Friday, April 17, 2015

Israel's Worst Enemy? Liberal Jews!

Police Allow Muslim Officials to Damage Holy Floor of Temple Mount Rock The rock under the mosaic floor that was damaged is the foundation where the two Holy Temples stood.

Leaked photo of the mosaic floor covering the Holy Foundation Rock on the Temple Mount.
Leaked photo of the mosaic floor covering the Holy Foundation Rock on the Temple Mount.
Photo Credit: Temple Mount Organization
Archaeologists are furious at the police for allowing the Muslim Waqf on the Temple Mount earlier this week to damage the ancient mosaic floor that covers the Foundation Rock of the Temple Mount.
Known in Hebrew as Even HaShetiya, it is the rock from which the world was created, according to the Kabbalistic literature known as the Zohar, which states:
The world was not created until God took a stone called Even HaShetiya and threw it into the depths where it was fixed from above till below, and from it the world expanded. It is the center point of the world and on this spot stood the Holy of Holies.
Adam and Eve were created there, according to tradition, which also teaches that Cain, Abel, Noah and Abraham offered sacrifices there. It also is the foundation of the two destroyed Holy Temples. The Palestinian Authority has methodically been trying to destroy all evidence of the existence of the Temples that Muslim clerics increasing teach never existed,
This week’s destruction robbed archaeologists of a rare opportunity to photograph the mosaic floor over the rock as well as the cave underneath, archaeologist Tzachi Devira told the Kipa website.
Devira, director of the project to sift debris from the Temple Mount, directly blamed the police for illegally allowing the Waqf to carry out work without supervision.
He recently learned that the Muslims were preparing to change the carpets that cover the floor and the cave, giving Devira a “rare historic opportunity” to photograph the mosaic.
He said “stubbornness of the police” prevented his entry while the Muslims carried out their work behind closed doors earlier this week.
Devira said that the Waqf was laying down new carpets purchased with funds donated by the Kingdom of Jordan.
However, Temple Mount activists who try to observe Muslim activity on the Temple Mount discovered that the Waqf exploited the changing of the carpets to damage the floor without legally required police presence.. Pictures that were taken by Muslims inside the holy site were leaked, and parts of the floor were seen, exposing mosaics from different periods.
Devira and others urgently appealed to Cabinet ministers, including Housing Minister Uri Ariel, who in turn asked Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to intervene because of fears that the Muslims would destroy more evidence of the existence of the Temples.
The Yisrael HaYom newspaper quoted Ariel having written to the Prime Minister:
The Waqf began a renovation project at the Dome of the Rock, the site of the Temple, and this includes re-flooring and potentially additional activities whose nature are unknown, all the while using heavy equipment.
These works are unprecedented and warrant the review of the Ministerial Committee on Archeological Digs at Holy Sites, and the fact that there is heavy machinery involved makes this all the more pressing.
Police finally ordered the work to stop immediately, and Kipa reported that an Israel Antiquities Authority spokesman said “work had not been coordinated.”
Devira asserts that the Waqf is forbidden to carry out any work without the presence of a policeman and an archaeologist.
Below is video of Arabs dumping Temple Mount debris. Click on CC in bottom right corner for English captions.
About the Author: Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu is a graduate in journalism and economics from The George Washington University. He has worked as a cub reporter in rural Virginia and as senior copy editor for major Canadian metropolitan dailies. Tzvi wrote for Arutz Sheva for several years before joining the Jewish Press.


On Wednesday, April 15th, the ACSZ's Western Region co-sponsored (with the Jewish Journal and the Luxe Hotels) a most interesting and timely panel discussion -ISRAEL WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. The evening, chaired by 'our' Barak Raviv and hosted by Efrem Harkham (CEO & President, Luxe Hotels), included Yom HaShoa observance and a panel made up of Rob Eshman, Shmuel Rosner and David Suissa, moderated by Susan Freudenheim (all from the Jewish Journal).

Approximately 200 people were in attendance. We especially thank Barak, Efrem and the Jewish Journal team for making this evening so successful.

