The Zionist Conspiracy |
|
|
A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews. 
|
Monday, June 29, 2009
The Sad State Of The Nets  When Bruce Ratner bought the Nets, they were among the best teams in the NBA, coming off two appearances in the Finals. In just five years, he has turned them into one of the worst teams in the league. As a longtime fan, and former season ticket holder, I can confidently say that this picture will represent the scene on opening night at the Izod Center. Monday, June 22, 2009
Iran and the Israeli Occupation Events in Iran underscore the urgency of immediately removing all illegal Jewish settlements, ending the occupation of the West Bank, and establishing a Palestinian state. So long as Jews live in the West Bank, hopes for a better future in Iran will be dashed. The sacrifice of brave Iranians will be for naught. Dozens have been killed in Iran. Many more have been wounded or imprisoned. How long must the world passively watch these innocents suffer because of Israel's refusal to grant the basic rights of the Palestinian people? Friday, June 19, 2009
Could All The "Experts" Be Wrong? The "experts" still insist that settlements are the weak point of any Israeli government, because most Israelis and most supporters of Israel abroad purportedly oppose settlements. Never mind that - as documented here during the last month - poll after poll shows the "experts" are clueless. The latest poll of Israelis, published by The Jerusalem Post, shows the following results Do you consider Obama's administration to be pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian orNo expert analysis is needed. Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Interview With Rabbi Asher Lopatin An edited and condensed version of this interview appears in this week's issue of The Jewish Press. Here is the full transcript: Joseph Schick: You were recently quoted in Newsweek stating that, regarding Israel, "there is a lot of disappointment" in Rahm Emanuel, that "what we've seen is more of the tough Rahm Emanuel. Not the warm Rahm." What have you been hearing from your congregants about Rahm Emaunel in particular and the Obama Administration generally? What are your own concerns? Rabbi Asher Lopatin: Since the Obama trip to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, I must say that there has been some pride that Rahm Emanuel was seen in all the pictures so close to the president – a Jew right there near King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, part of the talks and discussions. That is the closest any member of Anshe Sholom has gotten to the King of Arabia to the best of our knowledge! At the same time, the vast majority of my congregants, as I’m sure many rabbis are experiencing, feel that Israel is not getting a fair shake in the discussion, pronouncements and speeches given by the administration. If there are no Palestinian leaders who are willing to recognize Israel as the Jewish state, then how can Israel be expected to make concessions – to people who vow to destroy it? Moreover, the idea of stopping natural growth in the settlements – and neighborhoods of Jerusalem – has been painful for some of my congregants who are Holocaust survivors. One of them told me that it reminded him that if someone got pregnant in the concentration camp, they were shot. Of course that is not what the administration is advocating, but they need to be aware those are the feelings their policies are arousing in the administration. Frankly, I think people are more negative about Hilary Clinton’s remarks regarding natural growth in the settlements – she seemed insensitive and harsh. Reports in the U.S. and Israeli media are that Rahm Emanuel is an architect of the Obama Administration's pressure on Israel. Do you believe this to be true, and has this been a particular source of frustration for you and others in your community? I am aware of those articles, but it seems to me that Hillary Clinton has been far more acerbic and even nasty towards Israel than anyone else in the administration. What was your reaction to the President's speech in Cairo? I didn’t expect anything different. It was disappointing that he did not talk about Israel as the historic homeland of the Jews. But he didn’t recognize Mubarak either – that can be seen as a “dis” of his Egyptian host. Basically, I agree with the Iranians on this: The speech was just words. Now we have to work on convincing George Mitchell and Rahm Emanuel that there are far better – more moral and more pragmatic – alternatives to the Two State solution. We have a lot of work to do, but we need a strategy and an alternative that can appeal to a wide range of people. We need to create a solution that is the darling of the media, and then we will get the attention of the pragmatists in the administration. Have you had a relationship with President Obama? Not personal, but I did support him in the elections in the end because I didn’t feel McCain had any clue what to do regarding the economy – McCain didn’t even have any high power economists helping him. Moreover, I am not convinced that McCain would have acted much differently regarding Israel. The candidates all talk a good line, but in the end no one moves the embassy to Jerusalem, and no one supports the right of Jews to live in the land of their forefathers – in the land which according to the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate they were supposed to have. In your view, do Jews have a right to settle in Judea and Samaria? If so, is settlement something that you support? Yes. I strongly oppose any kind of a state that says that Jews cannot live in our homeland. I believe Jews have a right by international law to live all over Israel, as I said before, because of the Balfour Declaration, upheld by the British Mandate, the League of Nations, and never rescinded by the United Nations. However, I also believe