Jews No Longer ‘At Home’ In America - Irving Moskowitz

October 18, 1991

ONE MINUTE TO MIDNIGHT – Dr. IRVING MOSKOWITZ

Jews No Longer ‘At Home’ In America

            Not a long ago, a prominent Jewish professor authored a history of American Jewry entitled At Home in America. Certainly, it is true that for most Jews, the phrase “at home in America” was precisely how they have felt about the United States. But now that an American president has, for the first time, openly attacked the American Jewish community, perhaps the time has come to reconsider just what that phrase “at home” really means.

            Jewish tradition, of course, utterly rejects the concept that Jews could be “at home” anywhere outside of the Land of Israel. Judaism, in contrast to other religions, is very much a land-centered faith. Many of the Torah commandments are dependent upon Jews being physically resident in the land. Many of the prayers are for the reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, or for the return of the exiled Jews to their homeland.

“At home” in Crown Heights or the Valley? Impossible, say the classic Jewish texts. The Diaspora – or, more accurately, the Exile – is depicted as a punishment, a curse, a tragedy – not an opportunity to grow fat and comfortable.

Still most American Jews have never paid a great deal of attention to those texts, and even some of the observant Jews who are familiar with them prefer to skip over those “Land of Israel” – related passages whose implementation would be especially inconvenient.

So feeling right “at home” in America, Jews set to work contributing their talents and energy to making it a better country. They succeeded as no other ethnic minority group has ever succeeded. Their contributions have been unparalleled. Who can count the Jewish comedians who have made Americans laugh, the Jewish playwrights who have moved audiences to tears, the Jewish Hollywood producers who have entertained millions, the Jewish doctors who have healed, the Jewish lawyers who have pleaded, the industries built by Jewish sweat and Jewish brains...?

All of this was possible because anti-Semitism in the United States, while always present, never reached the levels of intensity that it reached elsewhere. Certainly, this country has had its share of “American First" rallies, Ku Klux Kim torching’s, and neo-Nazi marches, but in American political life they have always been the exceptions, not the rule. Anti-Semitism was always regarded by the governmental authorities as illegitimate.

Now all of that has changed. For the first time in this county’s history, a president has publicly attacked the American Jewish community for the “crime" of exercising its democratic right to lobby. Let nobody be fooled by his use of euphemisms like “the Pro-Israel lobby." That phrase means Jews. He knows we know it, and they know it. The “they” to whom I am referring are the millions of potential anti-Semites in this country who will interpret the president’s words as a declaration that it is open season on the Jews. These potential Jew—haters range from the editors who immediately filled their newspapers with wildly exaggerated stories about the amount of aid America has given Israel (read: the Jews) to the blue—collar workers in the neighborhood bars who nodded and grumbled about "the Jews" getting $10-billion while other Americans struggle to make ends meet.

If Jews begin to feel like they are no longer really “at home in America," it is with good reason. It used to be that the only time one would discover anti-Semitism in the White House was long after the official in question had retired — for example, former Vice-President Spiro Agnew’s rantings about the “Zionist lobby," or former President Richard Nixon's taped remarks about Jewish anti-war protesters. How times have changed. Now even the occupant of the White House can go after the Jews, provided only that he use the appropriate euphemisms.

Dr. Irving Moskowitz is a Member of the Board of Governors of Americans For a Safe Israel.

The Enemy Within: Jewish Turncoats, Then And Now - Dr. IRVIN MOSKOWITZ

August 23, 1991 - Still very relevant today as it was then

ONE MINUTE TO MIDNIGHT – Dr. Irving Moskowitz

The Enemy Within: Jewish Turncoats, Then And Now

The tragedy of individual Jews siding with their people’s enemies is a phenomenon well known to anyone familiar with Jewish history. From the medieval Jewish converts to Christianity who became prominent anti-Semites, to the pro-PLO Jewish radicals of our own time, those renegades have caused untold damage to Jewish interests. It is no wonder that the verse in Isaiah, “Your destroyers shall come from among you,” is interpreted by most biblical commentators as refereeing to Jewish traitors who wreak havoc upon their people.”

Time after time throughout Jewish history, Jewish turncoats have joined forces with the enemies of the Jews and played important roles in the formulation of anti-Jewish policies. During the Spanish Inquisition, some of the fiercest Christian fanatics involved in the torture and murder of innocent Jews were former Jews who had converted to Christianity in order to escape their Jewishness and find material security in the Christian world.

In other European countries during the Middle Ages, individual “Court Jews” curried favor with the ruling authorities at the expense of the local Jewish community. In some instances, of course, Court Jews played a necessary and even valuable role as intermediary between the Jewish community and the local king. But all too often, Court Jews misused their positions to gain personal advantages, while the rest of the Jews suffered from poverty and oppressions.

Entire books have been written about the role of Jewish "Kapos," or collaborators, during the Holocaust. There can be no doubt that local Jewish leaders were in many cases forced into impossible situations by the demands of the Nazi occupiers: nobody should be quick to judge or condemn them. for in many cases they truly did their best to assist their fellow-Jews, despite the extreme circumstantiates in which they were trapped. Yet there can be no denying that some Jewish leaders went too far, becoming actual collaborators with the Nazi enemy in order to save their own skins. Ben Hecht's powerful book Perfidy (first published in 1962) told the horrifying tale of one such traitor. Rudolf Kastner, who deliberately  hid news of the gas chambers from the Hungarian Jewish community In exchange for a promise by the Nazis to spare him and a handful of his friends and relatives. After the war Kastner actually signed an affidavit on behalf of a Nazi war criminal with whom he had become friendly, resulting in the Nazi being set free by the Allies.