EFREM HARKHAM (CEO & President, Luxe Hotels, Host for the evening)
(a professionally produced video of the full panel discussion will be available in the near future)

A KEY TO SUCCESS Schissel Challah

Image result for SCHLISSEL CHALLAH

Thursday, April 16, 2015


Today, on Yom Hashoa, Holocaust Remembrance Day, we also remember those who created light in times of darkness. In 1944, Dr. Gisella Perl, a successful Jewish gynecologist living in Sighet, Romania, known for her innovative research in female reproduction, was sent to Auschwitz and forced to work for Dr. Josef Mengele. She became known as the "Angel of Auschwitz,'' and in an interview with The New York Times she recal...led, ''I treated patients with my voice, telling them beautiful stories, telling them that one day we would have birthdays again, that one day we would sing again."
After the war, Dr. Perl moved to Israel and we are honored that she volunteered at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in the Gynecology Department where she helped to bring thousands of healthy babies into the world.
Before every birth, Dr. Perl would stop and say, "G-d, you owe me a life, a living baby."
Dr. Gisella Perl (1907-1988) shared her deeply moving story in her book, "I was a Doctor in Auschwitz." May her memory be blessed.
In the photos: Dr. Gisella Perl (on the left) in the concentration camps and (on the right) years later in Shaare Zedek.

This Yom Hashoah: Crucial Lessons to Remember as We Engage Iran

Today We Commemorate Yom Hashoah:

"The crucial lessons to remember as we engage Iran... What significance does a commemoration have if our leaders fail to take action?...The memory of the Holocaust is best preserved when we refuse to repeat our mistakes..."
Read Rabbi Marvin Hier's remarks below, as well as questions he posed to President Obama this past Monday at the White House. Rabbi Hier was one of the 18 leaders who met with the President to discuss Iran and the Middle East.
April 16, 2015
George Santayana once warned, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  In a few weeks, the world’s attention will briefly focus on events that threatened the very existence of Western Civilization in the early ‘30s and ‘40s.  On May 8, the President of the United States and other worldleaders will be in Berlin to mark the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps and the end of World War II.  On this Yom Hashoah, it is important to spend a few moments to recall those early days.

In 1933, when Adolf Hitler became chancellor of the Third Reich, the world, of course, was shocked even though the Nazi party had significant followers in the early 30s.  Still, nobody expected that they would govern Germany.  But rather than confront the Nazis, the prevalent view of both the leaders of Europe and the United States was to reach out and attempt to engage them.  Their reasoning was clear - by welcoming Hitler as a full-fledged partner in the new Europe, the Fuhrer and his followers could be convinced to mitigate their racist and anti-Semitic ideology.  Only Winston Churchill saw through the veneer and knew instinctively that hate mongers and despots are unlikely candidates for change.

Speaking at the House of Commons in 1934, Winston Churchill prophetically warned, “Wars come very suddenly… and I am bound to say that I cannot see in the present administration of Germany any assurance that they would be more nice minded… no sir, we may within a measurable period of time in the lifetime of those who are here if we are not in a proper state of security … on some occasion with a visit from an ambassador, and may have to give an answer in a very few hours, and if that answer is not satisfactory, within the next few hours the crash of bombs exploding in London...”

But Brittan then was very much in the appeasement mode.  As Roy Jenkins writes in his biography on Churchill, in 1937, when Joachim Von Ribbentrop, who had been the German Ambassador to England since 1936 was appointed Nazi Germany’s new Foreign Minister, the traditional departing luncheon took place. But rather than being hosted by the Foreign Secretary, or in our terms, the Secretary of State, the new British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, eager to appease the Nazi dictator broke with tradition and decided to host the luncheon.  The Churchills were also invited and Winston was seated next to Frau Von Ribbentrop.  During the luncheon, news was received that Nazi troops had entered Austria for the Anschluss unifying Nazi Germany and Austria.  The news was even shocking to Chamberlain, but the luncheon went on long enough for Frau Von Ribbentrop to chide and sternly remind Churchill to be careful not to ruin the ongoing friendly Anglo-German relationship.

Eight and a half years after this luncheon and the Nazi Holocaust, Von Ribbentrop himself was hanged as a war criminal by a Nuremberg tribunal put in place by the same England he served as Ambassador.