there is plenty of room for Arabs – Palestinians, Druze, Bedouins –however they identify themselves – in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Don’t forget about Gaza! Jews lived in Gaza City until we were kicked out because of the riots in 1929. I think we need to push for a state where Arabs and Jews can live anywhere – as long as they acquire the land legally – and we should never accept the idea of Jews not being allowed to live in our land – yet again. But Palestinians should welcome the idea of Jews being allowed to live anywhere and Arabs being allowed the same. I’m a little disappointed that those on the Right say: Jordan is Palestine. No! Jordan should really be part of the Jewish state – as envisioned in the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate, before the British unilaterally, and perhaps illegally, cut it off from the future homeland of the Jewish people. But, OK, I’m willing to concede Jordan because of political realities – they’re as good an ally as we can get in the Arab world – but no more! We need a Jewish state from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean. 42 years after the Six Day War, many - perhaps most - Orthodox Jews are passionate about a united Jerusalem and the right to settle in Judea and Samaria; the idea of returning to the '67 borders is frightening. Is there any conceivable way for the bases of this position to be given a fair hearing in Washington, or is this position destined to remain a quirk limited to a tiny segment? I have begun to explore what seems like a crazy solution, but a solution which embraces both the Left’s craving for Palestinian rights, and our need as Jews to live in our state, and for that state to be the Jewish state, and for the IDF to be in every corner of that state. I call it the One Democratic Jewish and Palestinian state. Before I get pilloried on the demographic issue for suggesting we give the vote to all Arabs who accept this One State, just remember that the three ways of ensuring lower Arab birth rates are: 1) Educating Arab women to become part of the middle class; 2) Welcoming thousands or millions of people from all over the third world who identify as Jews – or Israelites – and bring them to Israel to acculturate them into the majority Jewish culture of Israel 3) Converting the 300,000 FSU Israelis who want to become halachically Jewish. Those three steps will do more to rectify any demographic threat that comes from giving the vote to Arabs, who are willing to swear loyalty the Constitution of the One Jewish and Palestinian state. Also, before I mention my idea that might appeal to the Left in America (and the world), remember, that the biggest moral, ethical, religious and strategic threat to Israel is a Two State solution where Israel gives up more land to a terrorist Palestinian state, or even to a Palestinian state that demands that it be Judenrein, ethnically cleansed of Jews. So if we can get the One State solution on the table, even if you disagree with it, at least it would open up a more ethical discussion, rather than just succumbing to the Two State Orthodoxy or Dogma, that it’s the only solution possible – which is what the administration is currently saying. But if your readers are interested in this experimental idea, here it is: One Democratic Jewish and Palestinian State: Where Jews can settle everyone in the Homeland, and Arabs are also allowed to return to their homes and live as equals Rabbi Asher Lopatin Five Pillars of the One Democratic Jewish and Palestinian Democratic State from the Jordan to the Mediterranean: 1) New constitution - needing a super-majority to change - establishing a full democracy, with full separation of church and state, with both a Jewish Bill of Rights and a Palestinian Bill of Rights guaranteeing that the state can be both a Jewish state and a Palestinian state 2) Law of Return for Jews; Law of Return for Palestinians 3) All citizens – Jews, Muslims, Christians and others – can live anywhere in the land. Just as in America restrictive covenants are illegal, so, too in the One State: Jews and Palestinians can acquire property anywhere in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Gaza, West Bank, etc. Property rights will be respected, and returning refugees will be accommodated through new housing in or close to their original housing. All Jewish settlements that are legal by current Israeli law will remain, with compensation where necessary. 4) The IDF and internal police and security services will be integrated at a pace consistent with the security needs of the new state and will be stationed to keep the law in every corner of the One State. 5) A) Demographic issues will be negotiated with three possible solutions: increasing Israel’s Jewish population radically by admitting millions of Jewish identifiers from Africa, Asia and South America before the One State is implemented; returning Palestinians based on an equal admission of Jewish identifiers – perhaps limited to a certain time period; allowing for a natural growth of Jewish or Muslim – or other – populations, with the understanding that the constitution will guarantee that the One State remains compatible for a Jewish state as well as a Palestinian state. B) Note: The most effective way for Israel to increase its Jewish population in the short and long term is by educating Arab women and men, which as been shown my many studies to be effective in significantly lowering birth rates, and by enabling the conversions of hundreds of thousands of FSU Israelis who are not currently halachically Jewish. You refer to "people who vow to destroy" Israel. In light of this, isn't the mere consideration of a binational state a victory for Israel's enemies? Firstly, I don’t really like the term “binational”; it implies the state is split down the middle. It will be one state, with one united Jerusalem as the capital. Secondly, only