In this context, one cannot help but think of the role currently being played in the formulation of U.S. Middle East policy by President Bush’s handful of Jewish advisers. The Administration’s ferociously pro—Arab slant has been shaped to a large extent by Jewish turncoats like Dennis Ross, the Director of the Policy Planning for the State Department; Aaron David Miller, a senior member of the State Department’s Policy and Planning Staff, and Daniel Kurtzer, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near East and South Asian Affairs.

These Jewish Arabists operate almost entirely behind the scenes, so the Jewish community is generally unaware of the nature of their actions. But two years ago, the New York Times revealed that it was Kurtzer who, more than anyone else, had been the architect of the U.S. decision to recognize and negotiate with the terrorist PLO. This past April, a stunning expose of Bush’s Jewish henchmen, which was published in Moment magazine, detailed how Kurtzer and company have continued to push the pro-Arab line in U.S. foreign policy. The Moment article is must reading for every Jew who cares about Israel.

Kurtzer’s background will no doubt raise some eyebrows. He claims to be an Orthodox Jew, and at one time he actually served as a dean at Yeshiva University. One might think that in a view of Kurtzer’s anti-Israel activity, the Yeshiva University administration would forcefully criticize him. Instead, however, Y.U. president Norman Lamm has been quoted in the New York Times  as praising and defending Kurtzer.

Jewish turncoats who help plot the U.S. abandonment of Israel do not deserve to be praised or defended; they deserve to be condemned, forcefully and unequivocally, and made a persona non grata in the American Jewish community.

Dr. Irving Moskowitz is a Member of the Board of Governors of Americans For a Safe Israel.

JEWS WITH PRIDE, AND JEWS WHO LACK IT – Dr. IRVING MOSKOWITZ

Editors note: this is very relevant to today as well

One Minute to Midnight - March 9, 1990

JEWS WITH PRIDE, AND JEWS WHO LACK IT – Dr. IRVING MOSKOWITZ

There are Jews with pride. But is Efraim Zuroff one of them?

Zuroff, the Jerusalem representative of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, lives in the Jewish settlement of Efrat, which means that he and his family are the potential targets of Arab rock-throwers every time they leave home. Yet in a recent interview with the Jerusalem Post, David Horovitz writes that Zuroff is extremely unhappy with “the stereotypical image of the settler with his bushy beard, his gun in his belt and his eternally pregnant wife.”

Zuroff seemed to be echoing the sentiments of Shimon Peres, who in a 1988 outburst declared that “the appearance of the settlers, with their kippahs and beards, invites contempt, and ridicule.”

“Self-hatred" may be too strong a characterization for such expressions, but it is clear that Zuroff and Peres share a sense of acute embarrassment, even shame, at the thought that such Jews might be seen by the outside world as representatives of Israel.

What is not clear is exactly why Zuroff and Peres should be so perturbed. The kippahs and beards of the settlers are traditional signs of pride in one's Jewish identity. The settlers' guns are evidence that Israeli Jews have learned the bitter lesson of Diaspora Jewish history — that it is better to be armed and alive, than vulnerable and victimized.

And what in the world is wrong with a pregnant wife? Zuroff‘s profession involves documenting Nazi war crimes, so surely he must appreciate the devastating impact on World Jewry of the Nazis‘ murder of two million Jewish children. Jewish settlers who choose to have many children are patriots who are fulfilling the Jewish religious obligation to replenish the shrunken ranks of our people. In this era of “me-first” Yuppies and abortion-on-demand, we should welcome the sight of Jews who are prepared to sacrifice their personal material comfort for the sake of a higher goal. They deserve to be praised, not mocked.

If the Simon Wiesenthal Center wants to continue its world-wide reputation, and maintain its credibility, perhaps those in the leadership positions of the Simon Wiesenthal Center should give some in-service preparatory training to their representatives before sending them out to represent the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

The origin of the Zuroff-Peres line of thinking is no mystery. The ceaseless barrage of international criticism aimed at Israel has made some Jews excessively sensitive to world opinion. But being ashamed of the traditional symbols of Jewishness will not impress non-Jews. One must have some self-respect before it is possible to win the respect of others.

Dr. Irving Moskowitz is a Member of the Board of Governors of Americans For a Safe Israel.

The Battle for The Legacy of Martin Luther King vis a vis Israel

Dr. King and the Rabbis

It goes without saying that one of the most recognizable names in American history (of the last hundred years or so) is none other then Dr. Martin Luther King. 

Dr. King, to many, represents the pinnacle of courage against adversary as he has become known for his courageous efforts on behalf of the US civil rights movement. The movement, pioneered by Dr. King, pressured the American government to end legalized segregation in the United States and bring about a truly free United States where all people were created equal on paper - but in practice as well

With such an outlook reflecting the dream of Dr. King, it would only make sense that Dr. King had been supportive of the Jewish cause and its fledgling Jewish State. This would be the case simply based on the reality that the State of Israel, since its inception, had been the one country in the middle east where all individuals were able to live (in Dr. Kings time as well as today) in a democratic society, with freedom of religion and without the concern for racism or oppression...

If the above video is of any indication, then the above presupposition was exactly what Dr. King felt regarding the State of Israel and its standing within the greater middle east community. 

Yet despite of the video above, it would seem that when it comes to the legacy of Dr. King and State of Israel matters may not be as clear cut as we would like... 

