. They are arguably ‘far-right’, and certainly far from ‘woke’.

Whatever the outcome of the upcoming Israeli elections, we suggest taking with a grain of salt ideological characterisations of the new coalition, and treating with even a greater degree of skepticism idealized depictions of Palestinians that serve to reinforce the desired media narrative, yet have little if any relationship to reality.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email


For the last one hundred years the 70 Nations and the leftist have been trying to bring peace to the Middle East without luck. In the mean time the Jews in Eretz Israel built a Jewish Country. How about going back and trying the original options. Build a Jewish State for Jews, by Jews, with Jewish Torah Laws, Jewish Labor, Torah Courts and a Torah Government of stead of a bad recreation of the Leftist countries of Europe.

The U.S. Congress in 1922 March 7, 2008  |  Eli E. Hertz

On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:

“Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.” [italics in the original]

On September 21, 1922, the then President Warren G. Harding signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.

Here is how members of congress expressed their support for the creation of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine – Eretz-Israel (Selective text read from the floor of the U.S. Congress by the Congressman from New York on June 30, 1922). All quotes included in this document are taken verbatim from the given source.




JUNE 30, 1922

(Rept. NO. 1172)


Representative Walter M. Chandler from New York – I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:

(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration.
(2) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, they shall be required to sell their lands at a just valuation and retire into the Arab territory which has been assigned to them by the League of Nations in the general reconstruction of the countries of the east.
(3) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, under conditions of right and justice, or to sell their lands at a just valuation and to retire into their own countries, they shall be driven from Palestine by force.

“Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss briefly each of these alternatives in order. And first let me read the now celebrated Balfour declaration of date of November 2, 1917, during the progress of the Great War, and afterwards incorporated in the preamble of the British mandate authorized by the League of Nations. The Balfour declaration was in the following language:
His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by the Jews in any other country.

“If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one. It is conceded by the Arabs themselves that the present government of the country under the British mandate and through the Zionist organization as an administrative agency is infinitely better than the government of the Turks who were chased out of the country by Allenby, the British general. It is probably better than any that the Arabs could create and maintain for themselves.

“I respectfully submit that the Arabs in Palestine should be and would be happy and content under the present government of that country if it were not for Turkish and Arab agitators, who travel around over the land stirring up trouble by making false representations concerning the true character of the Zionist movement, and by preaching a kind of holy war against the immigrant Jews who arrive from day to day. The Arabs are well represented in the personnel of the present Palestine administration, which has recognized their language as one of the official languages of the country, and has given official standing to the Moslem religion.

“In the second place, if the Arabs do not wish to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination there is plenty of room outside in purely Arab surroundings. The British Government and her allies made overtures and gave pledges to the Arab people to furnish them lands and protect their freedom in consideration of Arab alliance with the Allies during the World War. That pledge has been kept. The Hedjaz kingdom was established in ancient Arabia, and Hussein, Grand Sheriff of Mecca, was made king and freed from all Turkish influence. The son of King Hussein, Prince Feisal, is now the head of the kingdom of Mesopotamia [Iraq], and Arab predominance in that country has been assured by the Allies to the Arab people.

“Mesopotamia is alone capable of absorbing 30,000,000 people, according to a report submitted to the British Government by the Great English engineer, Sir William Wilcocks. Arab rights are also fully recognized and protected by the French mandate over Syria. There are also several flourishing Arabic cultural and political colonies in Egypt. In short, the Arab-speaking populations of Asia and Africa number about 38,000,000 souls and occupy approximately 2,375,000 square miles, many times larger than the territory of Great Britain. In other words under the reconstruction of the map of the east, the Arabs have been given practical control of Greater Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and parts of Egypt, which gives them an average of 38 acres per person. If the Arabs are compelled to leave Palestine and turn it over entirely to the Jews, it is admitted that the Arab race would still be one of the wealthiest landowning races on the earth. Therefore, I contend that if they will not consent to live peaceably with the Jews, they should be made to sell their lands and retire to places reserved for them somewhere in Arabia [Saudi], Syria, Mesopotamia, or Egypt, that suit them best, and where they can worship Allah, Mahomet [Muhammad], and the Koran to their heart’s content. After all is said, the fact remains that the Arabs have more lands than they need, and the Jews have none. I am in favor of a readjustment under the Balfour declaration, without too great regard to nice distinctions in the matter of the question of self-determination. This thought brings me to my third proposal heretofore mentioned, that the Arabs should be driven out of Palestine by the British and Jews, or by somebody else, if they will not listen to the voice of reason and of justice.

“I shall probably be told that, regardless of the question of land and property rights, the Arabs have an interest in the holy places around Jerusalem. Admitting that their claims in this regard are just, there should be no trouble along this line. There is no reason to believe that Jews and Christians would deny them access to the holy places in the pilgrimages that they might desire to make from their Arab countries. But if the rights of the Jews to their ancient homeland are to be made dependent, as a final question, upon Moslem interests in the holy places around Jerusalem, I am willing and prepared to repudiate these rights entirely and to shut the Arabs out altogether.”

Guess the Iconic Zionist

Golda Meir in Poale Zion Chasidim pageant - 1919

Golda Meir in Poale Zion Chasidim pageant – 1919

US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman delivers remarks at Kohelet Forum, in an event marking US Secretary of State’s statement regarding the legality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Jerusalem, January 8, 2020.


Zuheir Mohsen

– Palestinian politician
Zuheir Mohsen (19361979) was a Palestinian leader of the Syria-controlled as-Sa’iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979.


*The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
*James Dorsey, “Wij zijn alleen Palestijn om politieke reden”, Trouw, 31 March 1977.

Ze’ev Jabotinsky, warned the Jew of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s to leave and in 1933 we get..

As soon as Hitler, y”sh rose to power, any doubts any European Jews still harbored as to his intentions should have been put to rest.  But, surely by the time Kristallnacht happened, could anyone have still had any illusions that Jews could continue to live in Europe?
Just go through the history of what the German Jews went through between January 30, 1933 – Adolf Hitler is appointed Chancellor of Germany a nation with a Jewish population of 566,000. and November 9/10, 1938 – Kristallnacht – The Night of Broken Glass.  (Source)

New Consider the situation in Eretz Yisrael over the same time period…

…in Mandatory Palestine, a growing Jewish population (174,610 in 1931, rising to 384,078 in 1936) was acquiring land and developing the structures of a future Jewish state despite opposition from the Arab population.

Hanotea (הַנּוֹטֵעַ, “the Planter”) was a citrus planting company based in Netanya and established in 1929 by long-established Jewish settlers in Palestine involved in the Benei Binyamin movement. In a deal worked out with the Reich Economics Ministry, the blocked German bank accounts of prospective immigrants would be unblocked and funds from them used by Hanotea to buy agricultural German goods; these goods, along with the immigrants, would then be shipped to Palestine, and the immigrants would be granted a house or citrus plantation by the company to the same value. Hanotea’s director, Sam Cohen, represented the company in direct negotiation with the Reich Economics Ministry beginning in March 1933. In May 1933 Hanotea applied for permission to transfer capital from Germany to Palestine. This pilot arrangement appeared to be operating successfully, and so paved the way for the later Haavara Agreement.

The Haavara (Transfer) Agreement, negotiated by Eliezer Hoofein, director of the Anglo-Palestine Bank, was agreed to by the Reich Economics Ministry in 1933, and continued, with declining German government support, until it was wound up in 1939. Under the agreement, Jews emigrating from Germany could use their assets to purchase German-manufactured goods for export, thus salvaging their personal assets during emigration. The agreement provided a substantial export market for German factories to British-ruled Palestine. Between November, 1933, and 31 December 1937, 77,800,000 Reichmarks, or $22,500,000, (values in 1938 currency) worth of goods were exported to Jewish businesses in Palestine under the program. By the time the program ended with the start of World War II, the total had risen to 105,000,000 marks (about $35,000,000, 1939 values).

Emigrants with capital of £1,000, (about $5,000 in 1930s currency value) could move to Palestine in spite of severe British restrictions on Jewish immigration under an immigrant investor program similar to the modern EB-5 visa. Under the Transfer Agreement, about 39% of an emigrant’s funds were given to Jewish communal economic development projects, leaving individuals with about 43% of the funds.

The Haavara Agreement was thought among some German circles to be a possible way to solve the “Jewish problem.” The head of the Middle Eastern division of the foreign ministry, the anti-NSDAP politician Werner Otto von Hentig, supported the policy of settling Jews in Palestine. Hentig believed that if the Jewish population was concentrated in a single foreign entity, then foreign diplomatic policy and containment of the Jews would become easier. Hitler’s own support of the Haavara Agreement was unclear and varied throughout the 1930s. Initially, Hitler seemed indifferent to the economic details of the plan, but he supported it in the period from September 1937 to 1939.

After the German invasion of Poland in September 1939 the program was ended.

The agreement was controversial both within the NSDAP and in the Zionist movement. As historian Edwin Black put it, “The Transfer Agreement tore the Jewish world apart, turning leader against leader, threatening rebellion and even assassination.” Opposition came in particular from the mainstream US leadership of the World Zionist Congress, in particular Abba Hillel Silver and American Jewish Congress president Rabbi Stephen Wise. Wise and other leaders of the Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933 argued against the agreement, narrowly failing to persuade the Nineteenth Zionist Congress in August 1935 to vote against it.

The right-wing Revisionist Zionists and their leader Vladimir Jabotinsky were even more vocal in their opposition. The Revisionist newspaper in Palestine, Hazit Haam published a sharp denunciation of those involved in the agreement as “betrayers”, and shortly afterwards one of the negotiators, Haim Arlosoroff was assassinated.  (Source)

Clearly, Hashem provided an escape hatch, but only up until a certain point.  And that point seems to have been 1939.  Until then, immigration to Eretz Yisrael for Jews was unrestricted.

The White Paper of 1939 was a policy paper issued by the British government under Neville Chamberlain in response to the 1936–39 Arab Revolt. Following its formal approval in the House of Commons on 23 May 1939, it acted as the governing policy for Mandatory Palestine from 1939 until the British departure in 1948, the matter of the Mandate meanwhile having been referred to the United Nations.

The policy, first drafted in March 1939, was prepared by the British government unilaterally as a result of the failure of the Arab-Zionist London Conference. The paper called for the establishment of a Jewish national home in an independent Palestinian state within 10 years, rejecting the idea of partitioning Palestine. It also limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 for 5 years, and ruled that further immigration was to be determined by the Arab majority (section II). Restrictions were put on the rights of Jews to buy land from Arabs (section III).

And the “grace” period for the Jews of Europe was over as they found themselves both locked in and locked out.

6 Facts That You Need to Know About Israel’s Legal Rights

Einat Wilf: Why the Israeli left collapsed

Palestine is Jordan, Jordan is Palestine

Comments on the “Einat Wilf: Why the Israeli left collapsed” video from YouTube:

Mark Simons 2 years ago (edited)
She’s absolutely hit the nail on the head! Palestinians had everything they now desire under Jordanian sovereignty, Complete absence of settlements, access to Jerusalem, albeit not their capital, passports, freedom of movement, equality, Jews not even allowed as visitors. Admittedly, political freedom was curtailed but no more than anywhere else in the Arab world. Sadly, they chose the silly promises of Yasser Arafat over King Hussein, and it’s been downhill ever since.

 So in the last one Hundred years the Arabs have rejected Option one. Israel needs to take Option Two and Three.

Failed Two State Solution ‘אולי הסרטון הכי חזק נגד ‘שתי מדינות לשני עמים

What Will Israel Look like in 5 Years with a Palestinian Arab State Alongside It?

Israel gives away land for fake “Peace Plans”, US gets Disasters

List of Middle East Failed peace proposals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name of Storm or Disaster


Faisal–Weizmann Agreement (3 January 1919)
San Remo conference (19 to 26 April 1920)
Peel Commission (July 7, 1937)
Peace proposals of Count Folke Bernadotte (1948)
1949 Armistice Agreements
UN Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967)
Jarring Mission (1967–1971)
Allon Plan (July 26, 1967)
Rogers Plan (1969)
Camp David Accords (1978)

Anwar Sadat wearing a nazi tie while negotiating with Moshe Dayan

Necktie diplomacy: meeting at the Knesset in Jerusalem in November 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, wearing a nazi tie, and Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan discuss a potential peace treaty between their respective Countries.

Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty (March 26, 1979)  Israel gave away the Sinai

Yamit (Hebrew: ימית‎‎) was an Israeli settlement in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula[1] Population: 2,500 people. Yamit was established after the 1967 Six-Day War until the Sinai was handed over to Egypt in April 1982. All the homes were evacuated and bulldozed.[2]

Three Mile Island

 The Three Mile Island accident was a partial nuclear meltdown that occurred on March 28, 1979, in reactor number 2 of Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station (TMI-2) in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States. It was the most significant accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant history.[2] The incident was rated a five on the seven-point International Nuclear Event Scale: Accident With Wider Consequences.[3][4]
Fahd Plan (1981)
Reagan Plan (September 1, 1982)
Fez Initiative (September 9, 1982)
May 17 Agreement, a failed attempt of peace between Lebanon and Israel (1983)
Madrid Conference of 1991

1991 Perfect Storm

This legendary storm traveled 1000 miles the wrong direction and sent 35 foot waves slamming directly into President Bush’s home in Kennebunkport, Maine.

 Oslo Accords (September 13, 1993)

More than 1,600 Israelis have been murdered and another 9,000 wounded since the signing. [27]

Hurricane Emily (1993)

Hurricane Emily on August 31, 1993 caused record flooding in the Outer Banks of North Carolina while remaining just offshore. It dissipated on September 6 to the southeast of Newfoundland.
President Clinton met with President Assad of Syria to discuss the possibility of Israel giving up the Golan Heights. (January 16th, 1994)

1994 Northridge earthquake

Northridge Earthquake, CA, January 17, 1994 — . FEMA News Photo

M 7.2 Earthquake* Damage occurred up to 85 miles (125 km) away, with the most damage in the west San Fernando Valley, and the cities of Santa Monica, Simi Valley and Santa Clarita. The “official” death toll was placed at 57;[14] More than 8,700 were injured [19] Total damage $13–$44 billion[3]
* Reported as 7.2 Old M Scale
Israel–Jordan peace treaty (1994)
 Wye River Memorandum (15–23 October 1998)

1998:  Hill Country, Texas

Oct. 17–19, 1998: Rainstorm. Hill Country. A massive, devastating flood set all-time records for rainfall and river levels, resulted in the deaths of 25 people, injured more than 2,000 others, and caused more than $500 million damage from the Hill Country to the counties south and east of San Antonio.
Camp David 2000 Summit (2000)
The Clinton Parameters (December 23, 2000)
 Taba summit (January, 2001)

Road map for peace (24 June 2002)

Elon Peace Plan (also known as “The Israel Initiative”) (2002)
The People’s Voice (July 27, 2002)
  Arab Peace Initiative (March 28, 2002)
Road Map for Peace (April 30, 2003)

May 2003 tornado outbreak sequence

The May 2003 tornado outbreak sequence in the United States was a series of tornado outbreaks that occurred from May 3 to May 11, 2003. Tornadoes began occurring over the affected area on April 30, but the most prolific continuous period was the seven-day period of May 4–10. There were 401 tornado reports in 19 states and 1 Canadian province.[2]
Isratine AKA One-State Solution (May 8, 2003)
Geneva Accord (October 20, 2003)
Sharm el-Sheikh Summit of 2005 (February 8, 2005)

Gush Katif -Tisha B’Av 5765 (2005)

Close to 10,000 Jews were expelled from their homes in the Gaza Strip and parts of northern Samaria.


Hurricane Katrina

Surge damage in Pascagoula, Mississippi

Surge damage in Pascagoula, Mississippi

Israel sent an IDF delegation to New Orleans to transport aid equipment including 80 tons of food, disposable diapers, beds, blankets, generators and additional equipment which were donated from different governmental institutions, civilian institutions and the IDF.[149]

2006 Franco-Italian-Spanish Middle East Peace Plan
Two-state solution
Three state solution
Israeli Peace Initiative (April 6, 2011)
Barack Obama told Israel that there must be a return to the pre-1967 borders (May 19, 2011)

2011 Joplin tornado

22May2011 a half-mile wide EF-5 multiple-vortex tornado ripped through Joplin, Missouri. According to Wikipedia, it was “the costliest single tornado in U.S. history.”

