So our Secretary of State is clearly an anti-Semite or a fool. Think Kerry's Jewish grandfather Otto, who converted away because of anti-semitism in Vienna, would be proud? Family name was Kohn.
Ministers wallop Kerry for linking stalled peace talks to rise of Islamic State
Naftali Bennett says ‘someone will always blame the Jew'; Gilad Erdan accuses US secretary of state of not understanding region
BY JOSHUA DAVIDOVICH October 17, 2014, 2:44 pm 25
US Secretary of State John Kerry came under fire from right-wing Israeli politicians Friday after saying that the Israeli Palestinian conflict was fueling the spread of Islamic terror in the Middle East.
Economy Minister Naftali Bennett indicated that Kerry was using an anti-Semitic canard and Communications Minister Gilad Erdan accused the top US diplomat of showing an unprecedented lack of understanding of the Middle East.
Speaking at an event marking the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha at the State Department Thursday, Kerry said it was “imperative” to restart stalled Israeli-Palestinian talks, since the conflict was helping the Islamic State recruit new members.
“There wasn’t a leader I met with in the region who didn’t raise with me spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because it was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation that they felt –- and I see a lot of heads nodding –- they had to respond to,” he told gathered diplomats.
“People need to understand the connection of that. And it has something to do with humiliation and denial and absence of dignity,” he added.
Writing on Facebook, Bennett, who heads the nationalist Jewish Home party, a major coalition member, linked to an article about Kerry’s remarks, commenting in Hebrew that “Even when a British Muslim beheads a British Christian, someone will always blame the Jew.”
Gilad Erdan on July 8, 2013. (photo credit: Flash 90)
Gilad Erdan on July 8, 2013. (photo credit: Flash 90)
Likud minister Erdan, thought to be Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pick to become Interior Minister, also blasted Kerry on Facebook, asking sarcastically whether anybody truly believes Islamic State fighters would put down their arms if Israeli-Palestinian talks were restarted.
“I actually respect Kerry and his efforts, but every time he breaks new records of showing a lack of understanding of our region and the essence of the conflict in the Middle East I have trouble respecting what he says,” he wrote in Hebrew.
Jewish Home MK Ayelet Shaked also expressed dismay over the statement.
This is not the first time Kerry has been criticized by members of Israel’s ruling coalition.
In January, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon was quoted calling Kerry “inexplicably obsessive” and “messianic” in his efforts to coax the two sides into a peace agreement. Ya’alon said Kerry has “nothing to teach me about the conflict with the Palestinians.
“All that can ‘save us’ is for John Kerry to win a Nobel Prize and leave us in peace,” Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted him saying at the time.
Read more: Ministers wallop Kerry for linking stalled peace talks to rise of Islamic State | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/ministers-wallop-kerry-after-peace-talks-linked-to-islamic-state/#ixzz3GPQYlmtx
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
A video and text blog explaining why a Palestinian state would be a disaster by rabbi Jonathan Ginsburg
Friday, October 17, 2014
Peace impossible with Palestinians now
"Ever since the clashes began in 1936, Dr. Moshe Beilinson, who served as the deputy editor of the [now defunct] Davarnewspaper, was asked 'when will it end?' and he would reply 'when the last of our enemies understands that we are here forever.' There are no shortcuts. Our efforts to create shortcuts over the last two decades - from Oslo until the present day - have all failed."
"Abbas has never said that he recognizes us as the nation state of the Jewish people. He also never said that if a compromise is reached, even one that adheres to his vision of the 1967 lines, it would end the conflict and the [Palestinian] demands. He never said that he has given up on demanding refugee rights. So where can we go with him?"
"The other side doesn't think that the 1967 lines will be the end of the story, and they never said that it would be the end of the story. To them it is merely a stage; it is not about establishing a state, but rather destroying the Jewish state and negating its existence. There is a lack of symmetry here that is not in our favor, so we need to learn how to manage this conflict without delusions." (Israel Hayom)
"Abbas has never said that he recognizes us as the nation state of the Jewish people. He also never said that if a compromise is reached, even one that adheres to his vision of the 1967 lines, it would end the conflict and the [Palestinian] demands. He never said that he has given up on demanding refugee rights. So where can we go with him?"