But it wasn’t only England that adopted an appeasement strategy with Hitler. The United States also believed in that philosophy.  In 1936, the United States, despite Nazi Germany’s persecution of Jews, fully supported sending the US Olympic team to the Hitler-sponsored Olympics.  With the enthusiastic backing of the Roosevelt administration and under the leadership of Avery Brundage, the US sent a full team.

Six years after the Berlin Olympics ended, Hitler began his “Final Solution”.  When the War ended, six million Jews, one third of all the Jews in the world, were murdered by the Nazis in places like Treblinka, Majdanek and Auschwitz.  Between 50 and 80 million people lost their lives.

What lessons can we learn from this?  We can learn that ideologues remain ideologues.  That despite all the meetings with world leaders, despite the fact that he hosted the ‘36 Olympics and the whole world came to Berlin; it had absolutely no impact on mitigating Hitler’s worldview.  In the end, he did exactly what he wrote in a September 16, 1919 signed letter in the possession of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in which he said, “Its final aim, however, must be the uncompromising removal of the Jews altogether.”  He remained the same tyrant, bent on world domination.

These are crucial lessons to remember as we engage Iran.  First and foremost, we must remember that since the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Ayatollahs who rule the country have never disguised for one moment their rabid anti-Semitism, and great hatred for America.

They are today, without question, the world’s most dangerous and potent terrorist organization.  Their leaders have converted lying and concealment into an art.  For years they have misled the world.  Their one desire is to acquire nuclear weapons, which would endanger the entire world.  The only reason they have agreed to talks is because they hear the rumblings of their own people and they feel the pain of the sanctions.  It would be the height of naivete to bet the house that we can somehow modify and engage these Ayatollahs so they can come in from the cold and embrace Jews and Americans.

A few days ago, I was one of 18 leaders invited to meet with President Obama at the White House to discuss Iran and the Middle East.  While the meeting was off the record, and I cannot speak about what the President said, I can tell you one of the two points I raised with him.  I said that in a matter of weeks world leaders would be convening in Berlin to commemorate the 70th anniversary.  But what meaning, Mr. President, does an anniversary like that have if in the midst of the most sensitive negotiations ever carried out between the P5+1 and Iran if none of those leaders repudiated the remarks by the Ayatollah and one of Iran’s most influential commanders who recently said that, “erasing Israel off the map” is “non-negotiable.”  What significance does a commemoration have if our leaders fail to take action?

The memory of the Holocaust is best preserved when we refuse to repeat our mistakes.
image not displayed
image not displayed

It must be wonderful to look back in years-to-come and recognize all your old classmates in the annual school photo, with all those memories of the fun times.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Bergen-Belsen's liberation was 70 years ago today

On the afternoon of 15 April 1945, British troops liberated the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in northern Germany. They were met with scenes of unimaginable horror. Some 13,000 dead bodies were slowly decomposing in the spring sun while another 60,000 gaunt figures were alive but emaciated, sick and starving, teetering on the precipice of death. In the days after the British arrival, the prisoners continued to perish at a rate of 500 a day, most...
image not displayed