Arabs give Israel WAR

Conflicts considered as wars by the Israeli Ministry of Defense (as they were named by Israel) are marked in bold.[3]

Conflict Combatant 1 Combatant 2 Results Israeli commanders Israeli losses
Israeli Prime Minister Defense Minister of Israel Chief of Staff of the IDF IDF
War of Independence
 Israel Egypt Egypt
Jordan Transjordan
Syria Syria
Saudi Arabia
Flag of Hejaz 1917.svg Holy War Army
Arab League ALA

David Ben-Gurion
Yaakov Dori
Sinai War
United Kingdom United Kingdom
France France
 Egypt Victory

  • Sinai demilitarized, UNEF deployed.
Moshe Dayan
Six-Day War
 Israel  Egypt
Syria Syria

Levi Eshkol
Moshe Dayan
Yitzhak Rabin
War of Attrition
 Israel  Egypt
Soviet Union Soviet Union
Flag of Palestine - short triangle.svg PLO
Both sides claimed victory

Golda Meir
Haim Bar-Lev
Yom Kippur War
 Israel  Egypt
Morocco Morocco
 Saudi Arabia

David Elazar
Operation Litani
Lebanon FLA
Flag of Palestine - short triangle.svg PLO Victory

  • PLO retreat from South Lebanon.
Menachem Begin
Ezer Weizman
Mordechai Gur
First Lebanon War
Lebanon SLA
Lebanon Lebanese Front
Flag of Palestine - short triangle.svg PLO
Syria Syria
Lebanon Jammoul
InfoboxHez.PNG Hezbollah
Flag of the Amal Movement.svg Amal
Tactical victories, strategic failure[9]

  • PLO expulsion from Lebanon.[10]
  • Collapse of Maronite-Israeli alliance.
Ariel Sharon
Rafael Eitan
Security Zone conflict
Lebanon SLA
InfoboxHez.PNG Hezbollah
Flag of the Amal Movement.svg Amal
Flag of Lebanon.svg Jammoul

  • Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.[12]
Shimon Peres
Yitzhak Rabin
Moshe Levi
First Intifada
 Israel Flag of Palestine - short triangle.svg Fatah
Flag of Hamas.svg Hamas
Oslo I Accord

Yitzhak Shamir
Dan Shomron
Second Intifada
 Israel Flag of Palestine - short triangle.svg PA
Flag of Hamas.svg Hamas

  • Palestinian uprising suppressed.[13]
Ariel Sharon
Shaul Mofaz
Moshe Ya’alon
Second Lebanon War
 Israel InfoboxHez.PNG Hezbollah Stalemate

Ehud Olmert
Amir Peretz
Dan Halutz
Operation Cast Lead
 Israel Flag of Hamas.svg Hamas Victory

Ehud Barak
Gabi Ashkenazi
Operation Pillar of Defense
 Israel Flag of Hamas.svg Hamas Victory

  • Cessation of rocket fire into Israel.
Benjamin Netanyahu
Benny Gantz
Operation Protective Edge
 Israel Flag of Hamas.svg Hamas Both sides claim victory

Moshe Ya’alon
Jerusalem (2015)[Edd]  Israel Flag of Palestine - short triangle.svg PA Ongoing

And gave the rest of the World Terror

List of Islamist terrorist attacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dore Gold Cambridge Jerusalem Speech and Q and A



What’s Holding the Arab World Back?

Einat Wilf – How Israel Can Achieve Victory

The 2 State Solution is DEAD!

Yoram Ettinger: There is no Arab Demographic Time Bomb [Hebrew with English subtitles]


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Children at Play

As life imitates art. we found a chair in the trash, with the cats looking at it very closely in the afternoon. We are waiting for nightfall to see if Captain Cat sits in the chair and looks up at the sky.

Standard Trash Dumpster

Dumpster Diving anyone


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

BDS Academic boycott – Eat Crow

The insane left has been calling for academic boycotts of Israeli Academics for decades.

Now they are getting a taste of their own medicine.

Would you like salt with your Crow?

Academic boycott launched AGAINST U.S. after Trump Immigration Executive Order

Posted by January 31, 2017

The academic boycott circular firing squad forms on the left.

It’s not like I told you so.

But I told you so. Many, many times.

To those in the U.S. academic community who support the academic boycott of Israeli academics because they don’t like the policies of the Israeli government, I warned that they better prepare for the day when foreign academics start to boycott them for the actions of the U.S. government.

That day has arrived sooner than I thought. Though the boycott of U.S. academics being mounted is much less severe than the boycott sought against Israel, it’s a boycott nonetheless.

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports:

Some faculty members are calling for a boycott of academic conferences in the United States in reaction to an executive order, signed on Friday by President Trump, that bars citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.

A petition circulating online has drawn the signatures of hundreds of academics around the world.

“We the undersigned take action in solidarity with those affected by Trump’s executive order by pledging not to attend international conferences in the U.S. while the ban persists,” the petition says. “We question the intellectual integrity of these spaces and the dialogues they are designed to encourage while Muslim colleagues are explicitly excluded from them.” …

Max Weiss, an associate professor of history and Near Eastern studies at Princeton University and a signer of the petition, said in an interview that “academic boycott is one of the few resources that intellectuals and academics have for expressing their opposition to policies of a given government.”

Emery Berger, a professor of information and computer sciences at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, said he had heard discussions of relocating or banning conferences set to be held in the United States. Mr. Berger, who is involved in two subgroups of the Association for Computing Machinery, an international organization that runs many computer-science conferences, said members were discussing ways to lessen the effects of the travel ban.

“Science is intended to be free and open, and any place that restricts the travel of scientists to present their work is a problem,” Mr. Berger said. “We are talking about taking steps to mitigate this problem however we can.” He said he suspected other disciplines were having similar discussions.

He’s heard some academics call for a complete ban on conferences in the United States, until the order is lifted, Mr. Berger said.

In Solidarity with People Affected by the ‘Muslim Ban’: Call for an Academic Boycott of International Conferences held in the US

On 27 January 2017, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order putting in place a 90-day ban that denies US entry to citizens from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia. So far, the ban includes dual nationals, current visa, and green card holders, and is affecting those born in these countries while not holding citizenship of them. The Order also suspends the admittance of all refugees to the US for a period of 120 days and terminates indefinitely all refugee admissions from Syria. There are indications that the Order could be extended to include other Muslim majority countries.

The Order has affected people with residence rights in the US, as well as those with rights of entry and stay. Some of those affected are fleeing violence and persecution, and have been waiting for years for resettlement in the US as refugees. Others are effectively trapped in the US, having cancelled planned travel for fear that they will be barred from returning. The order institutionalises racism, and fosters an environment in which people racialised as Muslim are vulnerable to ongoing and intensifying acts of violence and hatred.

Among those affected by the Order are academics and students who are unable to participate in conferences and the free communication of ideas. We the undersigned take action in solidarity with those affected by Trump’s Executive Order by pledging not to attend international conferences in the US while the ban persists. We question the intellectual integrity of these spaces and the dialogues they are designed to encourage while Muslim colleagues are explicitly excluded from them.

*In order to add your signature, please write your name and institution in the box below where it says ‘Short answer’. This list is updated manually (at least twice per day) so your signature will not appear immediately. Please do not enter your signature more than once.
As of 1 February 2017, 13.00 GMT the letter has 5000+ signatures.

A column in The Guardian raises the same issue, Should academics boycott Donald Trump’s America?:

The inauguration of President Trump poses a challenge to liberals inside the US and beyond; a truth brought home only too vividly by the introduction of an executive order barring entry to all refugees and any citizens from a list of Muslim-majority countries. There are many ways that the academic community can resist – and is resisting – the illiberal, populist regime represented by Trump’s White House.

But for non-US academics who travel regularly to the US to participate in scholarly meetings, this latest measure presents a dilemma of a very particular kind: should we continue to participate in conferences held in the US which many of our colleagues, including British academics with dual citizenship, may be prevented from attending?

This is not an abstract question. I am myself in the process of making a panel submission for a conference to be held in Denver in November. Others already have places confirmed and flights booked for major events taking place in the coming months. Should we change our plans in solidarity with our banned colleagues, or would doing so only isolate US-based scholars whose critical voices are needed now more than ever?


I’m basically laughing my ass off over this development because it proves my point that academic boycotts are a systemic threat.

I still haven’t seen anyone call for an academic boycott of Turkey, despite thousands of academics having been arrested. And what about all the Arab countries and universities controlled by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority where there is no academic freedom?

Pretty selective outrage among the circular firing squad forming on the left.

UPDATE: The boycott is spreading, particularly in Canada, as the Toronto Star reports, and accusations that the U.S. is an Apartheid State are being made (just as they are made against Israeli to justify the boycott), Canadian academics boycott U.S. conferences over Trump ban:


New Report Confirms Ties Between BDS-Promoting NGOs and Terrorist Organizations

Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy (MSA) today released its “Terrorists in Suits” report, which reveals over a whopping 100 links shared between the internationally-designated terrorist organizations Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and at least 13 anti-Israel BDS promoting NGOs.

Click to Download the report Click to download PDF file MSA-Terrorists-In-Suits-English-1

What Starts Online, Doesn’t Stay There


New Damning Report Exposes the Dangerous Connection Between BDS Movement and Jew Hatred

By David Lange 17December2019

Click to Download the .PDF file Click to download PDF file The+New+Anti-Semites

The Zachor Legal Institute and have released a damning new reportThe Zachor Legal Institute and have released a damning new report that exposes the BDS faux ”civil rights” movement for what it is – a delegitimization campaign with genocidal aims, rather than the human rights movement that it purports to be.

Backed by a staggering 23 Jewish and Christian American non-governmental organizations, this report shows how hate groups on the Left and Right are joining forces, with the backing of designated foreign terror organizations, to inject this movement of intolerance and delegitimization into social justice campaigns, schools, government and society as a whole.

It is a long read but it is a vital resource in understanding exactly what we are dealing with. (I have dealt with some aspects of this phenomenon on this blog, but this report is next level).

Read the entire thing.

And mark my words: the haters are going to be pushing back hard against this report because it exposes them for the world to see.


Trump signs executive order to combat anti-Semitism on college campuses

Jennifer Kabbany – Fix Editor 11December2019

‘My administration will never tolerate the suppression, persecution or silencing of the Jewish people’

President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order that aims to fight anti-Semitism — particularly on college campuses — by clarifying that federal laws protect against discrimination against Jewish people and warning public institutions could lose funding if they ignore “the vile, hate-filled poison of anti-Semitism.”

“This action makes clear that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits the federal funding of universities and other institutions that engage in discrimination, applies to institutions that traffic in anti-Semitic hate,” Trump said in a ceremony right before signing the order.

“This is our message to universities,” Trump said. “If you want to accept the tremendous amount of federal dollars that you get every year, you must reject anti-Semitism. It’s very simple.”

New Research Study: Faculty Promote Their Anti-Israel Agenda In Classes

Posted by Monday, 13January2020

AMCHA Initiative: “Distorting and blocking the flow of knowledge is a violation of the norms and standards of scholarly inquiry and undermines the university’s academic mission”

Faculty Promote Their Anti-Israel Agenda In Classes

In the years since our founding, Legal Insurrection has covered anti-Israel activism on our nation’s campuses. Though expressions of anti-Zionism on campus are often the work of radical student groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), behind many such groups and their anti-Israel messaging stands faculty support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.

For a recent example, see the latest attempt by a small minority of faculty to pass a BDS resolution at the American Historical Association’s annual meeting in American Historical Association Rejects Anti-Israel Resolution for the 4th Time.

Of particular concern are university faculty who use their classrooms as platforms for spreading anti-Israel propaganda.

Now, a new report released January 8th by the Santa Cruz-based AMCHA Initiative “provides the first-ever empirical evidence suggesting that faculty who support the academic BDS movement against Israel are actively promoting that political agenda directly to students in their classrooms.”

Founded by University of California academics Leila Beckwith and Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, the AMCHA Initiative monitors and combats anti-Jewish activity on hundreds of college campuses across the United States. The organization does excellent work; most recently, Legal Insurrection Foundation signed on to an AMCHA-authored letter expertly analysing and opposing a proposed anti-Israel public school curriculum in California (Legal Insurrection Foundation opposes proposed anti-Israel public school curriculum in California).

AMCHA’s newest report builds on the group’s prior studies, which we have covered in the following posts:

The study, which examined 50 syllabi at 40 public and private American colleges and universities, was undertaken by AMCHA founders Professor Beckwith (Professor Emeritus at UCLA, renowned scientist, researcher, and statistician with a background in psychology and child development) and Professor Rossman-Benjamin (expert on antisemitism and former faculty member in Hebrew and Jewish Studies at the University of California).

You can read the full study here (pdf) or below:

Click to download PDF file Click to Download the report AMCHA-Syllabus-Study-Report

The study’s conclusions are disturbing; it found that:

  • Academic BDS-supporting instructors had an average of 78% of their course readings authored by BDS supporters, whereas non-BDS-supporting instructors had an average of 17% of their course readings authored by BDS supporters.
  • The two groups of instructors showed themselves to be qualitatively distinct from one another with respect to the selection of course readings, with almost no overlap of the groups: all of the academic BDS-supporting instructors had a majority of their readings authored by BDS supporters, whereas only 2 of the 35 syllabi of non-BDS-supporting instructors had a majority of their course readings authored by BDS supporters, and none more than 60%. These data demonstrate that the large quantitative difference between the groups is not just the result of a few outliers, but represents a qualitative difference between these two groups of instructors in terms of how they select course readings.

The stark differences between the average percentage of course readings with pro-BDS authors within the two groups leaves little doubt that instructors who support academic BDS make a calculated choice to heavily weight their course materials with readings authored by BDS supporters. These results, in turn, imply that not only are academic boycotting instructors actively including pro-BDS readings, they are also severely limiting or completely excluding readings that would provide a more balanced picture of Israel.AMCHA Initiative fully acknowledges that freedom of speech protects faculty’s right to sign petitions and make extramural statements in support of academic BDS and academic freedom generally protects their right to develop and teach courses as they see fit. However, the report notes the serious and harmful consequences of faculty bringing their support for academic BDS into the classroom.

Distorting and blocking the flow of knowledge is a violation of the norms and standards of scholarly inquiry and undermines the university’s academic mission. Furthermore, faculty who use their classrooms to give academic legitimacy to a wholly one-sided, anti-Israel perspective, in compliance with the guidelines of academic BDS, can engender among their students hostility not only towards Israel, but towards Israel’s on-campus supporters. Such sentiments can easily lead to acts targeting Jewish and pro-Israel students for harm, as AMCHA’s previous research has shown.

But there are ways universities can combat professor-propaganda if they so choose; helpfully, AMCHA’s report includes concrete action items for university leaders to pursue in order to address these problems:

  • Release public statement on the harm of academic BDS to U.S. students and faculty: University leaders should publicly acknowledge that while an academic boycott of Israel may ostensibly target Israeli universities and scholars, its implementation directly and substantively hurts students and faculty on their own campus, not only subverting their scholarly and educational opportunities and curtailing their academic freedom, but corrupting the entire academic mission of the university. Recently, chancellors and presidents at the University of California, University of Michigan, University of Massachusetts Amherst and Pitzer College issued strong statements acknowledging the harms of academic BDS for students and faculty, and condemning its implementation on their own campuses.

  • Establish policies against using the classroom for political advocacy: Universities should establish and publicly affirm policies that prohibit faculty from using their classrooms for political rather than pedagogical purposes.

  • Urge faculty to establish and enforce safeguards against classroom abuse: Faculty should be urged by university administrators to establish their own safeguards against the politicization of the academy. For example, following the refusal of a faculty member to write a letter of recommendation for a student wishing to study in Israel, a University of Michigan panel, appointed by the president, issued a report and recommendations emphasizing that faculty members must make judgments and act based solely on educational and professional reasons, not political motivations.

Ultimately, AMCHA’s report concludes that

…it is up to academic departments and faculty senates to determine whether the promotion of one-sided, highly politicized course content is deemed a legitimate use of academic freedom, or an abuse of it. However, given the clear and present harm that such politicization can cause to our schools, our students and society, it is time for tuition and taxpayers, as well as state and federal legislators, to demand that faculty address this question forthrightly, and to hold them accountable for their answer.


Federal Court upholds constitutionality of Arkansas anti-BDS law

Posted by 23January2019

“Because engaging in a boycott of Israel, as defined by Act 710, is neither speech nor inherently expressive conduct, it is not protected by the First Amendment.”

The U.S. has had a federal anti-Boycott law (Anti-boycott Regulations) on the books since the 1970s, to counter the Arab League Boycott of Israel.

There is under consideration in Congress, and many states have passed, laws to modernize the anti-Boycott laws to take into account the new form of the boycott, the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. As I have proven, BDS is a new form not only of the anti-Jewish boycotts of the 1920s and 1930s, but also of the Arab League Boycott, The REAL history of the BDS movement.

The popular wisdom is that such laws are an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. This popular wisdom is based on a misunderstanding of the law and the laws.

A decision in Arkansas upholding Arkansas’s anti-BDS law is a case in point.

The Arkansas Times challenged Arkansas’ anti-BDS law, represented by the ACLU:

The Arkansas Times Limited Partnership, the company that owns and publishes the Arkansas Times, is challenging in federal court a state law that requires government contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel or reduce their fees by at least 20 percent.

The suit, filed Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas on behalf of Arkansas Times LP, says Act 710 of 2017 violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by suppressing public debate. State Rep. Jim Dotson (R-Bentonville) and Sen. Bart Hester (R-Cave Springs) sponsored the bill that became Act 710, which took effect July 31, 2017.

Here is the complaint, the motion for a preliminary injunction and declaratory relief and a brief in support of an injunction and declaratory relief. The lawsuit has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Beth Deere and U.S. District Judge Brian Miller.

The Times initiated the suit after the University of Arkansas-Pulaski Technical College, which has advertised regularly in the Times and its sister publications, informed the Times that it had to sign a certification that it would not engage in a boycott of Israel if it wanted to continue to receive advertising contracts from the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees on behalf of UAPTC. The university imposed this condition because Act 710 requires all state institutions to do so. Timespublisher Alan Leveritt declined, and UAPTC has refused to advertise further with the Times. The Times has never participated in a boycott of Israel or editorialized in support of one.

You can read the Brief in Opposition to the Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed by Arkansas, setting for the arguments that the  anti-BDS law was constitutional.

Chief Judge Brian S. Miller in the Eastern District of Arkansas just threw out the lawsuit in an opinion which concluded that the law was not as the Judge initially expected it would be.  The Order (pdf.) is embedded at the bottom of this post.

The Judge’s opening paragraph was instructive of why we shouldn’t accept the common wisdom:

I routinely instruct jurors to follow my instructions on the law, even if they thought the law was different or think it should be different. This case presents an occasion in which I must follow the same principle, which is that I have a duty to follow the law even though, before researching the issue, I thought the law required a different outcome than the one ultimately reached.

The Judge noted that there are many similar laws:

This law is not the only one of its kind. Dozens of states have passed similar statutes. See Br. Opp. Pl. Mot. Prelim. Inj. at 2 n.1, Doc. No. 14. There is a somewhat similar federal law authorizing the “President [to] issue regulations prohibiting any United States person . . . from . . . support[ing] any boycott fostered or imposed by a foreign country against a [friendly] country.” 50 U.S.C. § 4607(a)(1) (1979); see also Anti-Boycott Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-232, §§ 1771–74.