"The other side doesn't think that the 1967 lines will be the end of the story, and they never said that it would be the end of the story. To them it is merely a stage; it is not about establishing a state, but rather destroying the Jewish state and negating its existence. There is a lack of symmetry here that is not in our favor, so we need to learn how to manage this conflict without delusions." (Israel Hayom)
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Netanyahu: The Root Cause of the Gaza War? Hamas' Commitment to Kill Every Jew
Netanyahu: The Root Cause of the Gaza War? Hamas' Commitment to Kill Every Jew (Prime Minister's Office)
On Sunday, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told a donor conference in Cairo: "We must not lose sight of the root causes of the recent hostilities: a restrictive occupation that has lasted almost half a century...."
On Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told visiting UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in Jerusalem:
On Sunday, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told a donor conference in Cairo: "We must not lose sight of the root causes of the recent hostilities: a restrictive occupation that has lasted almost half a century...."
On Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told visiting UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in Jerusalem:
- "The root cause of the violence that burst from Gaza is not Israel's occupation in Gaza, for a simple reason: Israel doesn't occupy Gaza. Israel left Gaza to the very last centimeter, to the very last inch. We uprooted all the settlements and vacated all the settlers. So there is no Israeli occupation of Gaza."
- "The root cause of this summer's outburst of violence was Hamas' rocketing of Israeli cities, and these rocket attacks often exploited UN neutrality, using UN facilities and UN schools as part of the Hamas machine of terror. And when rockets were discovered inside UN schools, some UN officials handed them back to Hamas - that very same Hamas that was rocketing that very same time Israeli cities and Israeli civilians."
- "What is the root cause of Hamas' rocket fire on Israel? It's Hamas' opposition to Israel's very existence....They're committed to killing every Israeli and every Jew. You just have to read their charter - they say that very plainly....A real peace can only be achieved through bilateral negotiations with those who believe in peace."
- "I believe that unilateral steps by the Palestinians at the United Nations will not advance peace. I think they'll do the very opposite. They'll bring about a further deterioration in the situation - something none of us want. If the UN wants to support a genuine reconciliation, it must avoid any steps that could undermine peace."
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Muslim tactics
If you really want to piss off the religion of peace, learn the 4 deceptive tactics they’re using to take over America
Under the teachings of the Quran and Sharia Law, it is very specific about what Muslims are allowed or not allowed to do. For instance, Muslims are not supposed to lie, be friends with “infidels,” or do sinful things such as drink or visit strip clubs. However, there is a caveat to this, and that is if Muslims are pursuing a higher command (such as jihad) they can violate the lower commands of the Quran for the sake of blending in with our society.
Whether you are ready to face reality or not, the fact remains that there is a plan in place to implement Sharia Law into all facets of American society. Adopting Sharia Law in America would be rejected by most Americans, as it calls for the subjugation of women, killing homosexuals, stoning women who commit adultery, cutting off of limbs for anyone caught stealing, and many more ridiculous rules and laws.
In order for Sharia Law to creep into our society, it must be done slowly through highly-honed tactics. And the following are the four Arabic terms that non-Muslims should fully understand in order to combat this deception.
1. Takiyya
This means that Muslims are allowed to lie, and conceal their true thoughts, feelings, or character. It is based on the verse in the Quran which states:
“Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful – he that does has nothing to hope for from Allah – except in self-defense.” (Surah 3:28)
Because Muslims feel as though their actions against us are in “self-defense,” this provides justification for their lying. Osama Bin Laden claimed that the attacks on Sept 11 were justified because it was “self defense.” Islamic Sharia Law also validates lying for a higher aim:
“When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and lying is obligatory if the goal is obligatory.” (Reliance of the Traveler, Para r8.2 )
2. Tawriya
This term means that it is ok to lie in virtually all circumstances. Tawirya is when a Muslim says one thing, but basically means another. You could think of it as creative lying. As long as his words technically support the alternate meaning, it is ok to lie. For example: you could as a Muslim if they know where Abdullah is. They could respond “no” to you, as long as they keep in mind a totally different Abdullah than who you are asking about.
