Yechezkel Gordon: PREVIEWING THE IOWA CAUCUSES- EXCLUSIVE ANALYSIS AND PREDICTIONS

WHAT: The Iowa Caucuses

WHEN: January 3, 2012

ANALYSIS: After months of debating and campaigning, the first in the nation caucuses will officially usher in the 2012 election. The Republican field is narrowed down to seven candidates, and by the time the GOP convention is held in the summer, one of them will stand alone as the Republican candidate for president who will take on President Obama in the general election, for the honors of occupying the White House the next four years.

2008 RESULTS:
REPUBLICANS-
Mike Huckabee (34%), Mitt Romney (25%),
Fred Thompson (13%), John McCain (13%),
Ron Paul (10%),
Rudy Giuliani (4%), Duncan Hunter (1%)

DEMOCRATS-
Barack Obama (38%), John Edwards (30%), Hillary Clinton (29%),
Bill Richardson (2%),
Joe Biden (1%)

ANALYSIS: The importance of the first in the nation caucuses has been debated over the years. 2008 proved to be a mixed bag. Huckabee won on the Republican side and that was the last we heard of him until he got a job on Fox News. McCain finished in fourth place and went on to become the eventual nominee. On the Democrat side it was a whole different story. Obama's shocking first place finish, catapulted him to the front of the pack and he's never had to look back since. Previous years have proven more prophetic though. John Kerry won in 2004, Al Gore and George W. Bush won in 2000, and they all went on to become the nominee for their respected parties.

THE CANDIDATES: Here's a rundown of the Republican candidates that will be on the ballot for the Iowa caucuses, and what it will take for them to win.

Mitt Romney: The good news is, he was the front runner in the beginning of the race and he's still the front runner now. The bad news is, it's more a result of his competitors weaknesses then his strengths. He's proven to be a very good debater, and the weak economy plays to his strength as a former CEO and the executive who turned the Utah Olympics into a great economic success. New Hampshire has long been considered his home turf, and if he wins Iowa or comes in second to Paul, he's all but sure to win in NH, and cary that momentum into a South Carolina victory where he already has the endorsement of it's popular Governor. In short, his competitors have only one realistic shot of beating him, and that's in the socially conservative Iowa, if they fail to do that, the race is all but over.

Newt Gingrich: His poll numbers soared earlier this month following a string of strong debate performances and the collapse of Herman Cain's campaign. But the spotlight brings with it scrutiny, and for Gingrich that meant getting pounded for the past few weeks by everyone else on the campaign trail and with blunt TV ads painting him as a lifetime politician turned lobbyist, who will do and say anything to advance his career. He needs to do better then Romney to give himself a chance to win NH. If he doesn't finish in the top three, it will spell the end to his campaign.

Ron Paul: Throughout the campaign, Paul has maintained a strong showing in Iowa. He's known to have the most loyal supporters, and his anti- government stance has helped him expand his support from four years ago. He has the extensive groundwork and organization needed to win in Iowa, and the latest polls indicate that he has a very good chance of doing just that. Recently, his various controversial positions have come out, including racist and anti-Semitic statements in newsletters under his name that were published in the 1990's. He may win in Iowa, but if he does, it will be due to the support of Democrats and Independents, but very few Republicans.

Rick Santorum: As a social and economic conservative, Santorum decided to go all out in Iowa. While his competitors were crisscrossing the country campaigning and fundraising, he went house to house all across Iowa until he managed to visit all 99 counties. His strategy has shown signs of success recently when he received endorsements from two prominent evangelical leaders and from the Iowa Secretary of State. For Santorum, there's a lot at stake in this election. Unlike his conservative competitors Perry and Bachmann who have their current jobs as Governor and Congressman to fall back on should they loose, Santorum would be forced to find a private sector job to help pay off his debt from the campaign. Santorum has a consistent conservative track record throughout his political career in the House and Senate to help him appeal to the conservative Iowans. He'll either shock everyone with a surprising top three finish, or he'll be forced to drop out of the race with a poor showing. A big time endorsement from Iowa Congressman Steve King or another prominent Republican can make all the difference.

Michele Bachmann: A solid conservative that can boast about her victory in the Iowa Straw Poll this summer, but that's about all. Her numbers have tanked ever since Perry joined the race, and she'll need to do well in Iowa to stay in the race. She's fighting for the same conservative evangelicals as Perry and Santorum, and if the three of them split the evangelical vote it will give Romney a good chance of winning.