This is not only best illustrated in an interesting write up Times of Israel but further solidified in  articles on the Electronic Intifada, where many anti Israel groups have been calling Dr. Kings perceived viewpoint into question and as pointed out by Lebovic in the Times of Israel, seems that the view point of Dr. King on Israel is stuck in a constant tug-a-war between the strong pro Israel voices in the black community. Voices such as those of Dumisani Washington of the Institute for Black Solidarity with Israel and those in  support of the Black Lives Matter movement seem rather contentious on whether or not Dr. King was pro Israel or rather one of its vehement opponents.

Intersectiontality at work

Interestingly however, the oft-quoted statements attributed to King on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict come from a Q&A session in which Dr. King participated during the annual convention of the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly in 1968. As alleged by Lebovic, "Dr. King was to consider the questions ahead of the event, and it is clear King had carefully considered both sides of the ongoing conflict." thus making his statements in this session the most accurate portrayal of his outlook and views...

With that said, Dr. Kings statements take a rather politically correct prose and in some ways even reflect to some extent his pacifist nature - Dr. King's comments at the assembly where as follows: 

“I think it is necessary to say that what is basic and what is needed in the Middle East is peace. Peace for Israel is one thing. Peace for the Arab side of that world is another thing,”

“Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all of our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel, and never mind saying it, as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land almost can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.”

“On the other hand, we must see what peace for the Arabs means in a real sense of security on another level. Peace for the Arabs means the kind of economic security that they so desperately need. These nations, as you know, are part of that third world of hunger, of disease, of illiteracy. I think that as long as these conditions exist there will be tensions, there will be the endless quest to find scapegoats. So there is a need for a Marshall Plan for the Middle East, where we lift those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder and bring them into the mainstream of economic security.”

It would seem that Dr. King viewed Israel, "as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world" but nonetheless, somewhat naively I might add, viewed the Arab world as a third world population, which desperately needed the assistance on the international community htrough the implementation of some kind of iteration of the Marshall plan. 
In other words, it is a safe bet to speculate that Dr. King held of the viewpoint that the Arab community and the Palestinians specifically, we're not only an oppressed people, but a people which - with the intervention of the global community - are able to rehabilitate themselves as a people with the right to self determination. This outlook of Dr. King is rather utopian as history has proven time and time again. Namely the Palestinian people have no interest in living side by side with their Israeli cousins in spite of the many efforts and offers to improve and rehabilitate their lives.

Interestingly, Dr. Kings pacifist and apolitical outlook on the matter can be solidified from excerpts of a phone call to confidants in 1967 where Dr. King was rather skeptic of the possibility of visit to Israel after the six day war. In the conversation he was quoted to say as such: 

"I'd run into the situation where I'm damned if I say this and I'm damned if I say that no matter what I'd say, and I've already faced enough criticism including pro-Arab.  I just think that if I go, the Arab world, and of course Africa and Asia for that matter, would interpret this as endorsing everything that Israel has done, and I do have questions of doubt...  Most of it [the pilgrimage] would be Jerusalem and they [the Israelis] have annexed Jerusalem, and any way you say it they don't plan to give it up... 

In other words, Dr. King did not want to get stuck between a rock and a hard place feeling that either side would not be placated by his actions. However, this does beget the questions whether Dr. King understood the historic significance of the six day victory or the true unjust that was undone as a result of the young states miraculous survival. Seemingly, this is simply because of the perception that not only does Dr. King seem to express his reservations about the actions of the Israelis during the six day war but was apparently opposed, or at least held strong reservations, to the annexation of Jerusalem and its reunification as the capital of the Jewish state and people. In essence, it would seem that Dr. King - due to his reportedly pacifist nature - was not willing to recognize the Jewish people's (and by proxy the state of Israel) aboriginal rights to the land, despite of the totally justified circumstances, as such an action - allegedly - was done in spite of the rights of the so called Palestinian people.
Sadly Dr. King is not the only one, with such a perception, many both gentile and Jew, choose to ignore the historical truth that the land of Israel (in its post 1967 expanded borders) and have thus not not accepted the universal truth that the the territory of the historic kingdom of Israel is not only in the land of Israel but its political capital was and always will be in Jerusalem. Viewing the reality in any other way is not only a blatant disregard for the historic truth but emboldens the oppression those who live in Gaza and Judea and Samaria by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

This brings us back to Dr. King. as the questions remains on where he would stand in present times on the issue of our day, namely would Dr. King support the State of Israel or the Palestinian people and the BDS movement.
With some reflection, and due to the lack of evidence it is indeed hard to tell but one thing is certain Dr. King viewed criticism of Israel as Anti Semitism and perhaps that can give us, although a not definitive, hint in the proper direction. 

Rep. Ron DeSantis: Hollywood Sexual Misconduct Must Be ‘Thoroughly Investigated’

by DANIEL NUSSBAUM2 Nov 2017  over at Breitbart

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) joined Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM Thursday morning to discuss the Republicans’ newly released tax plan and Hollywood’s still-developing sexual misconduct scandal with Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief and show host Alex Marlow.

During the interview, Marlow asked DeSantis whether the misconduct scandal surrounding Hollywood — first sparked by an October New York Times report about decades of sexual harassment and assault allegations against move mogul Harvey Weinstein — might become the subject of an official Congressional inquiry.

“Look, Hollywood is a cesspool. The idea that Weinstein is alone, or even that conspicuous, I don’t think is true,” DeSantis told Marlow. “I think this is pervasive behavior in Hollywood, and I think it does implicate the media. I think they’ve been complicit in it, I think businesses have been complicit in it.”