those who take an oath of loyalty to the constitution of this new state will be allowed to vote and have any say. Any party which is not loyal to the constitution that enshrines the rights of Jews and separation of shul/mosque and state, will not be allowed to participate in the elective process. No enemies of this state will have any power. In fact, they will be far more marginalized than they are now because the army loyal to the constitution and the new state will be EVERYWHERE – on every corner in every Arab village and town – and in Tel Aviv. Suppose a bi-national state along the precise five pillars you set forth would be formed. Since the borders of this state would be open to Jews and Arabs, what would stop Hamas, assisted by Iran, from smuggling in all kinds of weapons? Wouldn't mass bloodshed be inevitable? Ditto above – the army – the IDF – would be everywhere. Let me also remind everyone that there will be about two million machine guns in the hand of Jews even in the One State – no one is going to take our country away! In an interview in January, you were asked what you thought Emanuel's influence would be on the Obama Administration. You responded then: "Rahm adds pragmatism. Certainly when it comes to the Middle East, people in the synagogue and in the Jewish community feel that it’s pragmatic for the United States to back Israel and not to pressure Israel and not to compromise Israel’s security." Do you still believe he will bring pragmatism with respect to the U.S. relationship with Israel? I do think he is a pragmatist, and as soon as we put something on the table, like the One State solution or something else that makes sense, and we push that solution, I think this administration, with Emanuel’s influence, will embrace the alternative to the ethnic cleansing of the Two State solution. Do you believe that generally, the Obama Administration has demonstrated a pragmatic view regarding Israel's dispute with the Arabs? Yes. You have announced plans to move and form a new community in Carmit, in the Negev. What are your plans in Carmit, and where do your plans stand? Carmit is a new diverse and pluralistic Jewish town springing up about 20 minutes north east of Beer Sheva. It will eventually have 2500 homes, but the first 200 homes are expected to be completed by September 2011. Carmit will have a mix of Anglos and Israelis, religious and secular and traditional Jews, and will emphasize sensitivity toward the natural and human environment of the Negev. I am working with an American foundation, CIPF (Chicago Israel Philanthropic Fund) which is partnering with the JNF and the main organization in Israel that is building Carmit, the OR Movement. Below is an article that I wrote about my plans to make aliya to Carmit with my family: A Rabbi’s Vision for Carmit: Bringing the Best of American Judaism and Pioneering Spirit to the Negev by Being Part of a Diverse, Pluralistic and Forward Looking New Community Let me introduce myself: I am a Modern Orthodox rabbi of a 400 family synagogue in Chicago, made up mostly of young singles, couples and families. Associated with our synagogue is a new pluralistic day school going through grade 8 – eventually – with rabbis from all movements represented on the board. In addition we have worked to build Kehilla – an organization which connects the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform synagogues in our area with the JCC, in order to come together for learning, social action events, and religious celebrations. On the one hand I am involved in internal Orthodox issues, on the other hand, my pulpit enables and encourages me to move beyond the Orthodox community to the other Jewish communities, and beyond the Jewish community to dialogue with Muslims and Christians. Beyond the religious communities, I have spoken at rallies on Israel, Darfur, immigration, affordable housing and even humanitarian treatment of animals. For me, Judaism has always been about connecting with our tradition by making it meaningful in a person’s life, and when the tradition becomes meaningful, it goes on to affect not only the individual or his or her community, but the world around them as well. But nothing is more central to the Jewish tradition than the dream of returning to our land and building a type of utopia in the Land of Israel. As a rabbi who preaches, prays and observes that dream every day, at some point I have to say: It is my responsibility, and that of my family, to make this dream a reality. If it is to having any meaning, the yearning for Israel must become a reality, not just a vision. From the very beginning of my pulpit, 14 years ago, I imagined I would use the lessons of being a rabbi of a community in America to one day return to my homeland, to Israel, to put everything I learnt into reality – whatever could work in Israel. So for several years I have been searching for the right time and place to move from dreaming to actualizing: the OR Movement, in their vision of Carmit, has provided me with that time and place. My goal now is that within two to three years, I will be able to be a community rabbi in Carmit, making the Jewish dream as solid as the 700 sparkling homes which are planned for the first phase of Carmit. My plan is to be a rabbi of an Modern Orthodox synagogue which has as its mission to reach out to all residents of Carmit, to be their spiritual and communal home. The synagogues may have many different services going on at the same time: the main, Modern Orthodox service; a side more liberal Orthodox service which includes women and men in the prayers; another side, more “chareidi” Orthodox service that gives people a more “yeshiva” feel. At the same time there will be numerous children’s and learning services – maybe even one for non-believers! However, the services will only be an anchor for a larger effort to create community: to make sure that