Rick Perry: His poor debate performances and frequent slip- ups have overshadowed his strong conservative record as Governor of Texas. Finishing below Santorum or Bachmann in the caucuses will put him on a one way ticket back to Texas.

Jon Huntsman: Early in the campaign, he said he would not compete in the more conservative Iowa, and instead would make his start in New Hampshire, which comes second on the nominating calendar. Thus, no matter how poorly he does he'll still be around for the NH primary.

PREDICTION: Unless Santorum pulls off an unbelievable come from behind victory, or Paul manages to convince enough Democrats and Independents to caucus for him, Romney will be the one delivering the victory speech in about a week from now.

Josephine Levin: BASHING- THE CRUSADE AGAINST THE ORTHODOX JEWS IN ISRAEL BY THE LIBERAL LEFT MEDIA AND POLITICIANS

Has anyone ever seen a headline like this? Secular Jew murders his wife or secular Jew robs bank or secular Jew abuses a child?

​However, these kinds of headlines we have all seen. Jewish settler murders wife in front of 6 children, suspected charedi pedophile arrested, Ethiopian oleh kills his wife, Russian immigrant suspected of murder, etc.

Some years ago it was rumored that the grandson of the head of a leftist political party murdered a man in cold blood. There was no mention in the press of a possible relationship between the young killer and the head of a leftist political party who had the same surname. Perhaps these rumors were unfounded but just imagine though if the son of a prominent settler leader or charedi rabbi murdered someone? Would the press also try to protect the parent's good reputation?

There is, in short, a double standard by the press in Israel when it comes to charedim, settlers, and new immigrants.

Sadly many of the National Religious are jumping on this same bashing bandwagon. The truth is that 99% of the charedi population are decent, law-abiding citizens who only want to live and let live.

Entire populations of decent law abiding citizens are smeared by this kind of bashing. Today a handful of hooligans called the Sicarii sicaristim are causing all kinds of problems against charedi, national relgious and secular Israelis, but the press labels them as charedi rather than sicarii and bashes all charedim.. The sicaristim in fact glued the Gerer rebbe's door so that the Gerrer rebbe was not able to leave his home to pray in the synagogue on Hoshana Raba. A sicarii leader was later beaten up and hospitalized probably in revenge.

Now here is something to consider. The head of the Kadima party,Tsipi Livini made it clear after the last elections that she would never join a government that contained members of the Shas religious party. Shas, by the way, is the main reason this government cannot consider dividing Jerusalem or returning Israel's holy places to the Palestinians or handing them over to some kind of international rule by the Vatican and the UN.

So is it coincidental that now when rumors of early elections are circulating, that leftists are purposely provoking the charedim by boarding busses usually with a photographer and journalist not far behind to deliberately cause a public outcry against them? One of them in fact joined Tsippi Livni in a a march for women's rights to sit in front on busses, etc. The charedi rabbis say the reason men should sit in front is not because men are superior to woman - just the opposite. They feel that they, as men, are in fact inferior when it comes to temptations. So women can see the men but the men cannot see the women.
This is not discrimination - this is purely for reasons of modesty.

Most charedi busses take much longer to reach a destination than the regular busses because they wind around all the charedi neighborhoods. It takes 20 minutes longer just to leave or enter Ashdod if one boards a charedi bus instead of a regular bus. There is no advantage to riding one, especially if one is in a hurry to get to work, back to an army base or to just get home.

By the way married couples often sit together on the Ashdod haredi busses - they sit in the middle! It is apparent that many of the bashers have never ridden on a charedi bus.

The National Religious people should wake up. The only way we can have another major disengagement is if Shas and Israel Beitenu will be removed or leave this present government. So stop your bashing. Everyone is repulsed by men who spit, throw excrement and call little Jewish girls shiksas, but why brand and bash an entire population because of a few hooligans? The mother of the daughter spat upon by hooligans in Bet Shemesh refuses to meet with the Shas mayor Moshe Abutbul of Bet Shemesh (reported in the press). Why? He has invited her to meet with him and she refuses his offer.

Frankly, the major rabbis should get together and excommunicate the Neturei Karta and the Sicaristim or somehow do more to disassociate themselves from them.

If Kadima replaces Shas and Yisrael Beitenu we will have another hitnatkut although on a much bigger scale than the disengagement from Gush Katif. A house divided cannot stand. We could not stand up against the Romans when we were divided by all kinds of in-fighting and causeless hatred between Jews over 2000 years ago when we lost the Temple and went into exile. The kind of bashing today and hatred between us will cause us to lose the Temple Mount again, so wake up. Unite. Reach out to each other and of course separate yourselves from the minority extremists who spit on children and who attack army bases. We do not want to lose the Temple Mount again.