“I think the issue for [Congress] is, is there a jurisdictional hook for government activity, that government has been involved with regulating or not, and I don’t know the answer to that,” he added. “It definitely needs to be throughly investigated, so I think we just have to figure out whether Congress is the appropriate venue. But I think whatever we’ve seen come out of the woodwork, I think it’ll be exponentially greater if we, or some entity, actually brought in witnesses to testify about all the filth that happened there.”

LISTEN [Discussion on Hollywood begins at 16:40 mark]:

DeSantis’ comments come as at least one Republican lawmaker has called for Congressional hearings on Hollywood’s treatment of women.

Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview Thursday that Congress should help expose the widespread “criminal conduct” in the entertainment industry.

“Now that we are discussing the tax bill, I think our leadership should make it absolutely clear that we are not going to allow deductibility of settlements for the conduct of sexual predators and give a tax benefit to the entertainment industry for criminal behavior,” Buck said.

More major Hollywood figures were accused of sexual misconduct this week as the scandal has continued into a second month. Actor Kevin Spacey was accused Sunday of making a sexual advance on a then-14-year-old actor at a New York City party in 1986, while director Brett Ratner was accused of misconduct by at least six different women.

In all, more than 50 prominent figures in Hollywood and media have been accused of sexual harassment, assault, or other misconduct in recent weeks.

Listen to Rep. DeSantis’s full interview above.

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT!!!

UN Launches ‘Unprecedented’ $1.3 Billion Legal Campaign Against Israel

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (in front, at left) sits across the table from United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres in Geneva on Feb. 27, 2017. Credit: U.N. Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré.

The United Nations has earmarked some $1.3 billion to fund Palestinian legal campaigns against Israel and to support the creation of an independent Palestinian state, in what experts are calling an unprecedented act singling out the Jewish state at the world body.

A document that was recently signed between the U.N. and the Palestinians outlines a “strategic programming framework” in the disputed territories from 2018-2022, and states that the U.N. will work to advise the Palestinian Authority on how to exploit “international accountability mechanisms” in order to hold Israel accountable for alleged violations of international law. The document is set to come into effect Jan. 1, 2018.

The document makes no references to Palestinian violations of international law and human rights, nor does it specify that the $1.3 billion in funding should be applied to humanitarian assistance. Rather, the U.N. document states that the money should be used for developing programs that support “Palestine’s path to independence.”

“The funding of this unprecedented and prejudicial aggression against a member state by the U.N. is clear evidence that the international body’s goal and solution is for a single Palestinian state to replace Israel,” Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, president of the Tel Aviv-based civil rights organization Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Center, told JNS.org.

“It’s a new form of anti-Semitic aggression and terror by other means, and it plainly violates the U.N.’s own charter,” she said.

Sixteen U.N. agencies appear as signatories in the document, including the OHCHR human rights office, the UNESCO cultural body and the UNRWA refugee agency. In signing the document, the agencies pledged to hold Israel accountable for its alleged violations and to document the purported abuses while simultaneously strengthening Palestinian groups’ “ability to advocate effectively for rights to be respected.”

In the document, the U.N. also pledged to monitor “the impact of Israeli violations” as well as how purported Israeli “breaches of international law” hinder the development of “Palestine.”

“There is no other example or precedent of the U.N. funding, training and advising one side of a conflict to pursue legal advocacy against another side,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of Geneva-based UN Watch, a group whose stated mission is to “monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own charter.”

“For some reason, however, when it comes to Israel, the U.N. development agencies cross the bright red line from humanitarian assistance to political advocacy,” he said.

Although the amount of funding allocated by the U.N. towards overtly anti-Israel initiatives is unprecedented, Shurat Hadin’s Darshan-Leitner said the world body’s singling out of Israel and misuse of funds were “no big surprise.”

“The U.N. is misappropriating, once again, its donors’ funds and directing them into projects that help the PLO target and attack the Jewish state, instead of for humanitarian causes,” said Darshan-Leitner.

“After all, it’s the U.N.’s raison d'etre at this point,” she added. “We have seen a massive increase in these baseless lawfare suits being filed without any merit in the American federal courts in the past few years. The unilateral encouragement of these frivolous harassment suits against Israelis and Jewish individuals, which are obviously being funded and fanned on by foreign bodies, is a new Palestinian strategy to try to bedevil and deter support for Israel.”

Darshan-Leitner underscored that the U.N. “does not care one iota about justice for the so-called ‘victims’ it’s pretending to assist,” and that it uses Palestinian initiatives as a vehicle for turning Israel into an international pariah.

“It’s policies like this that display so clearly why the United States was moved to quit UNESCO, and is considering resigning [from] and defunding other U.N. agencies,” she said.

Prof. Avi Bell, a member of the faculty of law at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University and a senior fellow at the Kohelet Policy Forum think tank, voiced similar sentiments, telling JNS.org that the U.N.’s newly revealed strategic document “highlights the degree to which many organs of the United Nations are actively involved in diplomatic, legal and financial warfare against the state of Israel.”

“We often fail to appreciate the degree to which the U.N, supports, or even directs, anti-Israel propaganda and political activity,” said Bell. “This kind of activity obviously violates the U.N. Charter by infringing upon Israeli sovereignty and denying Israel the right of sovereign equality.”

Bell added that these actions “undermine international institutions by subordinating their legal roles to a political agenda [and] corrupting them in the name of anti-Zionist ideology….Unfortunately, the U.N.’s decades-long war on Israel is nowhere near ending.”