3. Kitman
This term is when Muslims only tell you part of the truth. Perhaps the biggest lie Muslims try to push is in relation to the term “jihad.” I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard Muslims try to claim that the term refers to an “internal” or “spiritual struggle” and has nothing to do with terrorism. This is a complete crock of… well you know.
4. Muruna
This term means that Muslims can use flexibility to blend in with their enemy and surroundings. As long as they can justify their behavior as deceiving the infidel in order to attain a higher goal, then it is perfectly ok. So Muslims can shave their beards, wear western clothing, or drink alcohol in order to blend in. If they can convince you they are a part of your society, they are pretty much off the hook for obeying the verses of the Quran which forbids this type of behavior…
Moral equivalency
Israel simply is not equally at fault
Steve Huntley October 10, 2014 8:04PM
Israeli Prime Minister BenjamNetanyahu attends cabinet meeting Jerusalem Tuesday Oct. 7 2014. (AP Photo/Dan Balilty Pool)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2014. (AP Photo/Dan Balilty, Pool)
Updated: October 10, 2014 10:12PM
Steve Huntley October 10, 2014 8:04PM
Israeli Prime Minister BenjamNetanyahu attends cabinet meeting Jerusalem Tuesday Oct. 7 2014. (AP Photo/Dan Balilty Pool)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2014. (AP Photo/Dan Balilty, Pool)
Updated: October 10, 2014 10:12PM
Western donor nations that have given so much money to Palestinian causes are expressing hesitancy about funding the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip because they fear another war may be, if not just around the corner, then certainly not that far off. It’s a reasonable worry, but given the hostility in the international community toward Israel, the concerns are, as usual, being voiced in the wrong context.
These nations ponied up huge sums for rebuilding after Hamas terrorism from Gaza provoked Israeli military operations in 2009 and 2012. That money evaporated in explosions this year when Hamas launched another conflict by kidnapping and murdering three Israeli teens and firing rockets and mortars into Israel.
The 50-day war that Hamas caused destroyed or damaged more than 60,000 homes and 5,000 businesses as well as claiming more than 2,000 Palestinian lives, many of them cruelly and illegally wasted as human shields by Hamas.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas seeks $4 billion or more from the donor nations at a conference convening in Cairo Sunday. According to the U.N.-funded news service IRIN, whatever nice words are said at the conference, the donor nations may not be willing to ask their taxpayers to provide such a large sum “in the absence of real commitments from both Israel and the main Palestinian factions.”
Note the nauseating moral equivalence between the terrorists who started the war and the nation forced to defend its citizens. As I’ve said before, no Palestinian violence, no Israeli violence.
As bad as this moral equivalence is, worst is the attitude prevalent in many European capitals that Israel is the obstacle to peace. The European Union threatens to impose sanctions against Israel unless Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu makes progress toward a two-state solution and stops construction in the disputed territories of the West Bank, reports the Times of Israel. What about the responsibility of the Palestinians to at last help accomplish peace?
Unfortunately President Barack Obama and the State Department also place inordinate emphasis on building in Israeli communities as a barrier to peace. Most construction occurs in areas that would be part of Israel under any two-state solution.
The actual obstacle to peace remains the hostility to Israel of the Arab world, including from the Palestinians. Hamas remains committed to unending war against the Jewish state and still has an arsenal of thousands of rockets and mortars in Gaza. Getting those weapons out of the strip and imposing measures to prevent future rearming would be the best guarantee against another Gaza conflict. Again, no Palestinian attacks, no Israeli reprisal.
A couple of recent episodes show it’s not Israel blocking a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After Israel killed the two Hamas operatives who murdered the three Israeli teens, the murderers were idolized by Palestinian Authority media as martyrs, according to the monitoring organization Palestinian Media Watch. The authority’s official TV said the two were killed “at 2 a.m., according to Zionist hatred time.”