Here’s the heart of the Judge’s legal analysis upholding the law:

The Times is unlikely to prevail on the merits of its First Amendment claims because it has not demonstrated that a boycott of Israel, as defined by Act 710, is protected by the First Amendment. This finding diverges from decisions recently reached by two other federal district courts. Jordahl, 336 F. Supp. 3d at 1016; Koontz v. Watson, 283 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1021–22 (D. Kan. 2018)

* * *

A boycott of Israel, as defined by Act 710, is neither speech nor inherently expressive conduct.

First, a boycott is not purely speech because, after putting aside any accompanying explanatory speech, a refusal to deal, or particular commercial purchasing decisions, do not communicate ideas through words or other expressive media….

Second, such conduct is not “inherently expressive.” FAIR, 547 U.S. at 66. In FAIR, an association of law schools restricted military recruiting on campuses to express their opposition to the military’s then-existing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Id. at 51. Congress responded to this restriction by passing the Solomon Amendment, which denied federal funding to law schools unless they allowed military recruiters to have equal access to campuses. Id. The law schools asserted that the law violated the First Amendment, id., but a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the challenge, holding that such conduct was “not inherently expressive” because the actions “were expressive only because the law schools accompanied their conduct with speech explaining it.” Id. at 66 (emphasis added).

* * *

The Arkansas Times’s argument that an individual’s refusal to deal, or his purchasing decisions, when taken in connection with a larger social movement, become inherently expressive is well-taken but ultimately unpersuasive. Such an argument is foreclosed by FAIR, as individual law schools were effectively boycotting military recruiters as part of a larger protest against the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

For these reasons, the First Amendment does not protect the Arkansas Times’s purchasing decisions or refusal to deal with Israel.

The court also rejected the common wisdom that there is an unfettered right to boycott:

The Times’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) creates an unfettered, black-letter right to engage in political boycotts is unpersuasive.

Claiborne concerned a primary boycott of white-owned businesses in Port Gibson, Mississippi by civil rights activists in order to protest racial discrimination. 458 U.S. at 899–900. The boycotters’ constitutional rights were being violated by local government officials, many of whom also owned the businesses being boycotted. Id. The Supreme Court observed that “[t]he right of the States to regulate economic activity could not justify a complete prohibition against a nonviolent, politically motivated boycott designed to force governmental and economic change and to effectuate rights guaranteed by the Constitution itself.” Id. at 914.

Crucially, Claiborne did not “address purchasing decisions or other non-expressive conduct.” Jordahl, Case No. 18-16896, Dkt. No. 26 slip op. at 5 (9th Cir. Oct. 31, 2018) (order denying stayof preliminaryinjunction) (Ikuta, J., dissenting); see also FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass’n, 493 U.S. 411, 426–27 (1990). Rather, the Court arrived at its decision only after carefully inspecting the various elements of the boycott, which consisted of meetings, speeches, and non-violent picketing. Claiborne, 458 U.S. at 907–08. It concluded that “[e]ach of these elements of the boycott is a form of speech or conduct that is ordinarily entitled to protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Id. The Court, however, did not hold that individual purchasing decisions were protected by the First Amendment. See id.

Similarly, under Claiborne, the Times maywrite and send representatives to meetings, speeches, and picketing events in opposition to Israel’s policies, free from any state interference. It may even call upon others to boycott Israel, write in support ofsuch boycotts, and engage in picketing and pamphleteering to that effect. This does not mean, however, that its decision to refuse to deal, or to refrain from purchasing certain goods, is protected by the First Amendment….

For these reasons, Claiborne does not hold that individual purchasing decisions are constitutionally protected, nor does it create an unqualified right to engage in political boycotts. In the years following Claiborne, it does not appear that the Supreme Court or any court of appeals has extended Claiborne in such a manner.

The court then dismissed the case.

In Arkansas, as elsewhere, anti-Israel pro-BDS activists still can dress up as peppers to protect America from Zionist vegetables. But they can’t contract with the state if they conduct their business with the state in a discriminatory fashion by boycotting Israel.

Roz Rothstein of the pro-Israel StandWithUs is thrilled:

“We commend the wisdom of the judge’s decision,” StandWithUs CEO Roz Rothstein said. “As the court recognized, taxpayers need to be protected from being complicit in discrimination, which both undermines state policy and harms its economy.”

I’m sure the reaction from anti-Israel activists will be furious.

I’m not familiar enough with the various state laws to compare Arkansas’s anti-BDS law to the others. But clearly the issue is not as clear cut, from a constitutional perspective, as some would have you believe.

Federal judge upholds anti-BDS law in Arkansas, says it has nothing to do with the First Amendment. He’s right.

January 24, 2019
The judge is correct. Boycotts aren’t speech – they are actions, which are not protected by the First Amendment.

And they are discriminatory actions. If boycotting Israel is considered free speech, then so should boycotting African American businesses, or women-owned businesses.

The ACLU disagrees:

“We disagree with the district court’s decision, which contradicts two recent federal court decisions and which would radically limit the First Amendment right to boycott,” said Holly Dickson, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, which represented the Times.

Yet the argument that refusing to do business with a specific group is not considered a First Amendment issue was given by none other than the ACLU themselves, which wrote in another case:

We filed our brief to explain why the First Amendment does not give a commercial business license to offer services to the general public and then – in violation of a state’s public accommodation law – refuse to provide photography services to particular customers based on their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, or any other characteristic. Under Elane Photography’s proposal, customers could walk into the photography studio at Sears or JCPenny for a family portrait and be told they cannot have their picture taken because they are a Latino family, or a Jewish family, or a family with a child who has Down Syndrome. A photography studio could tell an interracial family that taking their portrait would create expression celebrating their interracial relationship and that it would violate the studio’s First Amendment rights to participate in that expression.

I see no First Amendment difference between a “boycott” by a business of gay customers, as the Elane Photography case was, and a refusal to do business with Israeli-linked people or companies. In neither case is the issue free speech, as the ACLU says explicitly.

Refusing to accommodate a gay couple on religious grounds may be a different story, because then there is a case of two differing sets of rights that contradict each other and those cases need to be decided by a judge to determine whose rights are more important under the law. But in this case, it is clear that boycotting itself is not considered free speech, even when the boycott is done through a medium of expression such as, as the ACLU letter notes, “countless other businesses that use words, pictures, or other forms of creative expression, including court reporting services, translation services, graphic-design agencies, architecture firms, sound technicians, print shops, and dance studios, almost any good or service involving computer code, makeup artists, hair stylists, florists, and countless other services.”

Federal court upholds anti-BDS bill in Arkansas

By Jackson Richman

… The judge added, “Israel in particular is known for its dynamic and innovative approach in many business sectors, and therefore a company’s decision to discriminate against Israel, Israeli entities, or entities that do business with or in Israel, is an unsound business practice, making the company an unduly risky contracting partner or vehicle for investment.”…

…Eugene Kontorovich, a legal expert with the Kohelet Policy Forum and George Mason Law School, told JNS that the decision in Arkansas “correctly concluded what Supreme Court precedent clearly says: a company’s decision to refuse to do business with a particular group is simply not speech at all, it is commercial conduct.”

JerusalemCats Comments: If you are for BDS then you are for the Klu Klux Klan boycotting Gay, Blacks, Liberals and others. Are you for Cross Burning? And as the Judge stated. “Israel in particular is known for its dynamic and innovative approach in many business sectors, and therefore a company’s decision to discriminate against Israel, Israeli entities, or entities that do business with or in Israel, is an unsound business practice, making the company an unduly risky contracting partner or vehicle for investment.”

And speaking about birds

Jerusalem Bird Observatory

A great place for Hitbodedut

The Jerusalem Bird Observatory – JBO, houses one of many national bird-ringing centers. Together with the active ringing station, it serves as an ideal tool for conservation studies and research that monitor bird populations. Birds Migration patterns in Israel are studied throughout the various seasons and data is collected and analyzed in a comprehensive national database. The national database also receives information from our other birding stations throughout the country, including the Hula Valley, Eilat, Ma’agan Michael, Hazeva and Sde Boker.

The JBO is located in the center of Jerusalem near the Knesset. Visitors can stop by for an eco-experience. Bird watching, presentations, about bird migration in Israel, and a comprehensive urban nature experience is available for tourists visiting as groups or individuals.

The Gail Rubin Gallery, which was established to encourage nature artists and photographers in Israel, always houses exhibitions. The exhibitions focus on different aspects of nature and are free and open to the public whenever the building is open.

Birdwatching in Jerusalem

The Israeli government allocated the JBO a one-acre plot (5,000 square meters) of prime real estate, between the Knesset (the Israeli parliament) and the Supreme Court. The site is one of the few traditional birdwatching areas in Jerusalem that has not been harmed by development, and is centrally located, making it attractive as an educational and tourist center for the public.

Since the establishment of the JBO, birds have arrived in greater numbers each year, to the great pleasure of bird and bird watcher alike. The JBO acts as a magnet for many common migrating and wintering birds: Wrynecks, Collared flycatchers, Masked and Red-backed Shrikes, and Thrush Nightingales can be seen migrating and European Robins, Hawfinches, and Bramblings are regular winter visitors. In addition many resident Israeli birds make their home at the JBO, including Palestine Sunbirds, Spectacled Bulbuls and Israel’s national bird, the Hoopoe. The endangered Lesser Kestrels can be seen nesting in springtime in nearby Musrara and many Short-toed eagles and Little Owls can be found in the hills surrounding the city. The JBO is also home to a vast amount of animals and plants that make up an inseparable part of the local environment.

Visiting the JBO

The JBO is located directly next to the Knesset (Israeli Parliament), past the main entrance, nestled between the Rose Garden and Sacher Park. The bird hide of the JBO is open every day, 24 hours a day to the general public and is fully wheelchair accessible, thanks to the help of the Nyman family.

Visitors are invited to sit and observe the natural diversity of birds and wildlife that live in or pass through Jerusalem. Feel free to meander the paved road that leads from the Knesset and the Rose Garden to the gate of the cemetery, but we ask that you leave the rest of the site for the birds and not leave the paved road. For the sake of the wildlife and the comfort of our visitors, please refrain from smoking, lighting bonfires, loud music or littering.  Please keep your dogs on a leash while on the site.

Schedule: Sunday-Thursday from 9:00-3:00pm or by appointment.

Types of activities: Bird watching, night hikes, nature movies, bird banding, group tours, nature crafts, tree planting, photography workshops, sketching workshops, and birdwatching for beginners workshops.

Bird Ringing is conducted several days a week and guided tours are available by appointment. Please call or e-mail for details.

Phone: +972 (0)2-653-7374.
Mobile: +972 (0)52-386-9488

JBO Brochure

The secret history BDS hides from you

Vengefulness of Eisav on Display

24December 2018 Elder of Ziyon

A frightening parallel between German antisemites in the 1920s and BDS activists today

An eyewitness writing in 1920 described the effect in Germany of the publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion:

In Berlin I attended several meetings which were entirely devoted to the Protocols. The speaker was usually a professor, a teacher, an editor, a lawyer or someone of that kind. The audience consisted of members of the educated class, civil servants, tradesmen, former officers, ladies, above all students …. Passions were whipped up to the boiling point. There, in front of one, in the flesh, was the cause of all ills – those who had made the war and brought about the defeat and engineered the revolution, those who had conjured up all our suffering …. I observed the students. A few hours earlier they had perhaps been exerting all their mental energy in a seminar under the guidance of a world-famous scholar. … Now young blood was boiling, eyes flashed, fists clenched, hoarse voices roared applause or vengeance. (W. K. Timmermann – Incitement in international criminal law)

Imagine the scene. Authority figures – often academics – riling up groups of people, often students, with lies that are meant to do only one thing: to incite the audience into hating Jews. And their methods worked – they seemed to gather “incontrovertible facts” that fed into the people’s need to find a scapegoat, to find a symbol that they can channel all their hate into.

This happens, today, too.

What are BDS meetings all about, anyway? They are meant to incite the audience with lies (in this case, the Protocols are replaced with heavily edited videos and fabricated news stories) in order to get them to hate Israel, and Zionist Jews.

Like the German antisemites of the 1920s, today’s Israel-bashers work hard to ensure that any information about their avowed enemies that is not wholly negative get censored, stopped, or drowned out with protests. The entire concept of accusations of “pinkwashing” and “artwashing” is meant to say that even when Israelis do something that aligns with modern liberal and moral values, it is really a nefarious plot to hide their unspeakable crimes. When Israeli Jews do something seemingly bad it is horrendous, when they do something good even that is bad. There is no room in their discourse for truth or honesty. And like then, there are enough idiots who are more than willing to fully adapt a simplistic theory of Jewish/Zionist evil to explain all the ills of the world (today including things like US police brutality, racism, colonialism, slavery, stealing organs, poisoning water, economic woes, and so forth.)

And, sometimes, the BDS meetings go full circle to attack Jews themselves, as this recent video of David Sheen blaming false and twisted interpretations of the Talmud and Jewish scholars for Israeli actions at a BDS meeting in Amsterdam:

This lecture is exactly what the witness from 1920 was talking about.

Sheen makes explicit what BDS and Israel-haters have made implicit: the purpose of these meetings  is to rile people up and cause them to hate mainstream Jews who dare to support the existence of a Jewish state and sanctuary for Jews worldwide.


In case you actually watch this antisemitic video, Sheen quotes Maimonides to make it appear that he teaches Jews to ethnically cleanse gentiles. But the quotes are taken out of context, of course; Maimonides says that gentiles who live in Israel and accept the basic moral (Noachide) laws are to be treated with respect:

“Similarly, it appears to me that in regard to respect and honor and also, in regard to charity, a resident alien is to be treated as a Jew for behold, we are commanded to sustain them as Deuteronomy 14:21 states: ‘You may not eat any animal that has not been properly slaughtered… give it to the resident alien in your gates that he may eat it.’ …
However, our Sages commanded us to visit (all) gentiles (not just resident aliens) when ill, to bury their dead in addition to the Jewish dead, and support their poor in addition to the Jewish poor for the sake of peace. Behold, Psalms 145:9 states: ‘God is good to all and His mercies extend over all His works’ and Proverbs 3:17 states: ‘The Torah’s ways are pleasant ways and all its paths are peace.’

וכן יראה לי שנוהגין עם גרי תושב בדרך ארץ וגמילות חסדים כישראל. שהרי אנו מצווין להחיותן שנאמר לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה. …. אפילו העכו”ם צוו חכמים לבקר חוליהם. ולקבור מתיהם עם מתי ישראל. ולפרנס ענייהם בכלל עניי ישראל. מפני דרכי שלום. הרי נאמר טוב ה’ לכל ורחמיו על כל מעשיו. ונאמר דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום:

And Maimonides’ words about how to treat Gentiles come from the Talmud, where they are mentioned (with some variations)  no less than five times without any dispute: Tosefta Gittin 3:13-14, Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 5:9 47c, Jerusalem Talmud Demai 4:6 24a, Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zara 1:3 39c and Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 61a.

Similarly, Jew-haters like Sheen like to say that when the Talmud says “Whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world” it is really referring only to Jewish lives, but the quote is given twice: once in context of Jews, and once in context of everyone including non-Jews (Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:1 22a).

Sheen’s claim that “neighbor” in Leviticus excludes females and the non-religious is too absurd to even discuss. It has no basis in reality, period.

When you have to deal with a rude BDS Nazi that hates you because you are a Jew or someone who supports the State Of Israel.

9 Comebacks for Dealing with Rude People

9 Comebacks for Dealing with Rude People

“When someone is rude, keep a smile on your face. When you stay on the high road and keep your joy, you take away their power.” – Joel Osteen

People can tend to have a love/hate relationship with their families, bosses, friends, and even spouses. They can be the sweetest people with loving intentions one second, and the next, say something so offensive that makes you want to call them every name under the sun and react negatively. Questions like “When did you gain so much weight?” or “When will you ever get another boyfriend?” or “Why haven’t you found a job yet?” can really hit below the belt and really set off your temper, if you allow it. People don’t often think about what they say before they say it, which can lead to disaster if the person they are speaking to (you) becomes offended.

You have a right to defend yourself and speak your mind, but you can come up with a retort that allows you to express yourself while still being positive and polite.

Finding the right comeback to deal with rude people isn’t always easy, especially if that person signs your paychecks. If you have been wondering how to handle your mother-in-law who can’t seem to keep her mouth shut about your weight, or your boss who shows no remorse when he gives you extra work to do, consider these comebacks the next time you encounter rudeness.

1. Thank you.

A simple “thank you” speaks volumes when you encounter rudeness. Not only does it show the other person that you didn’t let their words affect you, it reflects maturity on your part. You chose not to ignore the person or get angry, but met both of those tactics somewhere in the middle. A “thank you” usually implies that you acknowledge someone’s thoughtfulness and are responding to that. However, in this case, your “thank you” will mean that you acknowledge the person’s rudeness and you choose not to let it affect you. That will shut the other person down quickly when he or she realizes that the comments didn’t phase you.

You choose how to react in any given situation, so choose happiness. It will keep your thoughts and actions positive, and show others that their rude words simply cannot take your power from you.

2. I appreciate your perspective.

Not only does is this an intelligent approach, it will show the person that you only wish to communicate in an adult manner, and not stoop to their level. Any rude comments reflect the other person’s shaky perception of themselves, so remember that when someone blurts out something tactless. They may want to bring you down, but you don’t have to let them. Show them that you will only continue the conversation with dignity and respect. They may actually respect you more by reacting in such a considerate way. If this doesn’t happen, shift your focus with this next tip.

3. This conversation is now over.

If you find yourself too angry to respond to someone in a civil way, simply end the conversation. You don’t want to cause permanent damage to a relationship by losing your cool, but you also don’t want to disrespect yourself by pretending like the person’s comments or questions are acceptable.

Choose to take the high road and not allow the conversation to carry on, and you will be able to keep your dignity while skipping a potential all-out brawl or heated argument.