Copyright © 2017 Shurat HaDin, All rights reserved

Mudar Zahran interviewed by Israel Radio

Jordan's Opposition leader's interview with Israel News Talk Show: Our aim to topple the regime peacefully and to establish a state built on citizenship, we will ends the king's theft of public funds and improve the living conditions of all Jordanians, and we shall enhance Jordan's strategic partnership with the US and Israel

Quo Vadis the Arab Tsunami (a.k.a. "the Arab Spring")?

Yoram will be in the US from mid-October through mid-November, 2017, available for speaking engagements.

Quo Vadis the Arab Tsunami (a.k.a. "the Arab Spring")? Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, "Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative" "Israel Hayom," August 20, 2017, http://bit.ly/2vewFWi Where is the Arab Middle East heading following the 2010-2017 disintegration of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Sudan; the toppling of several Arab regimes; the estimated toll of 400,000 fatalities and six million refugees, resulting from intra-Arab conflicts; the proliferation of Islamic Sunni terrorism; the unprecedented power-projection surge by Iran's Shiite Ayatollahs; the approaching Sunni and Shiite terrorist machetes to the throat of the House of Saud and all other pro-US Arab regimes; and the intensified squashing of human rights in every Arab country, all ruled by minority-regimes? The raging Arab Tsunami of the last 6.5 years – referred to by the Western establishment as the Arab Spring – has further destabilized the one-bullet, provisional, Arab regimes, characterized by tenuous policies and uncertain bilateral and multilateral intra-Arab agreements. This has added much fuel to the fire – raging since the 7th century – of the inherently unpredictable and intensely complex, non-nation-state, non-democratic Middle East, which has been systematically misperceived by the Western establishment. Where is the Arab Tsunami heading?  The chaotic intra-Arab roller-coaster may have shifted, temporarily, to a relatively-lower gear, but it is surging on brutally!   While the US has dealt a severe blow to ISIS terrorists in 2017 – without clipping the wings of Iran's Ayatollahs - it has, therefore, provided a tailwind to Iran's entrenchment in Syria, and increasingly in Lebanon. It has advanced the Ayatollahs' domination of the critical area from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, which is a prelude to their megalomaniacal vision of denying the US "modern-day-Crusader" regional and global preeminence. This could be a repeat of the US toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003, when the US elevated Iraq's Shiites to the helm, dumping Iraq's Sunnis, which reinforced the ranks of Sunni terrorism. This paved the way for the Ayatollahs' dominance in Iraq – which intensified anti-US terrorism – and created a clear and present danger for every pro-US Arab regime in the Persian Gulf and beyond. In 2011, a US-led coalition, toppled Gaddafi's rogue regime in Libya, in spite of the fact that Gaddafi was involved in a ferocious war on Islamic terrorism in Libya and Africa. Moreover, in 2003, Gaddafi transferred his infrastructure of weapons of mass destruction to the US. The toppling of Gaddafi accelerated the disintegration of Libya, transforming the huge country (680,000sqm, three times larger than Texas) into a major safe haven and breeding ground of Islamic terrorism. While the US military power-projection and posture of deterrence are prerequisites for the western battle against Islamic terrorism – and keeping Islamic terrorism away from the US mainland – a misguided US policy has tolerated the Ayatollahs' imperialism, subversion and terrorism, allowing them to surge on the coattails of the 2015 non-ratified(!) Iran nuclear deal, further destabilizing the Middle East. For example, tectonic developments simmer below the seemingly stable surface in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.  These developments are generated and bolstered by the 60% Palestinian majority (e.g., the 1951 murder of King Abdullah by a Palestinian, the 1970 civil war, the 1980s Hashemite-Palestinian confrontations); the unpredictable Muslim Brotherhood terrorists; the importation of additional Islamic Sunni terrorist sleeper cells; the historical divisiveness between the Hashemite migrants from the Arabian Peninsula and the indigenous Bedouins; the 1.5MN Syrian refugees; the boiling borders with Iraq and Syria, which increasingly accommodate the anti-Hashemite Ayatollahs. A volcanic eruption in Jordan could spillover, swiftly, into neighboring Saudi Arabia and other pro-US Arab countries, which are threatened by the Ayatollahs and home-grown terrorists.  This would impact the life expectancy of the Khalifa regime in Bahrain, as well as the level of violent Muslim Brotherhood opposition to the General Sisi regime in Egypt. Where is the Middle East heading?  According to Amir Taheri, the veteran Iranian writer, researcher and expert on Islam, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East: "'modernization' is spreading…. I saw a 'modernized' Middle East with armies marching across scorched plains, soldiers and mercenaries cursing in a dozen different languages, the choir of cannons and the choreography of armored cars and tanks. I saw refugees and displace-person camps, barbed wires, watch-towers, loudspeakers spreading the latest version of truth.  There were minefields and grieving mothers, naked children and victims of gas attacks and chemical weapons.  The skies were dotted with warplanes dropping more bombs on Syria and Iraq than on Germany during WWII. The landscape of ruins, reminding one of Berlin, Warsaw and Leningrad in 1945…. This looked like Europe in 1918 or 1945, only magnified many times over thanks to the superior power of destruction we now have…." Acquaintance with Middle East "modernization" is a prerequisite for a realistic national security policy, devoid of wishful-thinking and oversimplification-driven hopes. Acquaintance with Middle East "modernization" highlights the critical role of the posture of deterrence – while avoiding appeasement and retreats in the face of temptations and pressure, which triggers more pressure and terrorism – in shaping homeland and national security policies. Acquaintance with Middle East "modernization" underlines the unique role played by Israel - as long as it controls the high-ground, rather than withdrawing to the pre-1967 sliver along the Mediterranean - in extending the strategic hand of the US in the face of mutual threats. Acquaintance with Middle East "modernization" clarifies the nature of the primary threats to regional stability and the survival of pro-US Arab regimes – posed by the rogue Ayatollahs and Islamic Sunni terrorism - and the limited regional role played by the Palestinian issue.