everyone, single, couple or family has a place to go for Friday dinner or Shabbat lunch, or a seder or a festival meal; to make sure that everyone, whatever their level of observance, feels a sense of ownership in the community and an ability to make a difference. Their need to be social activities, but also opportunities for social action and social justice. Through the synagogue itself, there should be efforts made to work on environmental issues and social issues involving the Bedouin population around Carmit, and all those in the Negev or Israel who need our help. Yes, there may be many other organizations dedicated to different causes, and to even bringing people together socially, but the belief of many rabbis in Israel today, is that the synagogue, by being the institution that represents connection to Jewish tradition, has a unique role in galvanizing people’s efforts in all these areas. The Carmit that I dream of would be diverse: Americans, Israelis and immigrants from all over the world; people of all different religious streams and affiliations, or those with no affiliation; people of all different economic levels – from those who are wealth off to those just starting their careers, or perhaps still students or artists searching for what they want to do in life. The synagogue in Carmit I would like to be the rabbi of would welcome everyone and not judge anyone – just empower them to grow and to connect to the Jewish tradition. Carmit will be welcomed by those who seek a Greener Negev because it will attract similar minded olim from America – who are Green advocates here; it will be welcomed by advocates for the poor and for Bedouins because it will attract the most sensitive and caring Americans who are coming to Israel to make a difference and create a more caring Israel. Carmit will be the engine for pluralism and respect for diversity in Israel. I would like to be a rabbi in this incredible new town, to create the Jewish community that takes the dreams of all who move to Carmit, including my own, and realizes them on every level. I have joined with Rosie and Daniel Mattio to create the Chicago Israel Philanthropic Fund whose mission is to partner with the OR Movement to bring Americans to Carmit. We have committed to help OR build this diverse and pluralistic new Jewel of the Negev. With God’s help, I know Carmit is not just a dream, but a reality unfolding before our very eyes. What is the current status of the community in Carmit? Infrastructure is going into the ground as we speak, and it will prepare the ground for 200 homes which should be up by September 2011. Lots should go on the market in October of this year. You've been an advocate for pluralism about the Jewish denominations. Can pluralism and Orthodoxy be reconciled? Rabbi Eric Yoffie has said "There are limits to what Reform Judaism can encompass… If you take halacha upon yourself as an obligation rather than as a choice, you’ve reached the point at which you’re no longer a Reform Jew.” Isn't there a fundamental and irreconcilable schism between Rabbi Yoffie's statement and the notion of the Torah being binding? Isn't Rabbi Yoffie's statement an implicit admission that the Reform movement itself rejects pluralism? Orthodoxy, and Judaism in general, must reject moral relativism, which rejects the idea of truth. Orthodoxy believes there is a truth, which God gave us at Mt. Sinai – the Torah, in its written and oral form. So I would reject a pluralism which is based on the idea of denying truth. However, we, as Jews who believe in an infinite Torah MiSinai cannot possibly believe that we really understand the infinite word of God, or even the Talmud. All we can do, as mortals, is try to have as good an understanding as possible, and we lead our lives based on that imperfect understanding. And we have to be prepared, as the generations continue to study Gemorrah, and Rishonim and Acharonim, and IY”H, and we move closer to the never attainable Truth, that some of our understandings of Torah and even halacha may change. Thus, when we are confronted with different understandings from the different movements, we need to respect their sincerity, and just say, “Our understanding of the Truth, based on our Mesorah and our teachers and our s’farim, differs from yours. We reject your approach. However, we humbly accept that we, too, do not possess the ultimate Truth – only Hashem does.” This humility, I believe, is the underpinning of pluralism: accepting other Jews’ right to disagree with us, in sincerity and love. If I thought I was God, chas veshalom, I could say: I know the Truth and you are wrong. Since I am mortal, I say: “This is what I believe is what Hashem meant for me to do and believe, but I respect your right to disagree.” And I think it’s great that the Reform movement is willing to define itself as the movement which believes halacha is choice, not obligation. I would hope that Rabbi Yoffie would accept and respect my right to disagree with him, and to believe that Halacha is obligation. To be pluralistic, he doesn’t have to think I am Reform, but he should respect my Orthodox views as part of the quest for understanding what Judaism asks from us. And I think he does. Pluralism, then, is about respecting those we disagree with, and allowing them the space to grow in Torah and Yiddishkeit. That should be accepted by anyone who believes in Torah miSinai, and accepts that we are just Basar Vadam. Do you believe it is appropriate to speak from the pulpit about political issues? If you mean strategic policies – how Israel should defend itself or a solution to the issues in the Middle East – I avoid it. I think the only time I touched on such an issue was in criticizing rabbis who asked Israeli soldiers to disobey orders. I do speak out against the Rabbanut’s policies on conversions in Israel, or against religious courts in Israel who reject certain conversions, or who are cruel to women – agunot or otherwise. On American politics, I don’t speak up. But I think my congregants on the Right think I’m a leftie, and my congregants on the Left think I’m a right winger! Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Truth About Settlements That Nathan Jeffay Won't Report Two weeks ago, The Forward's Nathan Jeffay falsely reported that Israeli "public sympathy for settlers and the settlements is currently at an all-time low." As I demonstrated then and have continued to since, Jeffay's assertion is completely baseless, likely motivated by his and his newspaper's political bias. The latest polls show that not only is Israeli support for settlements not "at an all-time low," but that it has steadily increased since Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell begin their jihad against them. As a poll published today in Yisrael Hayom shows, 58 percent of Israeli oppose a halt to settlement construction, while 30 percent support a complete freeze. Unfortunately, objective news reporting based on fact has been replaced by advocacy-based news, which is why Jeffay and The Forward won't report the reality that does not comport with their own slant. Hopefully, Jeffay will soon find his true calling as a blogger, and The Forward will replace him with a real reporter. Monday, June 15, 2009
The Contrast Between a Defeatist Appeaser and a Statesmanlike Leader  "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies."-Ehud Olmert "I know the face of war. I have experienced battle. I lost close friends, I lost a brother. I have seen the pain of bereaved families. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war."-Binyamin Netanyahu Sunday, June 14, 2009
The Speech: Netanyahu Folds A Card - But Maintains His Principles There is no such thing as a demilitarized state, and there will certainly be no such thing as a demilitarized state of Palestine. Even without a state, Palestinians have managed to smuggle in large amounts of weaponry, including tens of thousands of missiles. Prime Minister Netanyahu has not experienced an ideological shift. He knows as well as anyone that any Palestinian state on the mountains and hills of Judea and Samaria poses a severe threat to Israel. He also knows that the entire world supports a Palestinian state, as does half of Israel. Given all of the challenges facing Israel, getting bogged down in a dispute over the principle of a Palestinian state is not, in his view, worthwhile right now. It will inevitably result in a clash with the U.S. and division at home. Better - he has concluded - to maintain the support of a majority of Israelis and of Israel's friends in the U.S. I don't know if he's right and I agonize that he may be making a terrible mistake. But I understand his decision, which puts the burden on the Obama Administration to make a persuasive case for how a two-state solution would not pose a severe threat to Israeli security. Contrary to popular opinion, Netanyahu was correct to wait until now to conditionally accept some form of Palestinian state. Had Netanyahu done so during his visit to the White House, President Obama would have still picked a fight with Israel to curry favor with the Arab and Muslim world prior to and at his speech in Cairo. Better to take Obama's punches and move on. Though Netanyahu has not agreed to completely cease construction in Judea and Samaria, it will now be more difficult for Obama and Hillary Clinton to continue bashing Israel. Even before today's speech, this morning on Meet The Press, David Gregory sharply questioned VP Joe Biden as to why only Israel is being pressured by the Obama Administration. Aside from his conditional acceptance of a Palestinian state, I liked Netanyahu's speech. Netanyahu set forth essential truths about why the Jewish people are in their homeland in Israel, and why there has been no peace in Israel, that in recent years have been ignored and left unsaid by Israeli leaders. In his reference to the sacrifice of so many Israelis, today was the first time I can remember Netanyahu mentioning the loss of his brother Yoni in a public forum. There was one unfortunate omission from the speech: Netanyahu spoke about Gilad Shalit, but not the other Israeli MIAs. Zachary Baumel, Tzvi Feldman, Yehuda Katz, Ron Arad and Guy Hever were not mentioned today. Let us hope that Netanyahu remembers them soon. Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama and The Truth About Settlements  Gush Etzion is where the settlement movement began, when just after the Six Day War, Israel resettled the Jewish areas destroyed by Jordanian soldiers in May 1948. After visiting Neve Daniel (pictured) in Gush Etzion today, Jimmy Carter expressed support for permanent Israeli retention of Gush Etzion. It is possible that Carter will change his mind tomorrow, but regardless, what this demonstrates is the degree of ignorance about the communities in Judea and Samaria. Almost all of the world, including many Jews - even some observant Jews - are under the impression that settlements are some trailers placed on Palestinian land, with the owners displaced. The reality - this is obvious to most readers of this blog - is that Judea and Samaria are largely empty - mountain after mountain and hill after hill with nothing there. There are Arab villages, a few large Arab cities, and pockets of Jewish communities. But mostly Judea and Samaria consists of empty land. It is not surprising that Arabs would oppose Israel using the empty land for further development. But the Netanyahu government has already agreed not to construct any new settlements, nor to expand settlements beyond present built-up lines. A visit to most settlements will demonstrate - like it has to Jimmy Carter - that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to stop Jews from living there, that peace is attainable without Judea and Samaria being completely emptied of Jews. President Obama claims to be a proponent of dialogue. Perhaps he too will pay a visit to Gush Etzion. Perhaps then he too will learn the truth about the Jewish presence in a small part of Judea and Samaria. Saturday, June 13, 2009