4. Why do you feel that was necessary, and do you really expect me to answer?

Especially in group settings, this will likely put the other person in check very quickly. Instead of getting the expected irate response out of you, they will meet a calm, cool and collected you, ready to talk things over sensibly and decently. Also, it will give them a chance to redeem themselves, and apologize to you in front of your friends, family or co-workers.

Other people do need to know that you do not tolerate rude or uncalled for questions and comments, and that you will call attention to their uncouth behavior. If they say “yes” to the second part of your question, you can simply reply with “Well, it looks like this isn’t your lucky day,” and be done with the conversation.

5. That almost hurt my feelings.

While a little on the sarcastic side, it tells the other person that you choose not to absorb their negativity. It also deals with rude people in a mature way, and will probably discourage the other person from making any other remarks once they realize you aren’t affected by them.

6. You’re right.

While most people have a hard time saying these two words, it will benefit you to make the other person believe they were in the right in what they said, and will likely cause the conversation to be cut short. What more can they say after this comeback? You admit their rightness, and then disengage from the conversation. While you might not get as much satisfaction by using this tactic, it will put a damper on the other person’s enjoyment since they won’t get a rise out of you, which is what they were after in the first place.

 7. You always have something negative to say, don’t you?

This takes the attention off of you and back onto them, making them think twice about their choice of conversation topics. Not only will you, rightfully so, draw their focus onto their own words, but also force them to reconsider what they say in the future.

Speaking your mind when a person repeats behavior that offends you is never wrong or uncalled for; if you feel you need to draw attention to someone’s behavior, then listen to your gut. The person’s negativity likely affects other people besides you, so making them aware of their own toxic behavior will actually benefit you and others in future situations with this person.

8. I love myself, and I love you, too.

This may only apply in certain situations with friends, family, and your spouse. If you say it to your boss, you might either get a strange look or get your named removed from the payroll, so use it at your discretion. However, this comeback had to make an appearance on the list because of its effectiveness at shutting down rude people. Kindness always prevails over negativity; darkness cannot thrive where light is present. When you express to the other person just how much you love life and others, their comments become irrelevant and lose power quickly. Their sour mood and bleak outlook on themselves, you, and life will not be a match for your extreme happiness and zest for life. People also aren’t used to such raw emotion from others, and will probably be too surprised to formulate a proper response.

Your words have the ability to boost the entire energy of a room and promote more positive conversation. You can’t go wrong with that!

9. Laugh

This reaction will definitely catch the offender off-guard and make a rude person feel embarrassed for even making the comment in the first place. For instance, if your aunt brings up your recent job loss at dinner again, just laugh. It will make the present moment seem a little less serious, and will send a message that you don’t let other people’s rude comments affect your mood or outlook on life.

A good apology:

  1. Uses the words “I’m sorry” or “I apologize”
  2. Is specific about what one is apologizing for.
  3. Makes clear that one understands the impact of one’s words or actions on others.
  4. Makes clear how this won’t happen again.
  5. Makes amends. Explanation of one’s actions can be illuminating but is more often risky, because it easily veers into excuse-making.



Print Friendly, PDF & Email

French Court: Israel is legitimately entitled to occupy all land beyond the 67 line

First and foremost, the Versailles Court of Appeals had to determine the legal rights of Palestinians and Israelis in West Bank. Their conclusion: Palestinians have no right – in the international legal sense – to the region, unlike Israel, who is legitimately entitled to occupy all land beyond the 67 line. Four different international treaties all state that the land belongs to the Jews and cannot be given to any other group (San Remo Treaty 1920, Covenant of the League of Nations – Article 22 of 1922, Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 and the United Nations Charter – Article 80 1945)
There is no legal claim for the Islamofascist [PA, Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah et al.] colonists for any of the land

Paris Peace Conference On Israel-Palestine Will Ignore French Law

By Brian of London January 15, 2017
Today in France 70 nations will come together in Paris and blindly ignore the legal ruling of a highly significant French court (Court of Appeal of Versailles) just a few years ago. They will most likely issue a statement which creates the impression that Israel’s activities in Judea and Samaria are illegal.

I wrote a couple of weeks ago that there hasn’t been a proper legal case to decide the legality of Jews living in the lands captured back from Jordan in ’67, specifically Judea, Samaria and parts of Jerusalem. I was wrong! There was exactly such a case and, even though I’ve written about it, it has received almost no attention and been buried.

Here’s a very simplistic background on how western legal systems operate. In a Western country founded on Judeo-Christian principles, some form of elected body decides to pass and enact laws. Perhaps there is a foundational document (like the US Constitution) or centuries of history and a set of procedures and prior law on how stuff is done (the UK). One thing that unites all these systems is that new laws must be tested in court.

A law enters the books when the elected officials have all agreed on it, but until someone breaks the law or challenges it in some way, it isn’t fully tested.

Fortunately there isn’t a government for the entire world (and plans for such a monstrosity probably took a backward step when Hillary Clinton lost in November). The UN, as a club of dictators, despots and dastardly deed doers (with a sprinkling of decent, democratic states) certainly isn’t remotely close to a single government for the world that any sane person would submit to. The International Criminal Court in the Hague is also similarly problematic. International law, therefore, stems from a bunch of widely (but not universally) accepted treaties and agreements many nations have signed up to going back, in cases, hundreds of years and methods for deciding disputes are confusing.

But just as with nations passing laws, until a court hears a case based on the law, interpretation of that law isn’t set. That’s why there is such a thing as a “legal opinion”. In any given case there are two or more sides arguing that they’ve understood the law correctly and the other side is wrong.

That’s the situation with Israel’s status in territory it captured in various defensive wars since 1948. When I wrote “you can believe arguments one way or another, but you can’t yet say the matter of settlements is settled” I was overlooking one very important case from France in 2013 which I even wrote about back then! A week after the case concluded (with a resounding win for the Israeli side and a defeat for a PLO backed boycott effort) I wrote the following:

As we first reported here on Israellycool last week, a French court has confirmed some aspects of the legal situation regarding Israel and the hills of Judea and Samaria, especially around Jerusalem.

Now the larger news outlets have had time to think about this and get the opinion of greater legal minds than this humble blogger.

And the answer seems to be, it is a victory, but only if you didn’t know anything about international law and the specifics of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions.

Well I’d say that’s just about everyone on earth and doubly so for everyone who is deluded by BDS campaign lies!

Exactly as I noted then, the legacy media completely ignored this ruling or downplayed it because it didn’t fit their lethal narrative: Jews are illegal settlers in what was once their own land. Nobody in the hostile legacy media has referred to it since (try to google for it).

Jean-Patrick Grumberg (the original reporter I linked to back in 2013 on the story) has now re-published a more detailed account of the technicalities of the case which related to the building, in Jerusalem, of the light rail system which connects both predominantly Arab and Jewish neighbourhoods to the centre of Jerusalem.

The entire blog post is definitely worth reading (a few times) but here are the headlines:

In a historical trial carefully « forgotten » by the media, the 3rd Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Versailles declares that Israel is the legal occupant of the West Bank*.

By Maximilian Dörrbecker (Chumwa) - 2012-08-19OpenStreetMap data for the background, CC BY-SA 2.0,

By Maximilian Dörrbecker (Chumwa) – 2012-08-19OpenStreetMap data for the background, CC BY-SA 2.0,

In the 90s, Israel bid for the construction of the Jerusalem light rail. The tender was won by French companies Veolia and Alstom. The light rail was completed in 2011, and it cross Jerusalem all the way to the east side and the « occupied territories » (more about this term later).

Following this, the PLO filed a complaint with the High Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance) of Versailles France, against Alstom and Veolia, because according to PLO, « the construction of the tram is illegal since the UN, the EU, many NGOs and governments consider that « Israel illegally occupy Palestinian territories ».

First and foremost, the Versailles Court of Appeals had to determine the legal rights of Palestinians and Israelis in West Bank. Their conclusion: Palestinians have no right – in the international legal sense – to the region, unlike Israel, who is legitimately entitled to occupy all land beyond the 67 line.

Why is this an historical ruling: it is the first international case since the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948.

The Court of Appeal does not deny the occupation, but it destroys one after another all the Palestinian arguments.

Israeli occupation does not violate any international law.

Propaganda is not international law.

Humanitarian law was not violated.

The PLO and the Palestinians were dismissed.

This is how Jean-Patrick concludes his post (which also includes the entire court decision in French).

The Court of Appeal therefore sentenced the PLO (and Association France Palestine Solidarité AFPS who was co-appellant) to pay 30,000 euros ($32,000) to Alstom, 30,000 euros to Alstom Transport and 30,000 euros to Veolia Transport.

Neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority nor the AFPS appealed to the Supreme Court, therefore the judgment has become final.

This is the first time that a Court has legally destroyed all Palestinian legal claim that Israel’s occupation is illegal.

The Jerusalem Chords Bridge or Jerusalem Bridge of Strings גשר המיתרים‎, Gesher HaMeitarim, also called the Jerusalem Light Rail Bridge is a cantilever spar cable-stayed bridge at the entrance to the city of Jerusalem, Israel, designed by the Spanish architect and engineer Santiago Calatrava. The bridge is used by Jerusalem Light Rail’s Red Line, Incorporated in the structure is a glass-sided pedestrian bridge enabling pedestrians to cross from Kiryat Moshe to the Jerusalem Central Bus Station.

Pompeo Busts the ‘Occupation’ Myth The claim that Israeli settlements are illegal was flimsy in 1978 and is ridiculous in 2019. By Eugene Kontorovich

Israeli settlements in the West Bank do not violate international law. That is now America’s official view, announced Monday by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The historic decision repudiates the conclusions of a 1978 State Department memorandum.

For decades, Israel’s detractors have appealed to consensus, asserting that settlements are illegal because the entire international community agrees they are illegal. As with Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the Trump administration has refused to be cowed by a hollow consensus. By dissenting, the U.S. has destroyed both the consensus and the frail arguments that relied on it.

The four-page 1978 memo, written by legal adviser Herbert Hansell, was hardly a thorough study. It painted with broad strokes across several issues and cited no precedent for its key conclusions. Most important, its legal analysis of occupation and settlements has never been applied, by the U.S. or anyone else, to any other comparable situation.

Hansell’s memo took two analytic steps. First, it concluded that Israel was an “occupying power” in the West Bank. Next, it invoked an obscure provision of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which says the “Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Hansell concluded that Jews who have moved past the Green Line into disputed territory have somehow been “deported or transferred” there by the state of Israel.

Under international law, occupation occurs when a country takes over the sovereign territory of another country. But the West Bank was never part of Jordan, which seized it in 1949 and ethnically cleansed its entire Jewish population. Nor was it ever the site of an Arab Palestinian state.

Moreover, a country cannot occupy territory to which it has sovereign title, and Israel has the strongest claim to the land. International law holds that a new country inherits the borders of the prior geopolitical unit in that territory. Israel was preceded by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, whose borders included the West Bank. Hansell’s memo fails to discuss this principle for determining borders, which has been applied everywhere from Syria and Lebanon to post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine.

Even on its own terms, the memo’s conclusions no longer apply. Because occupation is part of the law of war, Hansell wrote, the state of occupation would end if Israel entered into a peace treaty with Jordan. In 1994 Jerusalem and Amman signed a full and unconditional peace treaty, but the State Department neglected to update the memo.

Even if there were an occupation, the notion that it creates an impermeable demographic bubble around the territory—no Jew can move in—has no basis in the history or application of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Almost every prolonged occupation since 1949—from the Allies’ 40-year administration of West Berlin to Turkey’s 2016 occupation of northern Syria—has seen population movement into the occupied territory. In none of these cases has the U.S., or the United Nations, ever claimed a violation of this Geneva Convention provision.

Mr. Pompeo’s action shows the U.S. understands that we can’t have one international law for one country and another for the rest of the world.

Mr. Kontorovich is a professor at George Mason University Scalia Law School.

The only question on settlement legality is: Why did it take so long?

When it came to the issue of the settlements, the discussion was not, to quote Professor Eugene Rostow, “about legal rights but about the political will to override legal rights.”

Dr. Richard L. Cravatts, 20November2019

In reversing the Obama administration’s shameful acceding to the UN Security Council’s 2016 resolution that Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria were illegal under international law,  US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo finally stated what was obvious to many legal scholars and others who have assessed the facts on the ground; namely, as Pompeo put it, “The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.” Additionally, as he noted, while the decision “does not prejudice or decide legal conclusions regarding situations in any other parts of the world,” the Secretary emphasized that the affirmation of the settlements’ legality “is based on the unique facts, history, and circumstances presented by the establishment of civilian settlements in the West Bank.”

Those “unique facts, history, and circumstances,” of course, have existed for some time now, but were ignored or purposely contorted to promote a defective diplomacy in which, it was thought, the realization of Palestinian Arab statehood was being compromised by the construction of Jewish housing in the ‘West Bank’.

The settlement debate had also been hijacked by the Arab world and its Western apologists who, willingly blind to history, international law, and fact, continued to assign the blame for the absence of peace on the perceived offenses of occupation and Israeli truculence. Thus, for instance, then-Secretary Hillary Clinton and her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, had both referred to the nuisance Israel caused by letting Jews live in the ‘West Bank’, against the wishes of the Palestinian Arabs who view that territory as once and forever theirs, as “unhelpful” in seeking a viable solution to Palestinian Arab statehood.

What was truly “unhelpful,” however, were the repeated references to the ‘West Bank’ and Gaza, as well as East Jerusalem, as “Arab” land, the putative Palestinian state in waiting, encumbered only by Israeli oppression, the dreaded occupation, and those pesky settlers. This widely held notion that European Jews, with no connection to historic Palestine, colonized Arab land and displaced the indigenous Palestinian Arab population, of course, is a key part of what Professor Richard Landes of Boston University defined as the “cognitive war” against Israel; it serves the perverse purpose of validating Arab territorial rights to the ‘West Bank’ and Gaza, and, more importantly, casts Israelis as squatters who have unlawfully expropriated land that is not—and never was—theirs.

Secretary Pompeo’s confirmation of the legality of the settlements serves to reverse the faulty historical assumptions and misreading of law that has animated the settlement debate, principally the fact that not only all of the land that is current-day Israel, but also Gaza and the ‘West Bank’, is part of the land granted to the Jews as part of the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, which recognized the right of the Jewish people to “close settlement” in a portion of those territories gained after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after World War I.

According to Eugene V. Rostow, the late legal scholar and one of the authors of UN Security Council Resolution 242 written after the 1967 war to outline peace negotiations, “the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan River, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors,” something which Israel’s intransigent Arab neighbors have never seemed prepared to do.

Moreover, Rostow contended, “The Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is conferred by the same provisions of the Mandate under which Jews settled in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem before the State of Israel was created,” and “the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the existing Palestinian population to live there.”

The Six Day War of 1967, in which Israel recaptured Gaza and the ‘West Bank’, including Jerusalem, resulted in Israel being cast in another perfidious role—in addition to colonial usurper of Arab land, the Jewish state became a “brutal” “occupier” of Arab Palestine, lands to which the Jews presumably had no right and now occupied, in the opinion of many in the international community, illegally.

But when did the ‘West Bank’, Gaza, and East Jerusalem become Palestinian land? The answer is: never. In fact, when Israel acquired the ‘West Bank’ and Gaza and other territory in 1967 after being attacked by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, the Jewish state gained legally recognized title to those areas.

In Israel’s 1948 war of independence, Egypt, it will be recalled, illegally annexed Gaza at the same time Jordan illegally annexed the ‘West Bank’—actions that were not recognized by most of the international community as legitimate in establishing their respective sovereignties.

Israel’s recapture of those territories in 1967, noted Professor Stephen Schwebel, State Department legal advisor and later the President of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, made the Jewish state what is referred to as the High Contracting Party of those territories, both because they were acquired in a defensive, not aggressive, war, and because they were part of the original Mandate and not previously under the sovereignty of any other High Contracting Party. “Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully,” Schwebel wrote, referring to Jordan and Egypt, “the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.”’

It is also morally repellent, for those arguing on the Palestinian Arab side, that the ‘West Bank’, like Gaza, eventually be made judenrein, totally absent of Jews, that, as Mahmoud Abbas has loudly announced on more than one occasion, the future Palestinian state would not have one Jew living within its borders.

Putting aside the fact that it is Israel that is continually derided for being racist and exclusionary (despite having one million Arab citizens), only in a world turned upside down would diplomats uphold a principle that Jews—and only Jews—not be allowed to live in certain territories, and particularly those areas to which they have irrevocable and inalterable biblical, historic, and legal claims.

In fact, Professor Emeritus Jerold Auerbach of Wellesley College has written that, protests from the State Department and many in the West aside, “Israeli settlement throughout the West Bank is explicitly protected by international agreements dating from the World War I era, subsequently reaffirmed after World War II, and never revoked since . . . The [Mandate for Palestine] recognized ‘the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine’ and ‘the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country’ . . . This was not framed as a gift to the Jewish people; rather, based on recognition of historical rights reaching back into antiquity, it was their entitlement.”

While those seeking Palestinian statehood conveniently overlook the legal rights Jews still enjoy to enable them to occupy all areas of historic Palestine, they have also used another oft-cited, but defective, argument in accusing Israel of violating international law by maintaining settlements in the ‘West Bank’: that since the Six Day War, Israel has conducted a “belligerent occupation.”

But as Professor Julius Stone discussed in his book, Israel and Palestine, the fact that the ‘West Bank’ and Gaza were acquired by Israel in a “sovereignty vacuum,” that is, that there was an absence of High Contracting Party with legal claim to the areas, means that, in this instance, the definition of a belligerent occupant in invalid. “There are solid grounds in international law for denying any sovereign title to Jordan in the West Bank,” Stone wrote, “and therefore any rights as reversioner state under the law of belligerent occupation.”

So, significantly, the absence of any sovereignty on territories acquired in a defensive war—as was the case in the Six Day War of 1967—means the absence of what can legally be called an occupation by Israel of the ‘West Bank’, belligerent or otherwise.