What will happen to Jordan? Q&A Mudar Zahran

INTO THE FRAY: Neo-unilateralism – Futile, fatal folly

By Martin Sherman

New calls for unilateral withdrawal are both pernicious—because of the calamitous consequences it will precipitate—and puerile—because of the naïve hope that it will not

I can even pin dates on it. In 2007 or 2008 we will have another major disengagement in the West Bank. And within a decade, we will unilaterally repartition Jerusalem along lines we will unilaterally select … What Israelis have understood – and this is the underlying feature of the disengagement – is that we need to leave Gaza and Nablus, not because it will bring peace, but because there will be perpetual terror…

–Dan Schueftan, then one of the principle advocates for the 2005 unilateral evacuation from Gaza, predicting it would be only a first step in a “wider historical process” of further unilateral Israeli withdrawals, The Jerusalem Report, September 2005.

…it [unilateral withdrawal] promises no solution, no peace, no regional or international legitimacy, no alleviation of hostility, no end to terrorism, not even a respite [and] threatens to tear political and social systems apart…-Dan Schueftan, today director of the National Security Studies Center, University of Haifa, on the impact of unilateral withdrawal from Judea-Samaria, which he urges Israel to adopt(!), in Tablet Magazine, August 8, 2017



The proposal for (re)adoption of unilateral withdrawal—this time from Judea-Samaria—began to emerge in the public discourse over four years ago.

Foreseeable fatal flaws

Since then, I have warned, insistently and incessantly, of the glaring defects in the rationale of this resurgent recipe for foretold failure– see: The coming canard: ‘Constructive unilateralism’; Stupendously stupid or surreptitiously sinister; Infuriating, insidious, immoral; Imbecility squared – Part 1; Imbecility squared- Part 2; Generals, gimmicks and gobbledygook.

Yet despite its clearly discernible flaws, which virtually ensure disaster if it were to be (re)adopted, this ill-conceived idea not only remains stubbornly on the national agenda, but—almost inconceivably—is gaining increasing support from an alarming number of well-funded organizations and influential individuals.

It is, in many ways, the flagship project of the well-endowed Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). It is also championed by what is effectively INSS’s public advocacy arm, Blue and White Future. Likewise, it is endorsed by Commanders for Israel Security (CIS) an organization reportedly comprising over 200 former high-ranking officers in the IDF, intelligence services and police.

Not ad hominem attack

The most recent call for “unilateral disengagement from the overwhelming majority of the West Bank…and massive rooting-out of Jewish populations” comes from none other than the Director of the National Security Studies Center, University of Haifa, Dr. Dan Schueftan.

In a rambling essay, over 3000 words long, in Tablet Magazine, replete with internal contradictions and riddled with non-sequiturs, Schueftan sets out his “rationale” (for want of a better word) for Israel to adopt a policy, which, in his own words, “promises no solution, no peace, no regional or international legitimacy, no alleviation of hostility, no end to terrorism, not even a respite[and]threatens to tear political and social systems apart…”

Although I shall have decidedly harsh criticism of Schueftan’s policy prescriptions, I should like to make it clear: This is not an ad hominem attack on the author, but a resolute repudiation of his ideas.

I have been acquainted with Schueftan for years, and have found him to be a very affable individual, a learned scholar and a gifted—albeit not always the most genteel—orator. However, as someone who holds a prestigious position in academe and is responsible for molding the strategic perspective of a large number of students, the doctrines he expounds cannot go un-scrutinized, and, if found defective, unchallenged.

The fact that he may genuinely believe that what he is proposing is in the national interest should not shield him from censure if it can be plausibly demonstrated that it will precipitate precisely the opposite.

Pernicious puerile prescription

All the proposals of the various proponents of renewed unilateral withdrawal embrace the same principle–with only shades of nuance differentiating between them.

This involves Israel’s forswearing all sovereign claims to any territory beyond a line that approximates the route of the current security barrier and acting to remove Israeli civilian presence from this territory. In light of the disastrous results similar measures produced in Gaza, “neo-unilateralists” attempt to assuage public concern by stipulating that the IDF will remain deployed in the areas over which Israel eschews sovereignty.

Thus, CIS proposes that IDF deployment will continue until the emergence of “a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians [which] ushers in alternative concrete, sustainable security arrangements.” Closely mirroring this idea, Schueftan, peppering his concessionary prescription with machoistic rhetoric, suggests: “…the mainstream majority can be expected to consider a unilateral move positively if they know that the IDF will remain in overall charge of security, unless a dependable Arab army replaces it, if and when Israel sees fit”.

This of course is a prescription that is, at once, pernicious—because of the predictably calamitous consequences it will precipitate—and puerile—because of the naïve hope that it will not…

Entrapping the IDF in open-ended occupation

Inevitably, the proposal for ongoing deployment of the Israeli military in territory over which Israel makes no sovereign claims would, in a stroke, convert Judea-Samaria from “disputed territory” to “occupied territory” and the IDF from a “defense force” to an “occupying force”. Worse, it would do so by explicit admission from Israel itself!