Even more illuminating was the report by journalist Khaled Abu Toamed of the Gatestone Institute about a Saudi MBC-TV telecast of a Mideast map that included Israel. Protests broke out across the Arab world and MBC apologized for not labeling the area Palestine. Toamed calls this “yet another reminder that many Arabs still have not come to terms with Israel’s existence — and apparently are not interested in coming to terms with it.”
Email: shuntley.cst@gmail.com
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Obama's pathetic double standard
Contentions
Obama’s Hypocrisy on Civilian Casualties
Seth Mandel
| @SethAMandel
10.01.2014 - 11:30 AM
10.01.2014 - 11:30 AM
A few weeks ago, the State Department’s incoherent spokeswoman Marie Harf all but accused Israel of war crimes. As Tablet noted
at the time, Harf said that “the suspicion that militants are operating
nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many
innocent civilians.” She said a full investigation and accounting of
Israel’s actions was warranted (as if Israel doesn’t already conduct
such investigations). Expect her, then, to be asked about the following:
Such sources weren’t there to begin with in Syria, at least not to the extent they were in Iraq and Afghanistan. So it’s not as though President Obama suddenly decided he doesn’t care about innocent Syrian lives. It’s that he’s doing his best to prevent civilian casualties within the realm of realistic but effective warfare. The double standard is still glaring, as Jonathan pointed out last week. And it only becomes more so with yesterday’s report on the shift in standards. The White House was asked about just how much effort they’re putting into their aim after a particularly damaging errant strike:
Nonetheless, even some Obama partisans are wondering if the president is simply making it up as he goes along. The Yahoo story that confirmed the removal of the “near certainty” standard quotes Harold Koh, formerly the Obama State Department’s top lawyer, trying mightily to figure out where Obama’s legal authority is coming from:
Indeed, they should do more: will the New York Times shove down its readers’ throats a constant stream of enemy propaganda designed to engender sympathy for genocidal terrorists at the expense of the democratic West? To ask the question is to answer it. If Jews or Republicans can’t be blamed, what’s the point?
More likely, however, is the possibility that the walking disaster that is Marie Harf will be asked about it, since the diplomatic press pool tend not to find her petty sniping and cheerful ignorance intimidating in the least. Does she still think these acts are war crimes, now that her government is the one conducting them? And does she believe she owes Israel an apology? There’s no question she does owe Israel that apology, and so does the Obama administration more broadly. But it would be interesting to see if they could summon the necessary integrity to offer it.
The White House has acknowledged for the first time that strict standards President Obama imposed last year to prevent civilian deaths from U.S. drone strikes will not apply to U.S. military operations in Syria and Iraq.The Obama White House appears to have expanded Richard Nixon’s famous maxim to international law: when the (American) president does it, it’s not illegal. The Obama administration’s air war on terror has operated under the standard referred to as “near certainty”: that they be all but certain no civilians will be endangered by air strikes. But as the Obama administration continues withdrawing from these battlefields, that gets more difficult to ensure since sources of on-the-ground intelligence dry up.
A White House statement to Yahoo News confirming the looser policy came in response to questions about reports that as many as a dozen civilians, including women and young children, were killed when a Tomahawk missile struck the village of Kafr Daryan in Syria’s Idlib province on the morning of Sept. 23.
Such sources weren’t there to begin with in Syria, at least not to the extent they were in Iraq and Afghanistan. So it’s not as though President Obama suddenly decided he doesn’t care about innocent Syrian lives. It’s that he’s doing his best to prevent civilian casualties within the realm of realistic but effective warfare. The double standard is still glaring, as Jonathan pointed out last week. And it only becomes more so with yesterday’s report on the shift in standards. The White House was asked about just how much effort they’re putting into their aim after a particularly damaging errant strike:
But at a briefing for members and staffers of the House Foreign Affairs Committee late last week, Syrian rebel commanders described women and children being hauled from the rubble after an errant cruise missile destroyed a home for displaced civilians. Images of badly injured children also appeared on YouTube, helping to fuel anti-U.S. protests in a number of Syrian villages last week.Yes, a “big mistake” that mere weeks ago the State Department was calling unjustified–tantamount to a war crime, in other words–when committed by Israel. Now, there will be some leeway of course: it’s not as though Obama’s a Republican, so the laws of war are of minimal concern to the left. Additionally, everyone knows a double standard is applied to Israel, so no one expected Barack Obama to live up to his own words or follow his own administration’s sanctimonious pronouncements.