The matter of Israel violating Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention is one that has been used regularly, and disingenuously, as part of the cognitive war by those wishing to criminalize the settlement of Jews in the ‘West Bank’ and demonize Israel for behavior in violation of international law. It asserts that in allowing its citizens to move into occupied territories Israel violates Article 49, which stipulates that “The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territory it occupies.”

The use of this particular Geneva Convention seems particularly grotesque in the case of Israel, since it was crafted after World War II specifically to prevent a repetition of the actions of the Nazis in cleansing Germany of its own Jewish citizens and deporting them to Nazi-occupied countries for slave labor or extermination.

Clearly, the intent of the Convention was to prevent belligerents from forcibly moving their citizens to other territories, for malignant purposes— something completely different than the Israel government allowing its citizens to willingly relocate and settle in territories without any current sovereignty, to which Jews have longstanding legal claim, and, whether or not the area may become a future Palestinian state, should certainly be a place where a person could live, even if he or she is a Jew.

And does anyone doubt that once the Palestinians, aided and abetted by mendacious Western elites, diplomats, and an anti-Israel international community of supporters, have purged Gaza, the ‘West Bank’, and East Jerusalem of all Jews, that new calls will then arise accusing Jews of “occupying” more “Arab” lands in Tel Aviv, Netanya, Tiberias, or Haifa?

Professor Rostow himself saw through the disingenuous talk about legal rights and resolutions when it came to the issue of the settlements. The discussion was not, in his mind, “about legal rights but about the political will to override legal rights.” In fact, the settlement debate is part of the decades-old narrative created by the Palestinian Arabs and their Western enablers to write a false historical account that legitimizes Palestinian claims while air-brushing away Jewish history.

“Throughout Israel’s occupation,” Rostow observed, “the Arab countries, helped by the United States, have pushed to keep Jews out of the territories, so that at a convenient moment, or in a peace negotiation, the claim that the West Bank is ‘Arab’ territory could be made more plausible.”

With Secretary Pompeo’s bold statement reversing the legal status of the settlements, at least for the time being, that “convenient moment” may be less likely to occur and at least one key element in the cognitive war against Israel seems to have neutralized.

Richard L. Cravatts, PhD, President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), is the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.

Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely to Arab MKs: You are thieves of history

Tzipi Hotovely stands up in front of Arabs members:
“You are stealing our history” and then shows them the Old Testament proving Jewish connection to Israel and then the “history” of Palestine… an empty book
Watch her take them apart!

What the Members of the Knesset need to do is listen to the Gedolim and transfer the terrorist and their supporters out of Israel.

This is what we get if we do not transfer the terrorist and their supporters out of  Eretz Israel.

Numbers 33:55:But if you don’t drive out the inhabitants of the land from in front of you, then those you allow to remain will become like thorns in your eyes and stings in your sides — they will harass you in the land where you are living.

Mahmoud Abbas Contradicts the Palestinian Narrative on Refugees

This is what we have to deal with.

Real Housewives of ISIS

Now for some real Truth

Alan Dershowitz Brilliantly Strikes down Anti-Israel Question at Conference

Rabbi Lazer Brody, The End of Days, 7-21-2015 2

One Raid Shows All You Need to Know About Israel’s Current Predicament

by Stephen M. Flatow /

Israeli forces operating in the West Bank city of Jenin, Jan. 18, 2018. Photo: Reuters / Mohamad Torokman.

Israeli forces operating in the West Bank city of Jenin, Jan. 18, 2018. Photo: Reuters / Mohamad Torokman. – You wouldn’t think that one isolated Israeli counter-terror raid could explode every major myth about Israel’s conflict with the Palestinian Arabs. But last week’s raid in Jenin came pretty close to doing just that.

Overnight on January 17, Israeli commandos entered the city of Jenin in search of two particular Arab terrorists. When the operation was over a few hours later, the Israeli forces withdrew

Wait — the Israelis withdrew? But isn’t Israel “occupying” the Palestinians? That’s what J Street and Jewish Voice for Peace are always telling us. Just this week, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, head of the Union for Reform Judaism, wrote that Israel is “ruling over millions of Palestinians.”

I guess that Rabbi Jacobs hasn’t been to Jenin lately. In fact, I would imagine that he hasn’t been there since at least 1995. That was the year when Israel withdrew all of its forces from the city (and the other areas where 98 percent of Palestinians reside), and a new power took over: the Palestinian Authority (PA). Counter-terror raids like the one in Jenin are the only occasions when Israeli forces enter PA-ruled cities.

Back to the story. The Israeli commandos were searching for the terrorists who carried out last week’s brutal drive-by murder of Rabbi Raziel Shevach, the father of six young children. As the Israelis were searching, The Times of Israel reports, “a violent riot broke out. … Palestinians hurled improvised explosive devices, rocks and fired at the forces.”

Wait — what? Some on the left have been telling us for decades that ordinary Palestinian Arabs are moderate, peace-seeking, and opposed to terrorism. The residents of Jenin should have been delighted that Israeli forces were coming to rid their city of terrorists. In fact, if they’re so moderate, they should have been actively assisting the anti-terror efforts.

Instead, the local residents impeded the hunt for the terrorists — by trying to shoot, stone and burn the Israeli soldiers to death. Would some J Streeter please explain this? I’m confused. Can these be Israel’s future peaceful neighbors?

I wonder if Jenin residents’ passionate support for terrorism and hatred of Jews and Israel has anything to do with the anti-Jewish textbooks that are used in PA schools, or the non-stop anti-Jewish incitement in the PA-controlled media and mosques.

Or maybe that’s all just a coincidence. Maybe how Palestinians behave has no connection whatsoever to what they watch, hear and read from their teachers, imams and political leaders 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Fortunately, the Israeli forces eventually caught up to two of the terrorists. They killed one and captured the other. Both were identified as members of a local Hamas cell.

But that can’t be. The Palestinian leadership promised, in the Oslo Accords, to disband all terrorist groups, seize their weapons and outlaw them. In other words, to put them out of business. How can it be that, 23 years after the PA took over, Hamas still has active terrorist cells in the city?

Surely the PA has the means to do the job. After all, the PA has one of the largest per-capita security forces in the world. Yet the PA never outlawed Hamas. It never arrested its members or seized its weapons. The PA treats Hamas like brothers, and allows the group to operate freely in Jenin, and everywhere else.

But don’t take my word for it. Look at The New York Times. Every once in a while, the truth about the PA and Palestinian terrorists manages to slip into one of its articles. On March 23, 2014, the Times reported that Israeli troops were forced to enter the Jenin refugee camp in pursuit of terrorists because although Jenin is under the “full control” of the PA, “the Palestinian [security forces] did not generally operate in refugee camps.”

Let me repeat what the Times said: The PA’s security forces do not operate in refugee camps. It doesn’t matter what the Oslo Accords say about the PA’s obligation to fight terrorists. It doesn’t matter how many Israelis the terrorists murder. The PA is not going to shut them down. Never has, never will.

One final fact from the recent Jenin raid. The shots fired — by “moderate” Jenin residents and by terrorists whom the PA lets run free — wounded two of the Israeli soldiers. An Israeli military spokesman said that one soldier was injured “seriously,” and that one was injured “lightly.”

According to IDF terminology, an injury is classified as “serious” if the victim’s life is in danger. A “moderate” injury means the victim could lose a limb. Anything short of losing a limb is categorized as a “light” injury. The victim might have to go through dozens of surgeries. He might have to walk with a severe limp, or he might suffer seizures for years to come. Technically, it’s still a “light” injury.

These two courageous young Israeli men risked their lives to protect their fellow Jews — and their lives may well have been shattered as a result. But you will never hear anything further about it. You will never hear on CNN, or read in The New York Times, about what these two Israelis suffered, or how their future lives will be affected. That kind of news is not considered fit to print.

Stephen M. Flatow, a vice president of the Religious Zionists of America, is an attorney in New Jersey. He is the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

There must be a creator vs. Global Warming

The Purpose of Life

The lies the Academics tell

An Inconvenient Truth For Al Gore: The Ice Is Still There

by Tyler Durden 20December2018

Authored by Onar Am via Liberty Nation,

Former Vice President Al Gore made a ruckus at the COP15 climate conference in December 2009 when he said that “some of the models say that there is a 75% chance that Arctic sea ice could be completely gone during part of the summer in only five to seven years.”

Now, nine years later, the ice is still there, just like the moderate scientists predicted.

It wasn’t just this prophesy that failed abysmally. The legacy media has not reported on it, but most alarmist predictions have failed. The earth did not warm significantly in the last two decades, a phenomenon that scientists refer to as the “pause” or “hiatus” in warming, and the weather has not been getting more extreme. Currently, the climate science community is in the awkward space between recognizing that warming has slowed down and acknowledging that this implies that the computer models are wrong.


President Donald Trump has referred to global warming as a “hoax.” While this, as many of his other statements, is inaccurate, it is directionally true. It did not start as a hoax. Highly ideologically motivated scientists inserted themselves at the center of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They wanted to be right, and therefore made a few shortcuts.

Until around 2000, the IPCC was still heavily influenced by objective scientists. But in 1999, Dr. Michael Mann published a paper with a graph that became the poster boy of climate alarmism: The Hockey Stick Graph.

It was rushed through peer review and plastered all over the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report in 2001. After this, no-one was allowed to doubt that humans were dramatically altering the climate. There was only one problem with it: Mann was incompetent, and the conclusions were bogus. A Canadian engineer called Stephen McIntyre started doing what no-one else had done before: He looked at the data and tried to recreate the result.

Mann tried to smear him, but after many years one of the leading statisticians in the U.S., Edward Wegman, was commissioned by Congress to write a report on the Hockey Stick Graph. The Wegman Report was a devastating blow to the credibility of Mann. The report demonstrated that the method he had used to produce the hockey stick graph could be used to create any shape you wanted.

The Cover-Up

The Wegman report should have ended Mann’s career, and many people in the IPCC should have lost their jobs for sloppy work and incompetence, but instead – because they have the media on their side – they’re still around.

Then in 2009, someone leaked emails from this group of tightly knit scientists, and they showed less than an honest handling of the situation. Rather than dealing with the matter in a scientifically rigorous manner, they tried to cover it up. This leak has been referred to as Climategate.

We do not have similar information from other areas of climate science, but some of the behavior we observe is consistent with fraud.

The 97% Consensus

One example is the claim that there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists. What is rarely mentioned is that most so-called climate skeptics fall within that 97%. Most skeptics do not believe that humans do not affect the climate. They merely say that the warming is small enough to be of no concern. Why do the alarmists have to falsely boost their credibility with inaccurate claims about how many scientists support their position?

The Temperature Adjustments

Another example is the continual adjustments made to historical temperature data. There are many error sources in temperature measurements that can cause false trends. Population growth, more asphalt and buildings and other things all produce spurious patterns in the data over time, and they, therefore, must be corrected.

Most of the known error sources produce a false warming trend, and therefore the data need to be adjusted downward. However, since 2008, the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) has been producing modified data sets with the opposite effect. The graph  shows the changes made to the data lately. Notice how the past has become cooler and the recent decades have been made warmer.

What are the odds that every time a new data set is released, they have found some more warming? The behavior strongly resembles a pattern seen in elections in some districts where there is a close race between Republicans and Democrats. Time after time, if a Republican wins, someone “finds” some “lost” or “late” ballots and when they are counted, they mysteriously turn out to be almost all Democrats. Strange that.

Vigilance Is Needed

It could very well be that the temperature adjustments are scientifically sound, but if it were a fraud, this is precisely what you would expect to see. They leave the strong sense that many career alarmists are worried about their future and reputation and that actions are being made to change the observations so that they are in better agreement with the climate models.

Since the legacy media is staying wholly silent and uncritical of the climate community, it is vital to remain vigilant and remind people of the dubious nature of their endeavor. The science is not settled, and there is even a chance that the greatest scandal in scientific history is in the making. The answer may come sooner than you think.

See also Liberty Nation’s:

  • Five Facts about Climate Change and the Dire Predictions of Environmental Activists
  • Climate Change Hysteria: Part 1
  • Climate Change Hysteria: Part 2


Let’s Play Follow The Climate Money!

by Tyler Durden 07January2019 -

Authored by Paul Driessen, originally published at

The climate crisis industry incessantly claims that fossil fuel emissions are causing unprecedented temperature, climate and weather changes that pose existential threats to human civilization and our planet. The only solution, Climate Crisis, Inc. insists, is to eliminate the oil, coal and natural gas that provide 80% of the energy that makes US and global economies, health and living standards possible.

Failing that, CCI demands steadily increasing taxes on carbon-based fuels and carbon dioxide emissions.

However, as France’s Yellow Vest protests and the latest climate confab in Poland demonstrated, the world is not prepared to go down that dark path. Countries worldwide are expanding their reliable fossil fuel use, and families do not want to reduce their living standards or their aspirations for better lives.

Moreover, climate computer model forecasts are completely out of touch with real-world observations. There is no evidence to support claims that the slight temperature, climate and weather changes we’ve experienced are dangerous, unprecedented or caused by humans, instead of by the powerful solar, oceanic and other natural forces that have driven similar or far more serious changes throughout history.

More importantly, the CCI “solutions” would cause unprecedented disruption of modern industrialized societies; permanent poverty and disease in poor countries; and serious ecological damage worldwide.

Nothing that is required to harness breezes and sunshine to power civilization is clean, green, renewable, climate-friendly or sustainable. Tens of billions of tons of rock would have to be removed, to extract billions of tons of ores, to create millions of tons of metals, concrete and other materials, to manufacture millions of wind turbines and solar panels, and install them on millions of acres of wildlife habitats – to generate expensive, intermittent energy that would be grossly insufficient for humanity’s needs. Every step in this process requires fossil fuels – and some of the mining involves child labor.

How do CCI alarmists respond to these points? They don’t. They refuse to engage in or even permit civil discussion. They rant that anyone “who denies climate change science” is on the fossil fuel industry payroll, thus has a blatant conflict of interest and no credibility, and therefore should be ignored.

“Rebuttals” to my recent “We are still IN” article cited Greenpeace and DeSmogBlog as their “reliable sources” and claimed: I’m “associated with” several “right-wing think tanks that are skeptical of man-made climate change.” One of them “received $582,000 from ExxonMobil” over a 14-year period, another got “$5,716,325 from Koch foundations” over 18 years, and the Koch Brothers gave “at least $100,343,292 to 84 groups denying climate change science” in 20 years, my detractors claimed.

These multi-year contributions work out to $41,571 annually; $317,574 per year; and $59,728 per organization per year, respectively – to pay salaries and overhead at think tanks that are engaged in multiple social, tax, education, medical and other issues … not just energy and climate change.

But let’s assume for a moment that money – especially funding from any organization that has any kind of financial, regulatory or other “special interest” in the outcome of this ongoing energy and economic battle – renders a researcher incapable of analyzing facts fairly and honestly.

Then apply those zero-tolerance, zero-credibility Greenpeace-DeSmogBlog-CCI standards to those very same climate alarmists and their allies – who are determined to shut down debate and impose their wind, solar and biofuel policies on the world. Where do they get their money, and how much do they get?

Billionaire and potential presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg gave the Sierra Club $110 million in a six-year period to fund its campaign against coal-generated electricity. Chesapeake Energy gave the Club $26 million in three years to promote natural gas and attack coal. Ten wealthy liberal foundations gave another $51 million over eight years to the Club and other environmentalist groups to battle coal.

Over a 12-year period, the Environmental Protection Agency gave its 15 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members $181 million in grants – and in exchange received quick rubberstamp approvals of various air quality rules. It paid the American Lung Association $20 million to support its regulations.

During the Obama years, the EPA, Interior Department and other federal agencies paid environmental pressure groups tens of millions in collusive, secretive sue-and-settle lawsuit payoffs on dozens of issues.

Then we get to the really big money: taxpayer funds that government agencies hand out to scientists, computer modelers and pressure groups – to promote global warming and climate change alarmism.

As Heritage Foundation economist Stephen Moore noted recently, citing government and other reports:

* Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

* The Feds spent an estimated $150 billion on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.

* That didn’t include the 30% tax credits/subsidies for wind and solar power: $8 billion to $10 billion a year – plus billions more from state programs that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.

* Worldwide, according to the “progressive” Climate Policy Initiative, climate change “investment” in 2013 totaled $359 billion – but this “falls far short” of the $5 trillion per year that’s actually needed.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change echoes those greedy demands. It says the world must spend $2.4 trillion per year for the next 17 years to subsidize the transition to renewable energy

Bear in mind that $1.5 trillion per year was already being spent in 2014 on Climate Crisis, Inc. research, consulting, carbon trading and renewable projects, according to the Climate Change Business Journal. With 6-8% annual growth, we’re easily looking at a $2-trillion-per-year climate industry by now.

The US Government Accountability Office puts United States taxpayer funding alone at $2.1 billion per year for climate change “science” … $9.0 billion a year for technology R&D … and $1.8 billion a year for international assistance. Total US Government spending on climate change totaled $179 billion (!) from 1993 through 2017, according to the GAO. That’s $20 million per day!

At the September 2018Global Climate Action Summit, 29 leftist foundations pledged to give $4 billion over five years to their new Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming campaign. Sea Change Foundation co-founder Nat Simons made it clear that this “is only a down payment”!

And I get pilloried for working with organizations that received $41,571 to $59,728 per year from fossil fuel interests … questioning claims that fossil fuels are causing climate chaos … and raising inconvenient facts and questions about wind, solar and biofuel replacements for coal, oil and natural gas.

Just as outrageous, tens of millions of dollars are squandered every year to finance “studies” that supposedly show “surging greenhouse gases” and “manmade climate change” are creating dangerous hybrid puffer fish, causing salmon to lose their ability to detect danger, making sharks right-handed and unable to hunt, increasing the number of animal bites, and causing US cities to be overrun by rats.

Let’s apply the Greenpeace-DeSmogBlog-Climate Crisis, Inc. standard all these organizations and researchers.

Their massive multi-billion-dollar conflicts of interest clearly make them incapable of analyzing climate and energy matters fairly and honestly – and disqualify them from participating in any further discussions about America’s and the world’s energy and economic future.