Thoughts The Night Before The Speech "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun." The world's superpower has elected a new government with new policies, raising concerns that the new government is less committed to the Zionist cause than its predecessor. Understandings and declarations from just a few years ago have apparently been abrogated and disavowed. The future of Jewish settlement in the Yishuv has been placed in doubt. Yet - or, shall we say, on the other hand - the leader of the world continues to express support for the Jewish people. The leader of the Yishuv cannot risk offending our patron over mundane matters like settlement, or a Jewish state, or how many Arab states shall exist west of the Jordan River. Arguments about history are a waste. What matters now is ensuring that, whatever else, the relationship with the leader of the free world not ever, heaven forbid, be compromised. As the leaders of the Jewish community have quickly come to understand, only a policy of havlagah - restraint - can secure our future. Our Missing Leaders The Zionist Conspiracy has learned that investigators have not ruled out the possibility that dozens of American Jewish leaders, missing for weeks, may have been aboard Air France Flight 447. If this is so, they will be greatly missed by their families. Thursday, June 11, 2009
Sounds From The 4 Train After a morning court appearance in Brooklyn, I headed to my office via the 4 train. I sat toward the front of the last car. Over the next 35 minutes (train congestion ahead), until I got off at Grand Central, from the back of the car, came the following sounds: "Yo, honey, why don't you come here, 'n sit on my lap." "C'mon b****. What you afraid of? You never have a real man before?" "Hey granny. Sit yo a** down. Old people can't be doing s*** like that." "Hymie, you know I'm Hitler's best friend. I'm gonna come and kill you, m***********." "Why don't you look at me, f***** Jew. You know I cut you, right?" "Me and Hitler is gonna kill all 'da Jews." While this was going on, I calmly read the newspaper and answered e-mails on my Blackberry. Exposing The Lies About Settlements and Israeli Public Opinion More evidence that the myth about Israelis opposing Israeli sovereignty over the Green Line is false: Should Netanyahu agree to President Obama's demand of a complete construction freeze beyond the Green Line - including in Jerusalem and settlement blocs - including "natural growth"? No 56% Yes 37% Other replies 7% Should Netanyahu agree to President Obama's reported demand that Israel rescind Israeli sovereignty over the Old City and other parts of Jerusalem that are beyond the Green Line as part of an agreement with the Palestinians? No 69% Yes 18% Other replies 13% Should Netanyahu agree to President Obama's reported demand that Israel abandon the settlement blocs as part of an agreement with the Palestinians? No 51% Yes 34% Other replies 15% Was Binyamin Netanyahu correct when he warned in the past that if a sovereign Palestinian state were established that it would be impossible to enforce security restrictions and limitations on it? Was right 59% Wrong 28% Other replies 13% Sunday, June 07, 2009
Get Ready For Land Swaps Here's another prediction: Prime Minister Netanyahu will propose land swaps as a basis for peace agreements with the Palestinians - and perhaps Syria too. Not little land swaps, like some land in the Negev in exchange for Jewish towns just outside the 1949 armistice lines. Real land swaps on the basis of two states for two peoples. The time has come for land swaps to reach the big leagues. Netanyahu's Speech and American Jewish Support Of Israel Two of my recent predictions have been proven accurate today. First, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that he will set forth his diplomatic policy next week. The speech will reportedly occur next Sunday at Bar-Ilan University. This is good news; it will give Netanyahu a chance to set forth the concessions concerning settlement construction and the "two-state" plan that Israel can make, while also clarifying Israel's red lines in negotiations. This will provide an opportunity for Netanyahu to solidify support within Israel. Second, as I predicted would happen, American Jews who are not known for their support of Yesha are nevertheless expressing their opposition to President Obama's sharp turn away from Israel. This is easily evident from a peruse of the blogosphere, but more notable is an article by liberal Democrat hack Lanny Davis in tomorrow's Washington Times, in which Davis writes: Most alarming to me were the negative perceptions of the speech that I heard over the weekend from American Jews who are the liberal Democrats in the president's political base and support a two-state solution and a freeze on settlements...Does Obama want to lose Florida in the 2012 election? If not, he might want to find out what the majority of Jews feel about Israel bashing, rather than rely on the nonsense expressed by those elites who lobby for Palestine. Saturday, June 06, 2009