“They were carrying bodies out of the rubble. … I saw seven or eight ambulances coming out of there,” said Abu Abdo Salabman, a political member of one of the Free Syria Army factions, who attended the briefing for Foreign Affairs Committee members and staff. “We believe this was a big mistake.”
Nonetheless, even some Obama partisans are wondering if the president is simply making it up as he goes along. The Yahoo story that confirmed the removal of the “near certainty” standard quotes Harold Koh, formerly the Obama State Department’s top lawyer, trying mightily to figure out where Obama’s legal authority is coming from:
“They seem to be creating this grey zone” for the conflict, said Harold Koh, who served as the State Department’s top lawyer during President Obama’s first term. “If we’re not applying the strict rules [to prevent civilian casualties] to Syria and Iraq, then they are of relatively limited value.”The difference, then, between the way the Obama administration and Israel conduct war boils down to: Israel puts the greatest effort it can into avoiding civilian casualties and then follows up with transparent investigations, while Obama basically just hopes for the best. The press should ask him about that.
Indeed, they should do more: will the New York Times shove down its readers’ throats a constant stream of enemy propaganda designed to engender sympathy for genocidal terrorists at the expense of the democratic West? To ask the question is to answer it. If Jews or Republicans can’t be blamed, what’s the point?
More likely, however, is the possibility that the walking disaster that is Marie Harf will be asked about it, since the diplomatic press pool tend not to find her petty sniping and cheerful ignorance intimidating in the least. Does she still think these acts are war crimes, now that her government is the one conducting them? And does she believe she owes Israel an apology? There’s no question she does owe Israel that apology, and so does the Obama administration more broadly. But it would be interesting to see if they could summon the necessary integrity to offer it.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Double standard
"Israel" Got It Wrong
Posted: Updated:
Today Israel is being held to a higher standard. When it is attacked and has the audacity to defend itself, it is termed 'genocidal' by those who are not only quick but also pre-programed to cast the most disingenuous and inflammatory accusations that all too often extend far beyond the parameters of the issues at hand, but drift into the realm of crude anti-Semitism. Running in tandem to the most rancid terminology and vesting them with an element of validation are the likes of Secretary of State John Kerry and former President Carter's use of such freighted terminology as 'apartheid' and imbuing the current occupation of Palestinian territories with the grim misnomer as being akin to "colonization" (Please see "Jimmy Carter, John Kerry and Their Best Friends" 4.28.14)
The ongoing drumbeat seeks to put into question Israel's legitimization, to question the rationale of the Jewish people's presence in what is today the land of Israel, to cast it as a figment postwar contrition, created in response to the cruel events and experiences visited on the Jewish people in the 20th Century. What is progressively overlooked are the deep historical links of the Jewish people to what is now viewed as the Jewish presence in the land called 'Israel.'
Israel is a name understood by all Jews as coupled to their identification. Yet outside the Jewish community its resonance in historic terms is marginal and doesn't begin to encompass the totality of the Jewish historical ties to the history of the Middle East. The name Judea bespeaks clearly of the Jewish people's deep ties to the region itself, ranging from the Kingdom of Judah dating from 934 until 586 BCE, and thereafter to its numerous manifestations through the Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic and Roman periods of domination. The Jewish revolt against the Romans in 132-135 CE failed but Judea has always continued deep in the consciousness of the Jewish people and is an especially epochal segment of Middle Eastern history as it is to Jewish history. The land of Israel is not a contemporary phenomenon but rather has ties that run deep into the core history of what we know and understand as the "Middle East."
The name "Judea" for the nation today known as "Israel" would make these profound and historical ties of the Jewish people to Judea with its storied presence in the history and traditions of the Middle East becomes compellingly clear to all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)