Egyptian President Sisi's uncompromising war on terrorism, by Khaled Abu Toameh

This week, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi signed a new law, according to which anyone who digs a tunnel along Egypt's borders would face life imprisonment.
Sisi has shown real guts and determination in his war to drain the swamps of terrorists.
The tough measures he has taken along Egypt's border with the Gaza Strip have proven to be even more effective than Israel's military operations against the smuggling tunnels.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's uncompromising war on terrorism, especially along the border with the Gaza Strip, seems to be bearing fruit. It is a war that is being waged away from the spotlight and with almost no reaction from the international community.
This situation is a perfect example of how the international community and the United Nations do not care about the "plight" of the Palestinians as long as Israel is not involved. Sisi's war on terrorism has thus far failed to spark the same uproar, if any, that is often triggered by Israeli military operations against Hamas and its smuggling tunnels.
As a result of this war -- which began in 2013, shortly after Sisi came to power, with the destruction of hundreds of smuggling tunnels along the border between Egypt and the Gaza Strip -- Hamas and other armed groups are now more isolated than ever.
But it is not only the isolation that worries Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other armed groups in the Gaza Strip.
Rather, it is that Egypt's tough security measures --which include the destruction of more than 1700 tunnels and the creation of a security zone along its border with the Gaza Strip -- have brought the smuggling of weapons to a near halt.
"The smuggling (of weapons into the Gaza Strip) has been stopped almost completely," admitted Abu Mohammed, a Palestinian arms dealer from the town Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. "Rarely does anyone manage to smuggle light weapons or ammunition."
Abu Mohammed revealed that the smuggling of weapons from Egypt into the Gaza Strip has virtually stopped since February this year. He complained that it has become impossible to smuggle missiles and rockets into the Gaza Strip.
Abu Mohammed said that the Egyptian security crackdown on smuggling tunnels has caused a shortage of various types of weapons and ammunition in the Gaza Strip. Moreover, Sisi's crackdown has led to an upsurge in the prices of many weapons, he added.
For example, the Palestinian arms dealer noted, the cost of one bullet, which used to sell for one US dollar, had doubled in recent months. Similarly, the price of an Egyptian-made AK-47 assault rifle has risen from $900 to $1300.
Attempts by some of the Palestinian owners of the smuggling tunnels to rebuild them have been unsuccessful due to the ongoing Egyptian measures, Abu Mohammed said. The measures include the use of explosives and wastewater to destroy the tunnels, he added.
Buoyed by the success of their anti-terror campaign, the Egyptian authorities are now studying the possibility of expanding the security zone they recently set up along the border with the Gaza Strip. The Egyptians say the move is needed to prevent terror groups from expanding their activities in northern Sinai.
Since the beginning of the year, the Egyptian authorities have discovered and destroyed an additional 240 smuggling tunnels along the border with the Gaza Strip. One of the tunnels was nearly three kilometers long and three meters deep, according to Egyptian security officials. The tunnel is the longest one uncovered so far by the Egyptians.
Egyptian soldiers prepare to blow up a large smuggling tunnel they discovered along Sinai's border with Gaza, September 2014. (Image source: Almyan video screenshot)
President Sisi has now decided to combat Hamas's smuggling tunnels also through legal means. This week, he signed a new law, according to which anyone who digs a tunnel along Egypt's borders would face life imprisonment.
The new law came amid reports that some anti-government jihadists from Sinai had received medical treatment in hospitals inside the Gaza Strip. The reports confirm fears of Egyptian government officials that the jihadists in Sinai are working together with Hamas to undermine security and stability in Egypt.
The new law followed another bloody day, when five people were killed and some 30 injured in bomb blasts outside a security installation, in the Sinai town of El Arish. Earlier, another terrorist attack on security forces left seven soldiers killed near Sheikh Zuweid, a town in northern Sinai near the Gaza Strip border.
Sisi has shown real guts and determination in his war to drain the swamps of terrorists. The tough measures he has taken along the border with the Gaza Strip have proven to be even more effective than Israel's military operations against the smuggling tunnels.
That the Gaza Strip is facing a weapons shortage is good news not only for Israel and Egypt, but also for the Palestinians living there.
It is hard to see how Hamas will rush into another military confrontation with Israel -- where Palestinians would once again pay a heavy price -- at a time when Sisi's army is working around the clock to destroy smuggling tunnels, and the prices of rifles and bullets in the Gaza Strip are skyrocketing.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Israel Matzav: 'Worse than Carter'

Former Vice President Dick Cheney goes on the war path against the foreign policy of Barack Hussein Obama, calling Obama the 'worst President' evah on foreign policy (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). 
Former Vice President Dick Cheney says President Barack Obama is the worst commander in chief the United States has ever had, in view of the recent Iranian nuclear agreement.
Asked about the deal by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday, the former vice president said the Iranian regime is “one of the most radical” in history and that “Obama’s about to give them nuclear weapons.”
“I vacillate between the various theories I’ve heard, but you know, if you had somebody as president who wanted to take America down, who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world and reduce our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama’s doing,” Cheney said when asked whether he thought the president is naïve or something else.
“I think his actions are constituted in my mind those of the worst president we’ve ever had,” he said.
Cheney also said “it’s a mark of the weakness” of Obama that he would criticize Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker for saying he would get rid of the deal with Iran on his first day in the White House.
What amazes me about this is how oh so predictable this all was in 2007-08, and how so many people apparently missed it then.