Moreover, by conditioning the end of IDF deployment on the emergence of “alternative concrete, sustainable security arrangements” or in Schueftan’s words, leaving the IDF in overall charge of security, unless a dependable Arab army replaces it, if and when Israel sees fit”, the neo-unilateralists are, in fact, promoting a formula for open-ended occupation, whose duration is totally dependent on the Palestinian-Arabs.

After all, if the IDF is to remain deployed in the “West Bank” until some “dependable” Palestinian counterpart appears, sufficiently pliant to satisfy Israel’s demands, but sufficiently robust to resist more radical domestic rivals that oppose those demands, what happens if such a counterpart fails to emerge?

Clearly then, all the Palestinian-Arabs need to do to ensnare the IDF in what will inevitably become an increasingly unpopular “occupation”, making it an easy target for guerilla attacks by a recalcitrant population, backed by armed Palestinian internal security services, is…well, nothing.

All they need to do is wait until mounting IDF casualties in a “foreign land” create increasing domestic pressure to “bring our boys back home”, and mounting international impatience with unending “occupation” create growing external pressure, which will make continued IDF deployment untenable. Withdrawal will then become inevitable, without any “permanent settlement” or “sustainable security arrangements”.

Unsustainable strategy

Schueftan is caustically critical of Palestinian society in Judea-Samaria, characterizing it as “a profoundly irresponsible society [with] elites who are unwilling to engage in constructive nation-building [who] prefer to glorify and finance terrorists and perpetuate narratives of unlimited grievance vis-à-vis the Jewish state”.

So even in the unlikely event that some Palestinian-Arab partner could be located, who would, in good faith, agree to conclude a permanent status agreement and implement acceptable security arrangements allowing the IDF to evacuate Judea-Samaria, how could Israel ensure this agreement will be honored and these arrangements maintained over time?

Clearly it could not!

Once the IDF withdraws, Israel has no way of preventing its Palestinian co-signatories from reneging on their commitments—whether of their own volition, due to a change of heart, or under duress from extremist adversaries.

Even more to the point, barring intimate involvement in intra-Palestinian politics, Israel has no way to ensure that their pliant partner will not be replaced—whether by bullet or ballot—by far more inimical successors, probably generously supported by foreign regimes, who repudiate their predecessors’ pledges. Indeed, it is more than likely that it would be precisely the “perfidious” deal struck with the “nefarious Zionist entity” that would be invoked as justification for the regime-change.

Certainly, given Schueftan’s own uncomplimentary description of Palestinian society such an outcome can hardly be dismissed as implausible

What is the neo-unilateralist’s “Plan B”?

Accordingly, no matter which of these outcomes—a change of heart or a change of regime—emerges in practice, Israel is likely to be confronted with a situation where it no longer has security control in Judea-Samaria and a hostile regime perched on the hills dominating the coastal megalopolis—overlooking its only international airport, adjacent to its major population centers and abutting principal transportation axes.

It would be intriguing to learn what neo-unilateralists, such as Schueftan, propose as their “Plan B”, should the realities precipitated in the South following unilateral withdrawal, emerge along Israel’s eastern border. Clearly anything approaching those realities on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv would make the maintenance of any socio-economic routine impossible—since it could be disrupted at will by hostile forces, renegade or regular, deployed on the commanding highlands evacuated by the IDF.

So how would Schueftan and his fellow neo-unilateralists recommend responding? A massive punitive attack along a 500 km front, with difficult terrain and inevitable “collateral damage”, likely to dwarf anything incurred in previous campaigns such as “Protective Edge”? And to what end? To withdraw once again behind the security barrier? Or to withdraw and repeat the same “experiment”, hoping for more fortuitous results next time? Or the time after that?

Touting a giant South Lebanon on fringes of Tel Aviv

Of course, the basic elements of the new unilateralism— forswearing of claims to sovereignty over Judea-Samaria, on the one hand; and continued deployment of the IDF in that territory, on the other—replicate precisely the same conditions that prevailed in South Lebanon until the IDF’s hasty retreat in 2000.

Clearly, under these conditions, any hope that the conflict can be officially resolved with some negotiated final-status agreement is hopelessly detached from reality. After all, why should the Palestinians offer any quid pro quo to negotiate the withdrawal of the IDF when Israel has a-priori conceded sovereignty to them and ceased all civilian construction, condemning the settlements to inevitable decay and disintegration?

Moreover, what would be the justification for continued IDF deployment in the sovereign territory of others—especially as that deployment itself is likely to be cited as the major grievance sustaining the belligerency between the sides?

Accordingly, proposals for deploying the IDF for an indeterminate period, in territory over which it lays no sovereign claim—and hence, by implication, acknowledges that others have such claims to it—will create an unsustainable political configuration, which, sooner or later, will generate irresistible pressure on Israel to withdraw—just as it did in Lebanon—leaving the country exposed to the very dangers the IDF deployment was intended to obviate.

Futile folly

As mentioned, Schueftan concedes that his prescribed unilateralism “promises no solution, no peace, no regional or international legitimacy, no alleviation of hostility, no end to terrorism… Accordingly, he asks: “why embark on an extremely painful process” which, by his own admission will traumatize “hundreds of thousands of Israelis…and threaten to tear…Israeli society apart.”

His answer, in a nutshell , is that it will, allegedly, free Israel from the burden of “dominating and caring for them [the Palestinian-Arabs] for over half a century” which is precisely what we were told about unilateral disengagement from Gaza –which is still, a decade later, critically dependent on Israel for a wide range of goods and services.