At the very least, they and the institutions that have been getting rich and powerful off the catastrophic manmade global warming and climate hustle should be cut off from any future federal funding.


Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%

Written by

Al Gore, Global warming, Freezing Deer,Self-styled “global-warming” guru Al Gore (shown) and a gaggle of supposed “climate scientists” have egg all over their faces — big time. In 2007, 2008 and 2009, Gore publicly and very hysterically warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.” Citing “climate” experts, the government-funded BBC hyped the mass hysteria, running a now-embarrassing article under the headline: “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’.” Other establishment media outlets did the same.

Well, 2013 is almost over, and contrary to the alarmist “predictions” by Gore and what critics refer to as his “doomsday cult,” the latest satellite data show that Arctic ice cover has actually expanded 50 percent over 2012 levels. In fact, during October, sea-ice levels grew at the fastest pace since records began in 1979. Experts predict the expansion to continue in the years to come, leaving global-warming alarmists scrambling fiendishly for explanations to save face — and to revive the rapidly melting climate hysteria.

In September, meanwhile, data also showed that sea ice levels in Antarctica had expanded to record levels for the second year in a row. Of course, by now, virtually everyone who has been following news about “global warming” — now more often referred to as “climate change” owing to public-relations concerns — also knows that global temperatures have not risen for some 17 years. The spectacular lack of warming demolished all 73 of the “climate models” used by the United Nations to push its controversial theories.


According to the dubious theories and predictions advanced by Al Gore and other alarmists, though, none of this should be happening. Speaking to an audience in Germany five years ago, Gore — sometimes ridiculed as “The Goracle” — alleged that “the entire North Polarized [sic] cap will disappear in 5 years.” While the original video of that particular failed prediction appears to have been scrubbed from the Internet, conservative bloggers managed to track down the same footage from other sources. “Five years,” Gore emphasized again, is “the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear.”


The following year, Gore made similar claims at a  UN “climate” summit in Copenhagen. “Some of the models … suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore claimed in 2009. “We will find out.” Indeed, the bogus prediction appears wildly off the mark, to put it mildly, but the establishment press and Gore apparently do not want the world to find out.


In fairness, Gore was hardly the only hysterical climate-doomsday proponent to be left looking foolish. In December of 2007, the BBC highlighted alleged “modeling studies” that supposedly “indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.” Incredibly, some of the supposed “experts” even claimed it could happen before then, citing calculations performed by “super computers” that the BBC noted “has become a standard part of climate science in recent years.”


“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” claimed Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, described as researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School who was working with co-workers at NASA to come up with the now-thoroughly discredited forecasts about polar ice. “So given that fact, you can argue that may be [sic] our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” Other “experts” quoted in the BBC article agreed with the hysteria.


In the real world, however, the scientific evidence demolishing the global-warming theories advanced by Gore, the UN, and government-funded “climate scientists” continues to grow, along with the ice cover in both hemispheres. In the Arctic, for example, data collected by Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft pointed to about 9,000 cubic kilometers of ice at the end of the 2013 melt season. In 2012, which was admittedly a low year, the total volume was about 6,000 cubic kilometers — in other words, Arctic ice grew by some 50 percent in 2013 over the previous year. Polar bear populations are thriving, too.


Across the southern hemisphere, the data have proved even more devastating to what supposed “climate scientists” were caught referring to as their “cause” in the deeply embarrassing ClimateGate e-mails. First, the figures from 2012 showed a record high level of sea-ice cover — more than at any point since records began in 1978. This year set another new record, with ice covering more than 19.5 million square kilometers of ocean around Antarctica by September.


Around the world, meanwhile, record low temperatures continue to make a mockery of “global warming” theories. While anecdotal, to be sure, Cairo, Egypt, just saw its first snowfall in more than 100 years. In the United States there have been thousands of new records for cold temperatures and snowfalls just in the month of December. In an extremely bizarre twist, some “climate scientists” have even started claiming that the freezing temperatures are actually more evidence of “global warming.”


To explain the universally acknowledged lack of warming over the last 17 years in defiance of all UN climate theories, government-funded “climate scientists” and the UN have increasingly touted what critics ridicule as “The Theory of The Ocean Ate My Global Warming.” Under heavy political pressure from the Obama administration and other governments, the UN ran with the theory, despite the lack of any observable evidence to suggest the deep ocean is actually eating the UN’s predicted global warming.


Appearing increasingly detached from reality to independent scientists, the UN claimed in its latest global-warming report to be 95 percent sure that human emissions of carbon dioxide were to blame for rising temperatures. Those claims, now widely laughed at around the world, were made despite the fact that every single one of its computer models has been entirely discredited by the lack of warming for the last 17 years. Many experts are now even predicting global cooling.


Top scientists and experts around the world — even many who have served on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — have been ridiculing the global outfit and its discredited “climate” report. Most governments and dictators, however, continue playing along with what some experts call the climate “charade” or “hoax,” mostly due to built-in incentives and taxpayer funds that help perpetuate the unjustified alarmism.


For third-world dictators, the goal appears to be securing trillions in Western taxpayer money under the guise of “climate” reparations and “justice.” For governments ruling wealthier nations, the end-game seems to be carbon taxes and a planetary “climate” regime with unprecedented powers over humanity. Assembled in Warsaw for the latest UN climate summit, even as the implosion of the “science” behind global-warming theories was accelerating, member regimes agreed to finalize a global climate treaty by 2015.


Polls show that despite hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars squandered on global-warming alarmism, the American public still refuses to widely accept the man-made warming theories advanced by an increasingly discredited UN and its allies. A September Rasmussen survey of likely voters, for example, found that just 43 percent of likely U.S. voters believe alleged “global warming” is caused by human activity. About the same number believe it is not.


Despite vicious attacks and threats — some of it exposed in the ClimateGate scandal — scientists are increasingly jumping off the sinking “climate” ship as well. Even some major governments are working to rein in the out-of-control alarmism, with authorities in Australia, elected in a landslide earlier this year, promising to liberate the nation from “carbon taxes” while quashing much of the taxpayer-funded “global-warming” juggernaut. Calls for prosecuting “fraud” by “climate scientists” are growing, too.

So far, despite hyping the absurd claims five years ago, the establishment press has failed to inform its dwindling readership that Al Gore and his fellow alarmists were proven embarrassingly wrong. No apologies have been forthcoming from Gore, either, and none of the “scientists” who made the ridiculous predictions has apologized or lost his U.S. taxpayer-funded job. In fact, almost unbelievably, the establishment press is now parroting new claims from the same discredited “experts” suggesting that the Arctic will be “ice-free” by 2016.

As Gore put it in 2009, “We will find out.”

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at


Ministry Of Interior Recognizes Environmentalism As Religion

Acknowledgement of a social reality.

Greta ThunbergJerusalem, December 4 – A movement that features doctrine, apostles, saints, a vision to transform society to conform to its tenets, and apocalyptic predictions if that vision does not become reality, has attained official status with Israel’s government office that grants funding to institutions and personnel serving various faiths in the country.

Minister of the Interior Arye Deri signed the order today recognizing the religion of Environmentalism, a move that will facilitate government funding for projects in the Environmentalist community and for the salaries of Environmentalist religious leaders serving that community, as well as official oversight of government funding allocations within Environmentalist institutions.

“Environmentalists deserve the same rights as believers in other faiths,” proclaimed Deri. “We welcome Environmentalists into our society with the same degree of warmth and recognition granted to numerous others. Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, but we take pride in offering full civil and religious rights to all who reside here.”

Scholars of religion note that the movement has long existed in Israel, but only in recent decades has it become a prominent part of the social and political landscape, necessitating its official recognition. “There’s always been at least a few Environmentalists in Israel, sure,” explained Opia Tavdamassus, Professor of Comparative Religion at Tel Aviv University. “But it was marginal most of the time. That changed as the society grew wealthier and people had more spare time and money to devote to causes they hold dear. Now Environmentalism bears all the hallmarks of a more-or-less organized religion: dire warnings of mass destruction for failing to follow the faith’s strictures; belief in the infallibility of the movement’s prophecies despite repeated wrong predictions; wealthy adherents showcasing high-profile adherence and demanding everyone emulate them, when others cannot afford to do so; even allowances for hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to the leaders and public faces of the movement. Official recognition of Environmentalism as a religion is just an acknowledgement of a social reality.”

Some observers see a political effort to divide the movement. “It’s actually quite clever, and cynical, for the government,” remarked columnist Louis Kattorz. “A good number of Environmentalists, some of the more fundamentalist preachers, express quite anti-Israel views, seeing Israel as an important piece in a larger matrix of oppression that subjects people of color – in this case Palestinians – to environmental injustice. Here the minister, I think, seeks to wrest some of the faithful away from those hostile elements in the Church of the Environment. We’ll see only in the long term whether the ploy works.”


Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find “Man-made Climate Change Doesn’t Exist In Practice”

by Tyler Durden 12July2019
A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which ‘climate change’ is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found “practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change” after a series of studies. 

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers’ theory: “New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an ‘umbrella effect’,” the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this ‘umbrella effect’ — an entirely natural occurrence  could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.

Clouds over Los Angeles, via AFP/Getty

Clouds over Los Angeles, via AFP/Getty

The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it,” comments Professor Hyodo in Science Daily. “This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect.”

In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover “practically” controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity.

The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland’s Turku University team:

We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding current models which politicians and environmental groups across the globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries’ populations.

Image source: NASA

Image source: NASA

Conclusions from both the Japanese and Finnish studies strongly suggest, for example, that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “drastic measures to cut carbon emissions” which would ultimately require radical legislation changes to “remake the U.S. economy” would not only potentially bankrupt everyone but simply wouldn’t even work, at least according to the new Finnish research team findings.

To put AOC’s “drastic measures” in perspective  based entirely on the fundamental assumption of the monumental and disastrous impact of human activity on the climate  — consider the following conclusions from the Finnish studies:

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.

Which leads the scientists to state further:

“Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased carbon dioxide is less than 10 percent, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” the researchers concluded.

And the team in Japan has called for a total reevaluation of current climate models, which remain dangerously flawed for dismissing a crucial variable:

This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.

Failure to account for this results in the following, according to the one in the series of studies: “The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models.”

Image source: AFP/Getty 

Image source: AFP/Getty

“If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice,” the researchers conclude.

Though we doubt the ideologues currently pushing to radically remake the American economy through what ends up being a $93 trillion proposal (according to one study including AOC’s call for a whopping 70% top tax rate — will carefully inquire of this new bombshell scientific confirmation presented in the new research, we at least hope the US scientific community takes heed before it’s too late in the cause of accurate and authentic science that would stave off irreparable economic disaster that would no doubt ripple across the globe, adding to both human and environmental misery.

And “too late” that is, not for some mythical imminent or near-future “global warming Armageddon” as the currently in vogue highly politicized “science” of activists and congress members alike claims.


Historic deep freeze across North America conclusively proves global warming is getting worse, right?

January 05, 2014 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
(NaturalNews) Global warming is getting worse. It’s so bad now that it has thrust most of North America into an historic deep freeze with plummeting temperatures that haven’t been seen in decades. This is absolute proof that global warming is worsening, and the way I know that is because the same people who told me that record HOT temperature last summer were caused by global warming — “See? It’s really, really hot!” — are now saying that record COLD temperatures are also caused by global warming. “See? It’s really, really cold!” Global warming, in other words, is climate voodoo. Worshippers of the false science can invoke it to explain any event whatsoever: hurricanes (or lack of hurricanes), tornados (or lack of tornados), too much rainfall or too little rainfall, high temperatures, low temperatures, and basically any event that we used to simply call “weather.” Well, gee, if ALL weather events are evidence of global warming, then you have to ask yourself this simple, commonsense question: Which weather evidence would be evidence of global cooling? The answer is “None.” Because ALL weather events are invoked as evidence of global warming. It’s delusional thinking, in other words.

“Global warming” and the mass hypnosis of the public

Like any sort of false belief system, global warming involves the mass hypnosis of the public — a kind of hypnosis so deep that even when people are shivering from frightful cold, they can still convince themselves, in their own minds, “This is global warming!” in total denial of reality. Global warming is based on the same sort of wishy washy thinking as flu shots. “Get a flu shot and you won’t get the flu!” Except most people who get flu shots still get the flu. In fact, the drug industry’s own scientific studies show that flu shots don’t work on nearly 99 out of 100 people. The shots are quackery “medical voodoo” that are so fraudulent even Merck’s own scientists blew the whistle and went public with proof that the company entirely fabricated its vaccine science by spiking samples with animal antibodies. This was designed to spread the mumps and measles epidemic, thereby creating widespread panic that would result in more vaccine sales.

Global warming marketed with doomsday predictions

The global warming cultists are using the same kind of false science to spread fraudulent fear in order to sell something else: total government control over all emissions and, hence, all economic activity. If they can spread their doomsday theories far and wide enough, they can demand huge sums of money by forcing entire economies to pay “carbon taxes” which are nothing more than a high-level moneymaking scam. The lamestream media is so desperate to push this fraudulent delusion of global warming that 98% of the media stories covering the ship full of climate scientists that got stuck in the ice and had to be rescued failed to mention the ship was on a global warming mission. That little fact wouldn’t go over well with the media’s global warming delusion, so they simply decided to censor that fact from the public. This is just one small example of the routine mental contortions that take place in the lamestream media to front a massive lie. There are many more…

Every cult is based on sheer belief, not real evidence

Like any cult, global warming is based on “belief” instead of actual evidence. People who push global warming do not need to see any real evidence. They only need to have their beliefs reinforced by the media and by others who share their irrational beliefs. That alone is enough to confirm that they are right. Remember, the lamstream media is the same media that claims the national debt doesn’t matter, Obamacare is awesome, you don’t need the Bill of Rights, war is fun, GMOs are safe to eat and vaccines will increase your IQ. This is the same media where MSNBC, the most wretched tabloid anti-journalism organization to ever exist, makes fun of adopted black children or insists that people should poop in the mouths of political personalities they don’t like. The same media that says GMOs are safe, vaccines are awesome, war is fun and all white people are racist is now peddling global warming doom-and-gloom theories that fly in the face of reality. They even claim this extreme cold weather is caused by “global warming” and that if you don’t agree to pay more carbon taxes next year, the cold will get even worse. Yep, “warming” is now invoked to explain “freezing.” How stupid does this get? If the same media were pushing a theory of “global speeding” and claiming the Earth’s spin was accelerating and we would all die from being flung into outer space, they would also proclaim that a slowing of the Earth’s spin was yet more evidence of “global speeding.” Slowing is speeding, you see. Just like cooling is warming. Who needs logic when you own the media and can push total lies day after day to a mind-numbed public dosed up on fluoride and Prozac?

Delusional thinking explained

One of the mental contortions frequently invoked to support delusional thinking is to filter out all the evidence that contradicts your current belief. We are all guilty of this to some degree, but global warming conspiracy theorists take it to a new extreme. Here’s how it works: When the Midwest suffers a terribly hot drought, global warming theorists proclaim the drought is due to global warming. “It’s hotter, see?” That actually makes logical sense at some level. But by the same logic, when a deep freeze sweeps across the same region, they would logically have to concede that cold is the opposite of hot, and therefore if extreme hot weather is evidence of global warming, then extreme cold weather must be evidence against global warming. This is the litmus test of scientific sanity, you see: If a person is a consistent, clear thinker, they must concede that this current freeze is, indeed, evidence that the planet is not warming. But that’s not what happens: They proclaim that cold weather, too, is yet more proof of global warming! And with that statement, all their credibility vanishes. Because at that point they are admitting that, essentially, all events are somehow evidence of global warming. All “weather events” somehow magically support their theory. That idea is, of course, absurd. There are weather events during periods of global cooling, obviously. When the planet is cooling, the wind doesn’t stop blowing. The Earth doesn’t stop rotating. Earthquakes and hurricanes don’t magically cease. Thus, a rational person must be forced to admit that, yes, there are storms, and freak weather events, and droughts and floods when the planet is cooling, too. (The planet has warmed and cooled many times in its long history. These are natural cycles.) But explaining all this is a waste of time to global warming conspiracy theorists in the first place, because they are not engaged in an exercise of logic and rational thinking. The evidence doesn’t matter. Global warming is their religion, and thus no amount of evidence, or explanation, or logic, or rationality will ever overcome their religious belief in the doom-and-gloom conspiracy theory that we will all soon die as our planet is destroyed. At some level, it’s quite hilarious because many of the global warming faith believers are the very same people who make fun of conservative Christians and their belief in “the rapture” which essentially says much the same thing. Somehow, “Christians are stupid,” they say, for believing that we will all be destroyed in a massive clean sweep of human civilization caused by God, but they say “we are smart” for believing we will all be destroyed in a massive clean sweep of human civilization caused by carbon emissions.

1000 Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Climate Papers “Should Put UN IPCC To Shame,” Says Harvard Astrophysicist!

By on 3. January 2017

More than 1000 peer-reviewed papers published over the last 3 years expose climate alarmism as fake science.

Claims that the earth is rapidly heating up because of man-made CO2 and thus heading for a “climate catastrophe” have taken a serious body blow over the past three years as a huge and fresh body of science emerges.

1000 papers in three years

Yesterday Kenneth Richard published his list of 500 climate catastrophe skeptic papers appearing in scientific journals in 2016 alone. It is the latest addition to the 282 papers published in 2015, and the 248 papers published in 2014, bringing the total number of peer-reviewed papers published over the past three years to more than 1000.

As a result the once many dramatic hockey-stick shaped curves put out by some climate scientists over the past two decades showing the earth is headed for disaster have been exposed as fake science, which of course had spawned some 20 years of nonstop fake news – much of it designed to spread panic among the population.

Needlessly hyped

According to Richard, the vast collection of fresh papers show that natural factors play a much larger if not a dominant role when it comes to climate change. The expected global warming has been needlessly hyped, experts are now saying.