For those who have forgotten, here are the 10 goals of the Obama administration. How's he doing?

Israel Matzav: Oh my... Henry Kissinger and George Schultz blast Obama's Iran deal

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, two prominent former Secretaries of State - Henry Kissinger and George Schultz - blast President Hussein Obama's Iranian nuclear framework agreement. Curiously, Kissinger and Schultz don't even mention Israel. They find plenty of other reasons to oppose the deal
Debate regarding technical details of the deal has thus far inhibited the soul-searching necessary regarding its deeper implications. For 20 years, three presidents of both major parties proclaimed that an Iranian nuclear weapon was contrary to American and global interests—and that they were prepared to use force to prevent it. Yet negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability, albeit short of its full capacity in the first 10 years. 
Mixing shrewd diplomacy with open defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iran has gradually turned the negotiation on its head. Iran’s centrifuges have multiplied from about 100 at the beginning of the negotiation to almost 20,000 today. The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran. While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal. In the process, the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon. Under the proposed agreement, for 10 years Iran will never be further than one year from a nuclear weapon and, after a decade, will be significantly closer.
Negotiating the final agreement will be extremely challenging. For one thing, no official text has yet been published. The so-called framework represents a unilateral American interpretation. Some of its clauses have been dismissed by the principal Iranian negotiator as “spin.” A joint EU-Iran statement differs in important respects, especially with regard to the lifting of sanctions and permitted research and development.
Comparable ambiguities apply to the one-year window for a presumed Iranian breakout. Emerging at a relatively late stage in the negotiation, this concept replaced the previous baseline—that Iran might be permitted a technical capacity compatible with a plausible civilian nuclear program. The new approach complicates verification and makes it more political because of the vagueness of the criteria.
Under the new approach, Iran permanently gives up none of its equipment, facilities or fissile product to achieve the proposed constraints. It only places them under temporary restriction and safeguard—amounting in many cases to a seal at the door of a depot or periodic visits by inspectors to declared sites. The physical magnitude of the effort is daunting. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency technically, and in terms of human resources, up to so complex and vast an assignment?
In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect. Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another. Any report of a violation is likely to prompt debate over its significance—or even calls for new talks with Tehran to explore the issue. The experience of Iran’s work on a heavy-water reactor during the “interim agreement” period—when suspect activity was identified but played down in the interest of a positive negotiating atmosphere—is not encouraging.
Compounding the difficulty is the unlikelihood that breakout will be a clear-cut event. More likely it will occur, if it does, via the gradual accumulation of ambiguous evasions.
When inevitable disagreements arise over the scope and intrusiveness of inspections, on what criteria are we prepared to insist and up to what point? If evidence is imperfect, who bears the burden of proof? What process will be followed to resolve the matter swiftly?
The agreement’s primary enforcement mechanism, the threat of renewed sanctions, emphasizes a broad-based asymmetry, which provides Iran permanent relief from sanctions in exchange for temporary restraints on Iranian conduct. Undertaking the “snap-back” of sanctions is unlikely to be as clear or as automatic as the phrase implies. Iran is in a position to violate the agreement by executive decision. Restoring the most effective sanctions will require coordinated international action. In countries that had reluctantly joined in previous rounds, the demands of public and commercial opinion will militate against automatic or even prompt “snap-back.” If the follow-on process does not unambiguously define the term, an attempt to reimpose sanctions risks primarily isolating America, not Iran.
The gradual expiration of the framework agreement, beginning in a decade, will enable Iran to become a significant nuclear, industrial and military power after that time—in the scope and sophistication of its nuclear program and its latent capacity to weaponize at a time of its choosing. Limits on Iran’s research and development have not been publicly disclosed (or perhaps agreed). Therefore Iran will be in a position to bolster its advanced nuclear technology during the period of the agreement and rapidly deploy more advanced centrifuges—of at least five times the capacity of the current model—after the agreement expires or is broken. 
Even when these issues are resolved, another set of problems emerges because the negotiating process has created its own realities. The interim agreement accepted Iranian enrichment; the new agreement makes it an integral part of the architecture. For the U.S., a decade-long restriction on Iran’s nuclear capacity is a possibly hopeful interlude. For Iran’s neighbors—who perceive their imperatives in terms of millennial rivalries—it is a dangerous prelude to an even more dangerous permanent fact of life. Some of the chief actors in the Middle East are likely to view the U.S. as willing to concede a nuclear military capability to the country they consider their principal threat. Several will insist on at least an equivalent capability. Saudi Arabia has signaled that it will enter the lists; others are likely to follow. In that sense, the implications of the negotiation are irreversible.
If the Middle East is “proliferated” and becomes host to a plethora of nuclear-threshold states, several in mortal rivalry with each other, on what concept of nuclear deterrence or strategic stability will international security be based? Traditional theories of deterrence assumed a series of bilateral equations. Do we now envision an interlocking series of rivalries, with each new nuclear program counterbalancing others in the region?
Previous thinking on nuclear strategy also assumed the existence of stable state actors. Among the original nuclear powers, geographic distances and the relatively large size of programs combined with moral revulsion to make surprise attack all but inconceivable. How will these doctrines translate into a region where sponsorship of nonstate proxies is common, the state structure is under assault, and death on behalf of jihad is a kind of fulfillment?
Some have suggested the U.S. can dissuade Iran’s neighbors from developing individual deterrent capacities by extending an American nuclear umbrella to them. But how will these guarantees be defined? What factors will govern their implementation? Are the guarantees extended against the use of nuclear weapons—or against any military attack, conventional or nuclear? Is it the domination by Iran that we oppose or the method for achieving it? What if nuclear weapons are employed as psychological blackmail? And how will such guarantees be expressed, or reconciled with public opinion and constitutional practices?
There are many reasons to oppose a nuclear Iran without limiting the argument to Israel and Israel's interests. The Obama administration has managed to turn the Iranian nuclear debate into a question that solely relates to whether the US should be supporting Israel - something that Obama opposes but most Americans favor. The issues involving Iran are much broader.