The Man We Need Now III  Rabbi Haskel Lookstein has been a longtime advocate for Israel. But lately Rabbi Lookstein has become known for high rankings in Newsweek's rabbinical popularity contest, preparing the conversion of Ivanka Trump, and participating in church prayer services in honor of our 44th President. In January 2001, as President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak begged Yasser Arafat to take a break from killing Israelis to accept the Old City of Jerusalem, Rabbi Lookstein's Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun hosted a program at which we could express our pain, shock and outrage. When The New York Times bashed Israel unrelentingly, it was Rabbi Lookstein who spoke up, organizing a temporary but costly boycott. Today we again need Rabbi Lookstein to publicly speak out for Israel and to defend its rights and interests. Prime Minister Netanyahu On The Test Of Israeli Diplomacy In a world that has been conditioned to see Israel as the heavy, every Israeli retreat from positions under dispute with the Arabs will naturally be applauded. Israel will be patted on the back and congratulated as long as it continues to make unilateral concessions. But once an Israeli government decides, as it inevitably must, to draw a line beyond which it cannot retreat, the international applause will cease — and pressure will begin again. Hence the test of Israeli diplomacy is not whether it can gain short-term sympathy by sacrificing Israel's vital interests, but whether it can protect these interests while securing international understanding and support. To yield to pressure for the sake of ephemeral international praise is as tempting as it is short-sighted. To be firm about vital matters and to earn the respect of nations for this stance is much more difficult, but ultimately more prudent and responsible. The school of thought that holds that Israel's public relations problem would end with the establishment of a Palestinian state is wrong. In such a case Israel would be faced with an existential threat and a public relations nightmare, as Arab irredentism turns its focus on the Arab population within the remainder of Israel."Binyamin Netanyahu, A Durable Peace: Israel and Its Place Among the Nations Thursday, June 04, 2009
Why Sentiments On Settlement Are Distorted It's easy to refute The Forward's Nathan Jeffay's false assertion that Israeli "sympathy for settlers and the settlements is currently at an all-time low" and that "a majority of Israelis — almost two-thirds — consider the settlements a liability rather than an asset." After all, as Ynet states, the poll Jeffay cites actually shows that Israelis are "spilt on the matter of settlements, with a small majority of 48% saying they weaken the Israeli interest, as opposed to 43% who said settlements actually contribute to the State's interests." I wasn't great in math, but am certain that 48 percent is less than a majority, and is not almost two-thirds. Most media distortions about public opinion toward towns located in Judea and Samaria are not so easy to discredit. We are routinely given assurances that "the majority of Israelis oppose settlements" without any factual backup. On Tuesday, for example, ex-U.S. diplomat Marc Ginsberg asserted that "I can confidently report that most Israelis share President Obama's view regarding the settlements in question despite the rightward drift of Israel's electorate." I can confidently assert that Ginsberg does not know what he is talking about. Ginsberg's piece is full of innuendo not based on reality. For example, he is under the impression that Israelis on the far right vote Likud, that President Obama is only making demands with respect to the isolated settlements, and that it was a "fanatical settler who deemed fit to assassinate former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin." (Yigal Amir was a fanatic but not a settler - unless Herzliya is now considered a settlement.) Ginsberg states up front that he strongly opposes settlements. His bias likely plays a role in his misstatements, but he's not a liar, just grossly misinformed. He has absolutely no business asserting anything - let alone confidently - about Israel. So why would Ginsberg and so many others in media and in diplomacy believe that most Israelis oppose settlement? Because they overwhelmingly know and associate with only one type of Israeli - the type that lives in northern Tel Aviv and is secular and Ashkenazi - and speaks English. Their experience in Israel occurs in a cocoon in which Israelis are secular, Western and eager to become part of Europe. Alas, due to their biases and their ignorance-based confidence, diplomats like Ginsberg report to our federal government - and media based in Israel report to their readers, listeners and viewers - that Israelis abhor settlements, and that if you want to pressure Israel, that's the place to hit very hard. The Distortion Of Israeli Public Opinion UPDATED BELOW I basically read everything written about Israel that is available online, and am appalled at the distortion of Israeli public opinion that appears repeatedly in purportedly reputable news sources. There is a myth, for example, that the overwhelming majority of Israelis abhor settlements and support a return to the '67 borders, and that those nasty settlers are hijacking the will of the Israeli people. This is completely false, as several new polls of actual Israelis demonstrate. A new Geocartography poll, for example, confirms that a majority of Israelis not only reject a settlement freeze, but even reject evacuating unauthorized settlement outposts. Another poll, taken by Shvakim Panorama for Israel Radio, states that Israelis are evenly split about outposts, but by a nearly 2-1 margin reject a settlement freeze. Another Geocartography poll shows that even in exchange for a peace agreement, by a margin of 50 percent to 43 percent (7 percent had no opinion), a majority of Israelis reject "transferring a large portion of the territories in Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians." As reported by Ynet, Tel Aviv University's War and Peace Index reaches similar conclusions. A majority of Israelis support Prime Minister Netanyahu's stance, and while Israelis would be willing to evacuate outposts and some isolated settlements, they would not evacuate all settlements "even if a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians depended on it." UPDATE: The Forward's Nathan Jeffay has joined those who have misrepresented Israeli public opinion. In Jeffay's case, his report egregiously distorts the Tel Aviv University poll results. Read his report and Ynet's report and see for yourself. Of course, Jeffay is surely keeping his boss at The Forward happy, which presumably takes precedence over accuracy. Tuesday, June 02, 2009