Puts IPCC to shame

Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon thinks the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has strayed way off track. “I’m not surprised by the large number or empirical evidence that rejects the CO2 dangerous global warming alarmism,” wrote Soon in an e-mail. “This sort of literature review ought to put the sort of biased, if not anti-science, reports by the UN IPCC to shame.”

Dr. Soon has long been a sharp critic of the mainstream institutionalized climate science. He added: “It is high time for the wider public to not only bear witness to the unbalance and corruption of our science institutions, but also to demand answers on why there has been such a disregard for truth and fact.”

Climate well within natural variability

Many among the 1000 peer-reviewed scholarly papers show that extreme weather events are in fact NOT increasing in any unusual manner, that they were also common in the past, and that today they are still well within the range of natural variability.

Other papers show that biodiversity is not under any serious threat. Hundreds of other papers have found that solar activity and oceanic cycles are in fact the driving factors behind climate change. In short the latest fresh batch of scientific literature is telling us that all the past alarmism likely has been needlessly shrill and that it’s time to take a step back and to seriously refocus.

Although most of the papers listed by Richard do not refute global warming and that man plays a role – they do cast undeniable doubt over the cause of the warming, especially the warming over the past 35 years. The recent literature clearly shows that natural factors indeed play a major role, and CO2 much less so.

Climate science a UN charade

Not mincing any words, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball feels that global warming became a charade years ago and that it has gone on too long.

He offers an even harsher assessment of the UN climate science, writing that the IPCC is made up of “bureaucrats” who harbor a political agenda. “Extreme bias of climate research was deliberately created through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing runaway global warming,” he wrote to NTZ in an email.  “The political message and funding were directed to only research that proved their hypothesis. Only journals that favored the objective were used and encouraged, so the preponderance of research and publications supported the predetermined message. It is a classic case of Lysenkoism

Dr. Ball authored the climate science critical book: Human Caused Global warming – The Biggest Deception in History.


Is 100% Of “US Warming” Due To NOAA Data Tampering?

by Tyler Durden Dec 28, 2016

Submitted by Tony Heller via,

Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century.

The U.S. Has Been Overwhelmingly Hot This Year | Climate Central

The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones.

They also claim US temperatures rose 1.5°F since the 19th century, which is what NOAA shows.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century

The adjustments being made are almost exactly 1.5°F, which is the claimed warming in the article.

The adjustments correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.)

The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database.

When presented with my claims of fraud, NOAA typically tries to arm wave it away with these two complaints.

  1. They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data.
  2. They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves.

Both claims are easily debunked. The only effect that gridding has is to lower temperatures slightly. The trend of gridded data is almost identical to the trend of un-gridded data.

Time of Observation Bias (TOBS) is a real problem, but is very small. TOBS is based on the idea that if you reset a min/max thermometer too close to the afternoon maximum, you will double count warm temperatures (and vice-versa if thermometer is reset in the morning.) Their claim is that during the hot 1930’s most stations reset their thermometers in the afternoon.

This is easy to test by using only the stations which did not reset their thermometers in the afternoon during the 1930’s. The pattern is almost identical to that of all stations. No warming over the past century. Note that the graph below tends to show too much warming due to morning TOBS.

NOAA’s own documents show that the TOBS adjustment is small (0.3°F) and goes flat after 1990.

Gavin Schmidt at NASA explains very clearly why the US temperature record does not need to be adjusted.

You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers.

One recent innovation is the set up of a climate reference network alongside the current stations so that they can look for potentially serious issues at the large scale – and they haven’t found any yet.

NASA – NASA Climatologist Gavin Schmidt Discusses the Surface Temperature Record

NOAA has always known that the US is not warming.

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend –

All of the claims in the Climate Central article are bogus. The US is not warming and 2016 was not a hot year in the US. It was a very mild year.

Jerusalem Cats Comment: They need to throw Al Gore and all the Global Warming Scientist into a Maximum Security Prison. If they lie about Global Warming what are they also lying about, Evolution? The Two State Solution? Land for Peace? It is time to listen to our Gedolim.


A Climate Alarmist Sued A Skeptic For Defamation… And Lost

Tyler Durden 30August2019 by Onar Am via,

The Supreme Court of British Columbia recently dismissed a defamation lawsuit by celebrity climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann against global warming skeptic climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. Mann must pay the full legal costs to the defendant. The ruling is explosive because it means that Ball’s claim that Mann was a scientific fraudster is now supported by the court.


In 1999, Mann published a 1000-year-long global temperature reconstruction from tree rings that severely undercut the then-accepted knowledge of climate. IPCC’s 1995 Second Assessment Report acknowledged that it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than today and that a significant cooling called the Little Ice Age followed and lasted until the end of the 19th century.

Mann’s reconstruction demolished that view and replaced our climate history with something that looks like a hockey stick: For 900 years, the temperature was a slightly falling straight line and then, during the period of human activity, rapid warming in the 20th century.

Climate catastrophists immediately seized on this persuasive graph and made Mann the poster boy of the IPCC, which was now thoroughly controlled by radical greens appointed by leftist politicians.

Wegman Graph

There was only one problem with the graph: It was junk science. Future university courses in statistics will undoubtedly teach the hockey stick as a classic case of faulty methodology. In layman terms: Mann was using a statistical technique that cherry-picked the data needed to make the hockey stick shape.

In 2006, Congress commissioned three statisticians led by Dr. Edward Wegman to produce the so-called Wegman report on the controversy. The report proved that the technique Mann used could create any desired outcome and demonstrated this fact by creating the shape of the global temperature data from 1995.

If Mann had produced this graph in a graduate thesis in statistics, he would have flunked.

Hiding The Decline

Canadian engineer Stephen McIntyre spent several years after the publication of the hockey stick graph trying to prove that it was faulty. He ultimately prevailed – but, during this debacle, Mann engaged in what many have described as intellectually dishonest or even fraudulent behavior. He refused to release the full data and source files that he used in his infamous 1999 publication.

In 2011, Tim Ball summarized this by stating that Michael Mann “belonged in a pen, not in Penn University.” This statement was the basis for Mann’s defamation lawsuit.

Ball defended his remark by saying that if Mann released his data, it would prove that he was a fraudster. Nine years of delay tactics later, the court dismissed the case because Mann refused to release the data that could prove his honesty.

While this technically is not a victory for Ball, it is hard to imagine a legitimate reason for a tax-funded scientist to refuse to release the data upon which the global climate disaster narrative largely rests.

Dubious Science

Under normal circumstances, Mann’s career would have been lying in a pool of utter disgrace long ago. Instead, he is still one of the leading scientists in the climate catastrophe mafia. His colleagues had to defend him because if they ever were to admit that the hockey stick graph is junk science, it would discredit the IPCC and the entire field of paleoclimatology that hailed Mann’s result.

They have doubled down and used political pull and a friendly media to the scandal. So far, they have succeeded, but for every year, the gap between the climate models and reality is widening. At some point, nothing can hide the shaky ground upon which the climate hysteria stands.


Martin Armstrong: 30 Years Of Global Warming Forecasts Have All Failed

by Tyler Durden

Trump To Revoke California’s Power To Fight Smog

by Tyler Durden Mon, 07/23/2018

In a move that will infuriate environmentalists everywhere, but especially in California, the Trump administration is seeking to repeal California’s authority to regulate automobile emissions in a proposed revision of Obama-era standards, according to Bloomberg citing three people familiar with the plan.

The proposal which will be released later this week represents a “frontal assault” on one of Barack Obama’s signature regulatory programs to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

It also sets up a high-stakes battle over California’s unique ability to combat air pollution and, if finalized, is sure to set off a protracted courtroom battle.

And since the revamp also includes California’s mandate for electric car sales, it represents a gut punch to the likes of Elon Musk, who recently announced (yet again) a deal to begin work on a factory in China.

The proposed overhaul would also put the brakes on federal rules to boost fuel efficiency into the next decade, instead it will cap federal fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level, which under federal law must be at least a 35-mile-per-gallon fleet average, rather than letting them rise to roughly 50 mpg by 2025 as envisioned in the plan left behind by Obama.

As Bloomberg details, as part of the stunning proposal, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose revoking the Clean Air Act waiver granted to California that has allowed the state to regulate carbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes and force carmakers to sell electric vehicles in the state in higher numbers.

Separately, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will assert that California is barred from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from autos under the 1975 law that established the first federal fuel-efficiency requirements, the people said.

Agencies are expected to claim it will reduce traffic fatalities by making it cheaper for drivers to replace older, less-safe cars, while paring sticker prices for new vehicles even if motorists have to spend more for gasoline.

In other words, in what amounts to a full-blown war between the White House and California, the administration will put its weight behind the dramatic overhaul, including the revocation of California’s cherished authority.

The state’s 2009 waiver of federal preemption under the Clean Air Act has allowed the California state to set emissions rules for cars and trucks that are more stringent than the federal government’s, but the state has aligned its rules with those set by the EPA and NHTSA in a so-called national program of clean-car rules.

Needless to say, if Trump’s plan sticks it would represent his biggest regulatory rollback yet.

Predictably, California was furious and rejects the idea that its 48-year ability to write its own tailpipe emission rules should end: “We have the law on our side, as well as the people of the country and the people of the world,” said Dan Sperling, a member of the state’s Air Resources Board said.

On May 2, California and 16 others plus the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration’s effort to unravel the Obama-era emissions targets. Sperling said that number will grow as more and more people come to realize how fundamentally Trump is attacking the idea of states’ rights.

A key, and still unanswered question is what happens to automakers who are caught somewhere in the middle of this fight between the president and most populous US state. According to Bloomberg, in recent months they have stressed they would not support freezing the federal targets and want Washington and Sacramento to continue linking their vehicle efficiency goals. While they spent the first year of the Trump administration attacking Obama’s rules as too costly, they fear the regulatory uncertainty that a years-long court battle over a rollback would create. In addition, other major auto markets such as China and Europe are pressing forward with tougher mandates of their own for cleaner cars.

Trump’s action will not make him any friends in the Golden State:

“This is nothing less than an outrageous attack on public health and states’ rights,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. “It’s a dumb move for an administration that claims it wants peace, because this will lead to an emissions war: progressive states versus a reactionary federal government. The big question: who will the car companies back?”

Meanwhile, others are secretly pleased: some conservatives have long chafed at the rare authority granted California and welcome the effort to revoke.

“Congress didn’t intend for California to set national fuel economy standards,” said Steve Milloy, a policy adviser for the Heartland Institute, a group critical of climate science. “It’s nutty it’s been allowed to develop. National fuel economy standards are set by the federal government so that’s what we are going to do.”

Meanwhile, as the pollution fight over California cars heats up, one wonders are its cows next? As a reminder, the meat and dairy industry will soon surpass big oil as the world’s biggest polluters. The silver lining for them is that by the time this happens, Trump will be long gone.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 sheep and 70 wolves

At least someone from New Zealand has brains

Everyone that lives in Jerusalem is condemning UN Security Council Resolution 2334

Even American Jews are complaining:

Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practise to deceive!

From israel matzav: Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practise to deceive!

חֲנֻכָּה Hanukkah is here. Hopefully people will do Teshuvah. Just look at the Hanukah Geography

An announcement of the Haifa Jewish Community Committee declaring 3 days of events against the Nazi inferno: including a day of fast and prayer, a day of cessation from work and a public protest assembly, 1942

An announcement of the Haifa Jewish Community Committee declaring 3 days of events against the Nazi inferno: including a day of fast and prayer, a day of cessation from work and a public protest assembly, 1942

We need to go to the field and beg Hashem to help us. Trusting in flesh and blood rulers will not work. Only Hashem is our true King of Kings. We need to turn to our Gedolim for guidance.

The Remarkable Shepherd

Friday, 05 December 2014
The Midrash tells us that when Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania (one of Rabbi Akiva’s teachers) was visiting Rome, he was summoned by Adrianus Caesar. Caesar said, “I find a sheep that is capable of surviving among 70 wolves quite remarkable!”

“Such a sheep is less remarkable,” replied Rabbi Yehoshua, “than the shepherd that’s capable of protecting it from the seventy wolves!”

Interpretation: The seventy wolves – the nations of the world, inherently hostile to Israel; the sheep – Israel; the shepherd – Hashem.

Wolves and Briars

Thursday, 10 June 2010
Someone asked me how to sum up current events in one spiritual-standpoint sentence:

“If a flock of sheep is so inane as to stray from the shepherd – thinking that they know a better way to green pastures than the shepherd does – they’ll definitely run into a pack of wolves.”

One who strays off the path shouldn’t complain when scratched by the briars.

Emuna – a Working Definition

Emuna is the firm belief in a single, supreme, omniscient, benevolent, spiritual, supernatural, and all-powerful Creator of the universe, whom we refer to as G-d. He alone cares for each of us in a unique, tailor-made fashion according to our own individual needs. Everything that happens to us in life is the product of G-d’s will and personal intervention in our lives, which we refer to as Divine providence, or DP. DP is designed to help us perform our task in life and to assist us in realizing ou personal potential to the hilt.

“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

– Genesis 12:1-3

Hanukah Geography

During the period when the Land of Israel was ruled by the Seleucid dynasty of the Syrian-Greek Empire, Antiochus IV came to be the emperor in 174 BCE. He was known as called Epiphanes. He sought to unify his subjects by forcing upoon them a common religion and culture. For the Jews of Judea this meant a suppression of Jewish law. He also interfered in matters of the Holy Temple worship.

Eventually, a revolt broke out, sparked by the actions a priestly family, the Hasmoneans, in Modiin led at first by Mattityahu and then his sons. They became known as the Maccabees and were quite successful in their tactics of guerrilla warfare. The Syrian-Greek occupiers were defeated.  Returning to liberated Jerusalem and led by Judah, they entered the Temple courtyards, removed the idols placed there by the Syrians, built a new altar and dedicated it on the twenty-fifth of the month of Kislev, in the year 139 BCE.

Seeking oil to light the Menorah, they found only a small cruse of pure olive oil bearing the seal of the High Priest Yochanan. It was sufficient to create light for only one day. By a miracle of God, it continued to burn for eight days.

This is, in concise form, the Hanukah story.

But where did the story take place? Where were the battles? Where was the Temple?

What is the geography of Hanukah?

Here is a map of the major sites of the Hanukah story:

The Chanukah Map - Sites of the Maccabees 166-161 BCE

The Chanukah Map – Sites of the Maccabees 166-161 BCE

Here is another:

hanukah battle map

Here is a map of the entire period of the Hasmonean reign which continued until 63 BCE or so when the territory controlled expanded across the Jordan River as it was previously from Biblical times:

Map of the entire period of the Hasmonean reign

In other words, if we apply contemporary terms, the main site of the miracle we celebrate by lighting candles for eight days, Temple. is now in… “occupied East Jerusalem”.

The major battles the Maccabees waged were:

Battle of Wadi Haramia (167 BCE)
Battle of Beth Horon (166 BCE)
Battle of Emmaus (166 BCE)
Battle of Beth Zur (164 BCE)
Battle of Beth Zechariah (162 BCE)
Battle of Adasa (161 BCE)

Battle of Elasa (160 BCE)

All in what is mistakenly called the “West Bank”.

Of course, this would mean that we would might think that we are celebrating a holiday of occupation.

But that would be wrong. In fact, it is the language and rhetoric of “occupation” used today that is what is wrong and incorrect.

What we need is a linguistic revolt, especially among Jews.

Jewish control/administration over Judea and Samaria and all of Jerusalem is not wrong, not immoral but a return to the true geography of the Jewish national home, Judaism and Jewish history.

Rabbi Meir Kahane Tells the Truth AZZ Conceal

Greatest Speech Ever Delivered at U.N. * Moynihan on Zionism is Racism, 1975

New poll shows Palestinian Arabs don’t want peace, under ANY circumstances

Friday, January 26, 2018

A joint poll by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research (TSC), Tel Aviv University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) shows that Palestinians are against any possible solution to the conflict.

Their press release doesn’t say it, but the poll itself does.

A series of options are given to Palestinians:

 Mutual recognition of Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples. The
agreement will mark the end of conflict, Israel will fight terror against Palestinians, and no further
claims will be made by either side.  56.9% oppose.

The independent Palestinian state which will be established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

will be demilitarized (no heavy weaponry) 77.4% oppose

 A multinational force will be established and deployed in the Palestinian state to ensure the

security and safety of both sides. Support or oppose? 60.5% oppose

 The Palestinian state will have sovereignty over its air space, its land, and its water resources, but

Israel will maintain two early warning stations in the West Bank for 15 years. Support or oppose? 67.2% oppose

 The Palestinian state will be established in the entirety of West Bank and the Gaza strip, except
for several blocs of settlement which will be annexed to Israel in a territorial exchange. Israel will

evacuate all other settlements. 62.7% oppose

The territories Palestinians will receive in exchange will be similar to the size of the settlement

blocs that will be annexed to Israel. Support or oppose? 70.6% oppose

East Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian state and West Jerusalem the capital of the

Israel. Support or oppose? 71.6% oppose

 In the Old City of Jerusalem, the Muslim and Christian quarters and al Haram al Sharif will
come under Palestinian sovereignty and the Jewish quarter and the Wailing Wall will come under

Israeli sovereignty. Support or oppose? 71.4% oppose

The only provision they supported was “right of return”:

 Palestinian refugees will have the right of return to their homeland whereby the Palestinian state
will settle all refugees wishing to live in it. Israel will allow the return of about 100,000 Palestinians as part of a of family unification program. All other refugees will be compensated. Support or oppose? 52.4% supported

For the majority that opposed a package deal of “demilitarization of the Palestinian state, equal territorial exchange, the family unification in Israel of 100,000 Palestinian refugees, East Jerusalem the capital of Palestine and West Jerusalem the capital of Israel, and the end of the conflict,” they were asked if any futher sweetening of the deal would change their minds:

If in addition to the above items of the permanent settlement package, Israel agreed to accept the
Arab peace initiative and in return all Arab countries supported this peace treaty? Support or oppose? 69.9% oppose.