Kissinger and Schultz make Obama and Kerry look like intellectual pigmies. The issues that Obama and Kerry never considered (or perhaps more likely did consider and subordinated to Obama's need for a legacy) are complex and daunting. This deal may yet go down in history as one of the worst ever made.

Read the whole thing (it's long but worth it). 
Displaying Attachment-1.png

Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Hillary once said to lift sanctions only after Iran stops sponsoring terror

It wasn't only Obama who has flip-flopped on his red lines on lifting sanctions on Iran.

Here's Hillary Clinton writing in 2007:

As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.

On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran acarefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.
While Hillary has been mostly silent on the current Iranian negotiations, if she still held by these opinions one would expect that the Democratic frontrunner for president would have spoken up.

Israel Matzav: The lies begin: Hillary Clinton claims credit for 'tough new sanctions against Iran'

Hillary Clinton announced today that she is running for President (Hat Tip: Memeorandum), and her newly minted campaign has already started to lie. Clinton, it claims was behind 'tough new sanctions' against Iran. 
And when President Obama asked Hillary to serve as his secretary of state, she put aside their hard-fought campaign and answered the call to public service once again. After eight years of Bush foreign policy, Hillary was instrumental in starting to restore America’s standing in the world. Even former Republican Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said she “ran the State Department in the most effective way that I’ve ever seen.”

She built a coalition for tough new sanctions against Iran that brought them to the negotiating table and she brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that ended a war and protected Israel’s security.
The Kissinger quote is true. But 'starting to restore America's standing in the world'? It's been all downhill since 2009.

'Built a coalition for tough new sanctions against Iran'? I think a couple of guys named Kirk and Menendez (the latter currently a political target of the Obama administration under the guise of a criminal indictment) deserve credit for that. 

'[B]rokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that ended a war and protected Israel’s security.' What protected Israel's security? Hillary? Don't make me laugh. The end of the war? Israel would have been a lot better off had the war continued. Oh and by the way, to which war is she referring?