The Man We Need Now II  Unlike the leaders of the Jewish establishment, Rabbi Asher Lopatin has set forth concerns over the Obama Administration's shift from Israel. But as the rabbi of the Chicago shul attended by Rahm Emanuel, Rabbi Lopatin has a unique ability - and responsibility - to take a lead role in conveying the deep frustration currently being felt but hardly being expressed. The Man We Need Now I  Rabbi Avi Weiss should be able to take it easy these days, and spend his time battling over female pulpit leaders in Orthodox shuls. Alas, his services on behalf of Israel are again desperately needed. With nobody else stepping up to the plate, he must once again come off the bench. In the meantime, there will be others who can espouse the virtues of "Open Orthodoxy." Scuds and Obama's Visit to Buchenwald On the second night of the Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein launched scud missiles at Tel Aviv, initial reports were that the scuds contained nerve gas. The world was horrified; Jews again being murdered by nerve gas. Who could forget Deputy Foreign Minister Netanyahu being interviewed while wearing a gas mask? Thankfully, the scuds did not actually contain nerve gas, and the world went back to demanding that Israel absorb one scud after another so as not to disturb President Bush's coalition with our friends in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, who otherwise would surely prefer to be swallowed whole by Saddam. And Netanyahu and his gas mask were forgotten. The reaction during those hours illustrated the world's deep support for Jews. Dead Jews, that is. President Obama's impending visit to Buchenwald reminded me of that night in January 1991. Obama declares Iran has a right to nuclear energy, displays friendship to our enemies and disdain toward Israel, and - least dangerously but most patronizingly - thinks living Jewish-Americans will be impressed by his paying homage to dead Jews. Today's pathetic silence of the American Jewish leadership notwithstanding, eventually Obama will discover that most American Jews do not support his hostility toward Israel. True, most are not Orthodox; nor are they particularly interested in real estate development in Judea and Samaria. But nor are they J Street Jews, for whom access to power is the new Jewish religion. At their core, hostility toward Israel's democratically elected government is something that American Jews can sense and will not support. Israel Must Be Honest With Its Friends Friends must be honest with each other, sometimes even conveying unpleasant truths. For this reason, it is time for Israel to politely but firmly explain to President Obama that the "peace process" between Israel and the Arabs is pretend. It is a show to create the illusion that goodwill and painful concessions could lead to an end of conflict. At best it can be of limited use in managing the conflict. But it has no actual relationship to the advent of real peace. Monday, June 01, 2009
Congress Supporting Netanyahu As American Jewish "leaders" remain holed up in their bunker in an undisclosed location, and left-wing Haaretz columnists gleefully claim that nobody in America is objecting to Obama's nastiness toward Israel, comes word tonight from Ben Smith that some Democrats in Congress are ready to challenge the Obama Admininstration: Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.): "My concern is that we are applying pressure to the wrong party in this dispute. I think it would serve America's interest better if we were pressuring the Iranians to eliminate the potential of a nuclear threat from Iran, and less time pressuring our allies and the only democracy in the Middle East to stop the natural growth of their settlements. When Congress gets back into session the administration is going to hear from many more members than just me." My Congressman, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.): "There's a line between articulating U.S. policy and seeming to be pressuring a democracy on what are their domestic policies, and the president is tiptoeing right up to that line. I would have liked to hear the president talk more about the Palestinian obligation to cut down on terrorism." Robert Wexler (D-Fla.): "To expect Israel to have the same policy outside the security fence as inside the security fence is unrealistic; it's counterproductive ... Bibi Netanyahu can't be expected to perform his obligations if the broader Arab world is not willing to take serious steps toward normalizing relations with Israel." Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.): "I don’t think anybody wants to dictate to an ally what they have to do in their own national security interests. I have to hear specifically from the administration exactly how they define ["settlement" and "natural growth"] and is there room for defining the terms." They Will Be Exchanged And They Will Stay Alive  "Israeli crewmen of a tank who were captured in Lebanon agreed to put themselves and their war machine on display as Syrians fired guns into the air in a signal of triumph. If the Israelis had not submitted to the parade, said one Western diplomat, 'they would never return to Israel. When this mess is all over, they will be exchanged, and they will stay alive. Isn't that the name of this game: to stay alive?'"-Time Magazine, June 21, 1982 Rahm Emanuel: Obama Rewarding Terrorism "If you were to say up front, 'we're creating a [Palestinian] state and then we're negotiating the details,' not only would you be rewarding terrorism, you would be rewarding all the corruption that goes with it."-Rahm Emanuel, 2002 | "