The agreement states that the state of Palestine will have a democratic political system based on
rule of law, periodic elections, free press, strong parliament, independent judiciary and equal rights for religious and ethnic minorities as well as strong anti-corruption measures. 58.6% oppose.
 The agreement includes formal guarantees by the US, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who will create a
joint commission to ensure proper implementation on both sides. 68.1% oppose.
The agreement states that Palestinians, including refugees, are allowed, if they wish, to live as

permanent residents inside Israel while maintaining their Palestinian citizenship, as long as they are law 

abiding 70.4% oppose
The agreement allows the current Palestinian National Security Force to become an army with
light weapons but without heavy weapons 80.8% oppose
The agreement states that Israel recognizes the Nakba and the suffering of refugees, and
provides compensation to refugees? 58.1% oppose
Also, when given a choice of options (status quo, armed resistance, unarmed resistance, peace treaty) a plurality of Palestinians preferred armed resistance over peace, 38% to 26%.

The only thing that Palestinians agree on is that they do not want peace.

The poll didn’t ask the obvious question, because the people behind it don’t want the world to know the answer, but the real question should have been: Do you hope to see Israel destroyed and replaced by Palestine?

Other questions that would illuminate how Palestinians feel might include “would you support an Iranian nuclear attack against Tel Aviv, even if it would kill thousands of Arabs in Jaffa?”

The Palestinian zero-sum mentality, now proven by a poll

In the Israeli–Palestinian conflict nothing can be done that’s good for both sides, whatever is
good for one side is bad for the other side: agree or disagree?

72% of Palestinians agreed that peace is a zero-sum game. If it is good for Israel – meaning, peace and having normal relations with the Arab world – then it must be bad for Palestinians.
These polls dance around the real feelings of the Palestinians because the answers would far more explicitly show that they have no desire for a real, permanent peace with Israel. Yet one only has to look at these (unpublicized) results from the poll to see that this is exactly what they feel.

Don’t expect the media to notice, though.

Column One: Obama and Israel, strike and counter-strike

By CAROLINE B. GLICK 12/29/2016
Resolution 2334 asserts that Israel has no right to any of the lands it took control over during the Six-Day War.
UN Security Council Resolution 2334 was the first prong of outgoing President Barack Obama’s lame duck campaign against Israel.

US Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech on Wednesday was the second.

On January 15, stage 3 will commence in Paris.

At France’s lame duck President François Hollande’s international conference, the foreign ministers of some 50 states are expected to adopt as their own Kerry’s anti-Israel principles.

The next day it will be Obama’s turn. Obama can be expected to use the occasion of Martin Luther King Jr. Day to present the Palestinian war to annihilate Israel as a natural progression from the American Civil Rights movement that King led 50 years ago.

Finally, sometime between January 17 and 19, Obama intends for the Security Council to reconvene and follow the gang at the Paris conference by adopting Kerry’s positions as a Security Council resolution. That follow-on resolution may also recognize “Palestine” and grant it full membership in the UN.

True, Kerry said the administration will not put forward another Security Council resolution.

But as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained in his response to Kerry’s address, there is ample reason to suspect that France or Sweden, or both, will put forth such a resolution. Since the draft will simply be a restatement of Kerry’s speech, Obama will not veto it.

Whether or not Obama gets his second Security Council resolution remains to be seen. But whether he succeeds or fails, he’s already caused most of the damage. A follow-on resolution will only amplify the blow Israel absorbed with 2334.

Resolution 2334 harms Israel in two ways. First, it effectively abrogates Resolution 242 from 1967 which formed the basis of Israeli policy-making for the past 49 years. Second, 2334 gives a strategic boost to the international campaign to boycott the Jewish state.

Resolution 242 anchored the cease-fire between Israel and its neighbors at the end of the Six Day War. It stipulated that in exchange for Arab recognition of Israel’s right to exist in secure and defensible borders, Israel would cede some of the territories it took control over during the war.

Resolution 242 assumed that Israel has a right to hold these areas and that an Israeli decision to cede some of them to its neighbors in exchange for peace would constitute a major concession.

Resolution 242 is deliberately phrased to ensure that Israel would not be expected to cede all of the lands it took control over in the Six Day War. The resolution speaks of “territories,” rather than “the territories” or “all the territories” that Israel took control over during the war.

Resolution 2334 rejects 242’s founding assumptions.

Resolution 2334 asserts that Israel has no right to any of the lands it took control over during the war. From the Western Wall to Shiloh, from Hebron to Ariel, 2334 says all Israeli presence in the areas beyond the 1949 armistice lines is crime.

Given that Israel has no right to hold territory under 2334, it naturally follows that the Palestinians have no incentive to give Israel peace. So they won’t. The peace process, like the two-state solution, ended last Friday night to the raucous applause of all Security Council members.

As for the boycott campaign, contrary to what has been widely argued, 2334 does not strengthen the boycott of “settlements.” It gives a strategic boost to the boycott of Israel as a whole.

It calls on states “to distinguish in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”

Since no Israeli firm makes that distinction, all Israeli economic activity is now threatened with boycott. Tnuva is an “occupation” dairy because it supplies communities beyond the 1949 lines.

Bank Hapoalim is an “occupation” bank because it operates ATM machines in post-1967 neighborhoods in Jerusalem. The Fox clothing chain is an “occupation” chain because it has a store in Gush Etzion. And so on and so forth.

Resolution 2334 gives Europe and its NGOs a green light to wage a complete trade and cultural boycott against all of Israel.

Obama is not using his final weeks in office to wage war on Israel because he hates Netanyahu.

He is not deliberately denying 3,500 years of Jewish history in the Land of Israel because the Knesset is set to pass the Regulations Law that will make it marginally easier for Jews to exercise property rights in Judea and Samaria, as Kerry and UN Ambassador Samantha Power claimed.

Obama’s onslaught against Israel is the natural endpoint of a policy he has followed since he first entered the White House. In June 2009, Obama denied the Jews’ 3,500 years of history in the Land of Israel in his speech in Cairo before an audience packed with members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Instead of the truth, Obama adopted the Islamist propaganda lie that Israel was established because Europe felt guilty about the Holocaust.

Throughout his presidency, Obama has rejected the guiding principle of Resolution 242. His antisemitic demand that Israel deny its Jewish citizens their civil and property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria simply because they are Jews is just as antithetical to 242 as is Resolution 2334.

In his speech, Kerry repeatedly castigated the government while flattering the Israeli Left in yet another attempt to divide and polarize Israeli society. Kerry’s professed support for the Israeli Left is deeply ironic because Israeli leftists are the primary casualties of Obama’s anti-Israel assault.

In the post-242 world that Obama initiated, the UN makes no distinction between Jerusalem and Nablus, between Gush Etzion and Jenin, or between Ma’aleh Adumim and Ramallah. In this world, Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog’s plan to retain a mere 2-3% of Judea and Samaria is no more acceptable than Bayit Yehudi leader Naftali Bennett’s plan to apply Israeli law to 60% of the area or to other plans calling for Israeli law to be applied to all of Judea and Samaria. All are equally unlawful. All are equally unacceptable.

For the next three weeks, the government’s focus must be centered on Obama and minimizing the damage he is able to cause Israel. Since Israel cannot convince Hollande to cancel his conference or Obama not to give his speech, Israeli efforts must be concentrated on scuttling Obama’s plan to enact a follow-on resolution.

To scuttle another resolution, Israel needs to convince seven members of the Security Council not to support it. Only measures that secure the support of nine out of 15 Security Council members are permitted to come to a vote. The states that are most susceptible to Israeli lobbying are Italy, Ethiopia, Japan, Egypt, Uruguay, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Russia.

Netanyahu’s furious response to 2334 advance the goal of blocking a vote on a follow-on resolution in two ways. First, they create Israeli leverage in seeking to convince member states to oppose voting on an additional resolution before January 20.

Second, Netanyahu’s seemingly unrestrained response to the Obama administration’s onslaught enables Donald Trump to join him in pressuring Security Council members to oppose bringing a new resolution for a vote.

By taking an extreme position of total rejection of Obama’s actions, Netanyahu is enabling Trump to block a vote while striking a moderate tone.

In three weeks, Obama’s war with Israel will end. His final legacy – the destruction of the landfor- peace paradigm and the two-state policy-making model – obligate Israel, for the first time in 50 years, to determine by itself its long-term goals in relation to the international community, the Palestinians and Judea and Samaria.

Regarding the international community, the Security Council opened the door for its members to boycott Israel. As a result, Israel should show the UN and its factotums the door. Israel should work to de-internationalize the Palestinian conflict by expelling UN personnel from its territory.

The same is the case with the EU. Once Britain exits the EU, Israel should end the EU’s illegal operations in Judea and Samaria and declare EU personnel acting illegally persona non grata.

As for the Palestinians, Resolution 2334 obligates Israel to reconsider its recognition of the PLO. Since 1993, Israel has recognized the PLO despite its deep and continuous engagement in terrorism. Israel legitimized the PLO because the terrorist group was ostensibly its partner in peace. Now, after the PLO successfully killed the peace process by getting the Security Council to abrogate 242, Israel’s continued recognition of the PLO makes little sense. Neither PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas nor his deputies in Fatah – convicted, imprisoned mass murderer and terrorism master Marwan Barghouti, and Jibril Rajoub who said he wishes he had a nuclear bomb so he could drop it on Israel and who tried to get Israel expelled from FIFA – has any interest in recognizing Israel, let alone making peace with it. The same of course can be said for the PLO’s coalition partner Hamas.

An Israeli decision to stop recognizing the PLO will also have implications for the Trump administration.

In the aftermath of 2334, calls are steadily mounting in Congress for the US to cancel its recognition of the PLO and end US financial support for the Palestinian Authority. If Israel has already ended its recognition of the PLO, chances will rise that the US will follow suit. Such a US move will have positive strategic implications for Israel.

There is also the question of the Palestinian militias that are deployed to Judea and Samaria as part of the peace process that Obama and the PLO officially ended last Friday. In the coming months, Israel will need to decide what to do about these hostile militias that take their orders from leaders who reject peaceful coexistence with Israel.

Finally, there are the territories themselves. For 50 years, Israel has used the land-for-peace paradigm as a way not to decide what to do with Judea and Samaria. Now that 242 has been effectively abrogated, Israel has to decide what it wants.

The no-brainer is to allow Jews to build wherever they have the legal right to build. If the UN says Israel has no rights to Jerusalem, then Israel has no reason to distinguish between Jerusalem and Elon Moreh.

More broadly, given that for the foreseeable future, there will be no Palestinian Authority interested in making peace with Israel, Israel needs to think about the best way to administer Judea and Samaria going forward. The obvious step of applying Israeli law to Area C now becomes almost inarguable.

Shortly before Obama took office eight years ago, he promised to “fundamentally transform” America. Trump’s election scuttled any chance he had of doing so.

But by enabling Resolution 2334 to pass in the Security Council, Obama has succeeded in fundamentally transforming the nature of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Israel’s actions in the coming weeks will determine whether it is fundamentally transformed for better or for worse.

How Obama Cracked Jewish Solidarity (Michael Lumish)

Temple Talk Radio: United Nations Resolution 2334 and Chanukah: Same Old Same Old

A “Judenrein” Jerusalem? New Zealand’s Shame

What Starts Online, Doesn’t Stay There

In the first Purim Haman gave King Achashverosh ₪15 Million NIS for the right to kill the Jews. (Megillah 13b-14a) With Obama and Ahmadinejad, who is Haman and who is King Achashverosh

One compared the Jews to a mound of dirt and the other to a ditch in their field. Both needed their field to be level.

Obama-era cash traced to Iran-backed terrorists

By Bill Gertz – – Wednesday, February 7, 2018

The U.S. government has traced some of the $1.7 billion released to Iran by the Obama administration to Iranian-backed terrorists in the two years since the cash was transferred.

According to knowledgeable sources, Iran has used the funds to pay its main proxy, the Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah, along with the Quds Force, Iran’s main foreign intelligence and covert action arm and element of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

The U.S. money supplied to Iran as part of an arms settlement dating back to the 1970s also has been traced to Iran’s backing of Houthi rebels seeking to take power in Yemen. Iran has been supporting the Yemen rebels as part of a bid to encircle and eventually take control of Saudi Arabia.

The intelligence tracing the American funds to Iranian-backed terrorists is likely to further fuel President Trump’s effort to undo the Iran nuclear deal, the Obama administration’s main foreign policy initiative codified in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the Iran nuclear deal is called.

Despite promises to reject the deal during the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump announced in January the U.S. would not pull out of the Iran nuclear accord for now. But the president criticized the transfer of money to Tehran and signaled that Washington is going after Iran’s funding of terrorism.

“The enormous financial windfall the Iranian regime received because of the deal — access to more than $100 billion, including $1.8 billion in cash — has not been used to better the lives of the Iranian people,” Mr. Trump said Jan. 12. “Instead, it has served as a slush fund for weapons, terror, and oppression, and to further line the pockets of corrupt regime leaders.”

Mr. Trump said the United States is countering Iranian proxy wars in Yemen and Syria and cutting the regime’s money flows to terrorists.
“We have sanctioned nearly 100 individuals and entities involved with the Iranian regime’s ballistic missile program and its other illicit activities,” he said.

The American money sent by the Obama administration was first flown to Switzerland aboard an unmarked chartered aircraft, and then converted into euros, Swiss francs and other currencies. An Iranian transport aircraft flew the cash to Iran in January and February 2016 in three shipments. The first aircraft arrived in Tehran on Jan. 16, 2016, with $400 million piled on wooden pallets. Two other aircraft shipments of cash were sent on Jan. 22, 2016, and Feb. 5, 2016, totaling $1.3 billion.
In all, Iran received $1.7 billion in U.S. cash that has been used to fund its covert terrorist support operations.

The first $400 million coincided with the release of four Americans held hostage by Iran, a move by Iran to make the money appear as if the Obama administration had paid a ransom to Tehran for the release of the Americans.

The Obama administration sought to justify the cash transfers to the world’s leading state-sponsor of terrorism by claiming the U.S. government was set to lose a legal arbitration case over arms purchases from the United States made by the government of the Shah of Iran, the predecessor government to the Islamist regime that took power in 1979. However, the primary motivation was President Obama’s effort to woo the Iranian regime and seek to change its backing for terrorism in the Middle East.

The Trump administration has sharply reversed course and is working hard to punish Iran for its terrorist activities. Iran has been linked to the deaths of scores of Americans through its backing for terrorism.

Defense Secretary James N. Mattis has been one of the administration’s main hawks on Iran, although he recently softened his opposition to jettisoning the Iran nuclear deal. In the administration’s recently released defense strategy blueprint, Mr. Mattis shifted the focus of American defenses from countering terrorists to confronting nation-states. He said Iran “continues to sow violence and remains the most significant challenge to Middle East stability.”

“In the Middle East, Iran is competing with its neighbors, asserting an arc of influence and instability while vying for regional hegemony, using state-sponsored terrorist activities, a growing network of proxies, and its missile program to achieve its objectives,” he stated.

Joint Staff revising strategy

The Pentagon’s Joint Staff is working on a revision of U.S. military strategy following the release of Defense Secretary James N. Mattis’ new national defense strategy and the updated Nuclear Posture Review. Both the strategy and review outline significant shifts in approaching foreign threats and in directing American responses.

Air Force Gen. Paul J. Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced the launch of the military strategy revision at a hearing Tuesday before the House Armed Services Committee.

“The national defense strategy provides detailed defense policy guidance for military strategy, planning and operations,” Gen. Selva said in his prepared statement. “Therefore, the chairman’s 2016 classified national military strategy will require an update to maintain complete consistency with the national defense strategy and the president’s national security strategy released in December.”

The process of revising military strategy began shortly after the new defense strategy was announced.

Gen. Selva did not provide any details on the revisions, but he noted that the revisions will be “a step toward increasing the lethality and flexibility of the joint force in light of the reemergence of great power competition.”

The revision is expected to alter the military’s approach to dealing with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, and terrorism — the main threat matrix that, like almost everything in the Pentagon, has been given its own acronym: CRIKT. Countering terrorism will continue to be focus but no longer the military’s main focus.

The Joint Staff, the military group at the Pentagon that supports the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also is getting a makeover.

“We have begun a review of the Joint Staff’s organization and processes to determine if we need to make adjustments to support the chairman’s global integrator responsibilities and to better position the chairman to support the secretary’s decision making,” Gen. Selva said.

Treasury sanctions Asian terrorists

The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control targeted South Asian terrorist financing and support networks on Wednesday by designating three people as major terrorist backers. The three were identified as Rahman Zeb Faqir Muhammad, Hizb Ullah Astam Khan, and Dilawar Khan Nadir Khan.

The sanctions block all property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction and are aimed at preventing the financiers from moving money and fundraising.

The Treasury Department “continues to aggressively pursue and expose radicals who support terrorist organizations and run illicit financial networks across South Asia,” Sigal Mandelker, undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, in a statement.

“We are targeting operatives who have provided logistical support, improvised explosive devices and other technological assistance to al Qaeda, Lashkar-e Taiba, the Taliban and other terrorist groups,” she said.

The sanctions are part of stepped up efforts by Treasury to disrupt terrorism fundraising.

Ms. Mandelker said the Trump administration is calling on Pakistan’s government and others in the region “to work with us to deny sanctuary to these dangerous individuals and organizations.”

Raham Zeb is a financier and technology operator for the Pakistani terror group Lashkar-e Taiba, known as LeT, involved in Afghan terror operations.

Hizb Ullah is a bombmaker and financier for terrorists linked to Shaykh Aminullah, a designated terrorist. He was linked to shipments of improvised explosive device precursor chemicals sent from Pakistan to Afghanistan and used by the Taliban and another terrorist group.

Dilawar also worked with Shaykh Aminullah and helped communicate the shaykh’s message among terrorists and facilitated fund transfers, including international transactions.

Contact Bill Gertz on Twitter at @BillGertz.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email