I wonder if Suha Arafat will have a role in Hillary's campaign and White House. What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Netanyahu's alternative

President Hussein Obama keeps telling everyone who will listen that Prime Minister Netanyahu has 'no alternative' to his lousy deal with Iran, because there is no alternative. On Sunday, Prime Minister Netanyahu set out a brief summary of his alternative to Obama's capitulation.

Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Dan F). 

True leadership... something about which Obama knows nothing.

Super Carrier: Deepening the U.S. - Israel partnership on the high seas

A group of seven Israeli Defense Forces officers, led by Maj. Gen. Yoav Har-Even, visited the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) in the Mediterranean off the coast of Sicily last week, for a day of familiarization and discussions with American naval personnel. During the visit the officers had the opportunity to observe flight and maritime operations from the deck of the carrier and receive a brief on how Sailors organize, direct, and move aircraft around the four-and-a-half acre flight deck, as well as a brief on the ship’s navigational systems. They also learned about the operations of the ship, the flight squadrons, and the Carrier Strike Group. The activities included an up-close view of flight operations such as catapult launches, an in-air refueling demonstration, arrested landings, search and rescue operations, and a tour of the ships vast aircraft hangars, flight squadrons, operation center, bridge, and flight control tower. The purpose of the visit was to demonstrate the capabilities and firepower of USS Theodor Roosevelt and the TR Carrier Strike Group and to support cooperation between the U.S. and Israeli navies, as well as ensuring interoperability between the U.S. and their Israeli partners. Such visits are a means of sustaining the U.S.’s long-standing alliance with Israel. The group, which also included officers from the Cypriot military, was hosted by the ship’s commanding officer, Capt. Daniel C. Grieco, and the commander of the Carrier Strike Group Rear Adm. Andrew Lewis.

Saudi Cleric Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah: Husbands Can Eat Their Wives by Aussie Dave | Israellycool

Meet leading Saudi Arabian cleric Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah. Judging by this picture, you might want to have what he’s having.
A leading Saudi Arabian cleric has reportedly issued a controversial fatwa allowing a husband to chop off his wife and eat her body in the event of extreme hunger.
The fatwa, an Islamic edict, was widely attributed to the mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah.
The grand mufti, who is the highest religious figure in Saudi Arabia, went on to substantiate the fatwa by saying this will allow the couple to “become one as their bodies will fuse together after the husband eats his wife”.
According to multiple local reports, the fatwa “allows a man to eat his wife or parts of her body, if the husband was afflicted with a severe hunger”.
The report added: “The fatwa is interpreted as evidence of the sacrifice of women and obedience to her husband and her desire for the two to become one.”
This is the same cleric who proclaimed that women driving is evil. So I guess here he is killing two birds with one stone.
Update: He denies having made the fatwa.

Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: The delegitimization industry (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column:

I just listened to an interview with Tuvia Tenenbom, author of Catch a Jew and I Sleep in Hitler’s Room. Although the interviewer talks far too much — I always wish they would just shut up and let the subject talk, especially when it’s someone as engaging as Tenenbom — I strongly recommend it. Be prepared to be upset, angry or depressed (depending on your personality) by what he reports.

Among the truths that Tenenbom discovered in his travels in Europe and Israel in the guise of a non-Jewish German journalist were a) many Europeans are really anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist, b) so are some Jewish Israelis, and c) they are getting together to work towards the replacement of Israel by some kind of non-Zionist state in which Jews will be a minority.

This isn’t news — NGO Monitor has been documenting the massive flow of Euros to anti-Zionist organizations run by left-wing Israeli Jews or Arabs for years — but Tenenbom emphasizes how pervasive the influence is, extending from large organizations like the Red Cross to small operations like the tour guide (a self-described ‘ex-Jew’) who brings groups of Europeans to Yad Vashem, where he explains that this is what the Jews are doing to the Palestinian Arabs.