Of course, to believe that Schueftan’s prescription will achieve such freedom is a futile and forlorn hope. Indeed, the very fact that the IDF is to remain deployed in Judea-Samaria with overriding authority for security, will impose very similar burdens and responsibilities to those it bears today. It will need to exert authority over local law enforcement organizations, and perhaps countermand any decisions they make if considered detrimental to Israel’s security. It will have to regulate and inspect a wide range of civilian activities, such as the management of dangerous industrial pollutants, sewage flows into Israel, and the inspection of usage of dual purpose material like steel, fertilizers and cement to ensure that are not diverted to manufacture weapons or tunnels…

And I have only begun to scratch the surface…

Epilogue

In February 2004, prior to the Gaza Disengagement, Schueftan, gave an interview to “New York Magazine”, where he was billed as “the highly regarded Israeli analyst and academic whose concept of unilateral disengagement now dominates debate in Israel”. In it he proclaimed: “The Israeli public wants to be completely cut off from the Palestinians, and as a result nobody can be prime minister without going in this direction. It’s not even an option if they want to stay in power.”

Of course, since then, Benjamin Netanyahu seems to have disregarded Schueftan counsel–only to become the longest serving prime minister in decades…which might be a good indicator of merit with which Schueftan’s prognoses/prescriptions should be credited…

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

Another Hit by Latma "All About The Facts"

Sorry Ms. Wise, there is no occupation in the land of Israel - and you are not welcomed!

As reported in the Jerusalem Post, five members of an interfaith delegation to Israel were prevented from boarding their flight from Washington, DC, becasue of their activism on behalf of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. 

This came into play after the Israeli parliament (or Knesset), amended the Law of Entry in March, to prevent leaders of the BDS movement from being allowed into Israel in the future... 

According to the report, the amendment specifically applies to organizations that take consistent and significant action against Israel through BDS, as well as the leadership and senior activists of those groups - a move which mind you, I totally agree with...

As you can imagine, these liberal Rabbis are pretty upset, including JVP activist Alissa Wise - who said in the JVP statement that Israel denied her the ability to travel to the state because her work for justice for Palestinians poses a danger to Israel's security - which in fact it does...

According to Wise "the mussernik" this outrageous becasue she is Jewish and a Rabbi, which apparently gives her the carte blanche to promote Jewish blood shed in the name of resistance - I might be missing something, perhaps someone can explain her logic to me... 

“I’m heartbroken and outraged” said Wise. “This is yet another demonstration that democracy and tolerance in Israel only extends to those who fall in line with its increasingly repressive policies against Palestinians”...

As expected, the Israeli government's decision and actions have irked quite a few liberal Jews, including a small group of at least two hundred liberally progressive Rabbis who joined together once again to stab Israel and its Jewish population in the back and sign a  "Rabbinic Letter Against Israel’s Travel Ban"...

According to the press release of this unholy gathering...  

“A controversy for the sake of Heaven will have lasting value, but a controversy not for the sake of Heaven will not endure” (Pirkei Avot 5:17).

We, the undersigned rabbis, stand with our colleague, Rabbi Alissa Shira Wise, who was denied entry to Israel because of her support for the Palestinian civil society call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel.

...the decision to bar Rabbi Wise from visiting Israel is anti-democratic and desecrates our vision of a diverse Jewish community that holds multiple perspectives.

Wow...


It is so rich, it is disgusting, I am truly at a lost for words with rage. 

The fact that these Rabbis have a lot of chutzpah to quote Perkei Avot as if they - you know, individuals who've sanctioned all indecency and immorality under the banner of the Jewish faith - have any fear of God, is prosperous. Seriously, who gave these laymen and women (I cringe just writing that) the ability to discern what exactly is considered a dispute which is not for sake of heaven...

Apparently, as per Wise and her ilk, one can commit murder (which make no mistake, support for palestinian cause is exactly that) and at the same time be doing so for the sake of heaven - imagine that...

Lets talk to the facts, the bottomline is that any rational person - that is not consumed with the mental illness called progressive liberalism - knows very well that there is no occupation...

Anyone who says otherwise, is not only denying history and how the state of Israel came to be - but is in fact denying what is written in the Torah. 

Yes! you know, that Book of Moses, on which the entire Jewish faith is based upon...

Within, one will find - stated black on white - that the land of Cenan, (now Israel) was to be our inheritance, given to our forefather Avraham by the one and only God over four millennia ago...

Denying such a fact, I believe, strips an individual from any right they might have had in the past to represent the Jewish people and the land of Israel - and certainly strips them from the so called right to call themselves a Rabbi...

But what I fear the most is not as much the actions of these individuals as much as our community's apparent silence in the face of the aggression of these self hating Jews...

The Babalonian Talmud, 87B tells us that "he who is silent is taken to agree" can it truly be that the words of individuals as Wise do not hurt us to our core? do they not cause us to break into a stupor of rage at the blatant desecration of our Torah and its values on a regular basis?

God forbid can we remain silent to this onslaught on the basic tenets of our faith, the importance of the land of Israel to our faith, our heritage and our day to day lives...

As such, I think it is appropriate to call on the greater Jewish orthodox community to unite together and make our voices be heard... 

Let it be known from this lowly earth to the heavens, that we the people of God and his Torah will not stand idly by to such such a desecration of His name...

Let it be known that as the people of faith, we affirm that while we might be in exile, there is no doubt that the land of Israel is our inheritance from all those years ago, and it is our possession for all eternity without a doubt and with the merit of such an action may we merit the coming of the Messiah speedily in our days. 

Amen!