It’s hard to see how a tiny country, which doesn’t threaten anyone and only wants to be left in peace deserves this. But the NGOs are only a tiny part of it. There is also the phenomenon of the worldwide academic onslaught on Israel, in which critical standards and honesty are thrown to the winds in the production of ‘scholarship’ that is no more than political polemics against Israel and the Jewish people; while, at the same time the professors replace teaching with indoctrination, and use university resources for political activity such as promoting boycott-divestment-sanctions against Israel. Jewish faculty are in the forefront of the effort.

Tenenbom also notes how many of the Jewish Israelis that gnaw away at the state that protects them — one of his interviewees is writer Gideon Levy of Ha’aretz — positively venerate Palestinian Arab Muslim culture. But, he points out, they don’t know a word of Arabic and haven’t read the Qur’an. What can they know about Arab culture or Islam?

Tenenbom uses the expression “self-hating Jews” to describe Jews like Gideon Levy, but I think that’s misleading. They don’t hate themselves — they see themselves as better than the others, the ones that have all the ‘Jewish’ characteristics that they hate (religious belief, for one). They identify with their enemies that want to kill them, even to the point of adopting their anti-Jewish beliefs, because they subconsciously think it will protect them.

Upset, angry or depressed yet? I haven’t even mentioned the United Nations, which spends millions of dollars each year on events, exhibits and production of materials that present the Arab narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (in which Israel is entirely at fault), or the Human Rights Commission which generates more resolutions condemning Israel than those for all other nations combined.

Then there is a multiplicity of smaller groups, trade unions, professional organizations, church groups (the Presbyterian Church USA comes to mind) which allow themselves to be used as vehicles for delegitimizing the Jewish state.

All this, despite the fact that there is no objective basis for it. Most anti-Israel arguments revolve around the alleged mistreatment — even ‘genocide’ — of Palestinian Arabs under Israel’s control. But the Arab population continues to increase, and its levels of health and nutrition are among the highest in the Arab world. More than 95% of the Arabs in Judea and Samaria live in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority (and of course 100% of Gazans are ruled by Hamas). Even during wars, objective analysis has shown that Israel’s actions to reduce civilian casualties areunmatched by those of any other nation.

At any given time there are numerous wars, rebellions, insurgencies, occupations, massacres, etc. throughout the world which receive far less attention in the media and academia despite hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of casualties (the Boko Haram uprising killed almost 11,000 in 2014 and almost 5,000 already this year). Did you know that the Second Congo War (1998-2003) caused more than 350,000 violent deaths, and 2.7-5.4 million excess deaths, with low-level violence still continuing to this day? The Israeli-Arab conflict is comparatively very small potatoes.

And then there are the positives: the remarkable number of scientific and technological advances by Israelis, the almost full-employment economy, the democratic political system, the high degree of personal freedom enjoyed by Jewish and Arab Israelis despite the pressure of wars and terrorism, the degree of equality for women and gay or otherwise unconventional people, the production of art, music and literature, and more.

It’s revealing that the haters object to pro-Israel people mentioning any of this. One is not allowed to say that Israel is the most (the only) LGBT-friendly country in the Middle East, because that is “pinkwashing,” using this undeniable truth to ‘cover up’ the oppression of Arabs. But if no empirical fact can count against the proposition that Israel is an oppressor, then that’s a clue that the proposition is itself not based on empirical facts.

So what is behind the irrational hatred for Israel and the amount of resources — Western, enlightened resources — devoted to an attempt to destroy it and to replace it with another unstable, undemocratic, racist Arab-majority state?

There are lots of reasons. American academic institutions have been infused with Arab oil money, and Arab countries have supplied many of them with activist foreign students. The UN is dominated by the non-aligned movement, which is controlled by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which in turn is led by the Arab League. ‘Progressive’ ideology includes a large serving of guilt for Western colonialism, and the Arab narrative that presents Israel as a Western colonialist resonates with the Left.

But I’m afraid that Tenenbom’s experiences in Europe and among Israel’s academic and media elite are the most important indicator. I said the hatred is ‘irrational’, and an irrational attitude has an irrational cause: in this case, pathological Jew-hatred, deeply implanted in so many Europeans, and paradoxically also in the best-educated Israelis.

This could be a lesson for those Jews who can’t decide to stay in Europe or leave. Don’t expect the Europeans to stick up for you if you stay. They don’t like you.