Isi Leibler: THE NEW YORK TIMES HATES ISRAEL

The brouhaha over a recent New York Times column by Thomas Friedman highlights the newspaper’s increasing hostility toward Israel. Today, it would not be an exaggeration to state that the editorial policy of the NYT toward the Jewish state is virtually indistinguishable from the blatant anti-Israeli hostility promoted by the U.K.-based Guardian or the BBC.

Fortunately, the broader American public opinion has never been more supportive of the Jewish state than today. The only exceptions are the liberals, some of whom have become increasingly disenchanted with Israel and now tend to identify with their European counterparts and their excessive bias against Israel. This manifests itself on U.S. campuses and to some extent in far-left sectors of the Democratic Party. It represents the source of the tensions that have evolved between Israel and the U.S. following the election of Barack Obama.

One of the principal long-term contributing factors to the erosion of liberal support can be attributed to increasing vitriolic hostility against Israel displayed in the pages of The New York Times. This trend climaxed with the election of Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been subjected to a constant and unprecedented barrage of fierce personal and political condemnations from its editorials and leading columnists.

Despite Jewish ownership, throughout its history, The New York Times has rarely displayed affection or sensitivity toward Jewish issues. As far back as 1929, during the Arab riots in Palestine, the local Times correspondent, Joseph Levy, boasted that he was a committed anti-Zionist.

There is ample evidence that during the Holocaust, news of the slaughter of the Jews was relegated to the back pages allegedly out of cowardly concern that undue clamor about the plight of the Jews might reinforce the anti-Semitic claim that the war against the Nazis was a Jewish war.

Since the creation of Israel, the NYT could be said to be "fairly objective." But from 1967 onward, this evolved into sharp criticism. However, it seems to me that since the election of Netanyahu, the editors have embarked on a determined all-out campaign to undermine and demonize the Israeli government whilst invariably providing the Palestinians with a free pass.

A constant stream of unbalanced editorials have blasted Israel for the impasse and mercilessly attacked the government. It continuously "put the greater onus” for the failure of peace negotiations on Netanyahu "who is using any excuse to thwart peace efforts" and "refuses to make any serious compromises for peace."

Its columnists and Op-Ed contributors have done likewise. For a newspaper purporting to provide diverse opinions, I believe it rarely publishes dissenting viewpoints from its editorials and in-house columns, which only find fault with the Israeli government. One notable exception was Likud MK Danny Danon, to whom the NYT provided a column in which he expressed a viewpoint far to the Right of the government which simply amounted to a cheap effort to discredit the government by conveying a far more hardline position than the reality.

Its principal columnists Thomas Friedman, Roger Cohen (both Jews) and Nicolas Kristof have been leading the charge in castigating Israel and unabashedly praising the Arab Spring.

In a recent column, Kristof described a dinner with a PR savvy group of Muslim Brotherhood activists. Kristof approvingly quoted them, claiming that their support was strong "for the same reason the Germans support Christian Democrats or Southerners favor conservative Christians.” He also postulated that "conservative Muslims insisted that the Muslim Brotherhood is non-discriminatory and the perfect home for pious Christians – and a terrific partner for the West." Kristof concluded, "It's reasonable to worry. But let's not overdo it … Our fears often reflect our own mental hobgoblins.”

Kristof did not meet the Muslim Brotherhood chief cleric, Sheikh Yusuf al Kardawi, the organization’s most powerful religious leader, an evil anti-Semite who supports the murder of Jews.

Roger Cohen is another regular columnist whose undisguised hostility toward Israel has led him to condemn the Jewish state's "obsession with the [Iranian] nuclear bogeyman" and praise Turkey's anti-Semitic Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan while condemning Israel for not apologizing to the Turks over the Mavi Marmara flotilla incident.

Virtually every recent Op-Ed published on Israel has been hostile. Last month, the NYT published a piece which went to the lengths of challenging Israel’s position on gay rights. In May, PA President Mahmoud Abbas published an Op-Ed falsely accusing Israel of initiating the war in 1948 by expelling Palestinian Arabs and obligating Arab armies to intervene. Initially, the NYT refused to publish Goldstone’s withdrawal of apartheid and war crimes charges against Israel, only doing so some months later after it had appeared in the Washington Post.

But it is Thomas Friedman's most recent column that is the most outrageous.

In his uniquely arrogant manner, over the past few years Friedman has been consistently mirroring NYT editorials castigating Netanyahu, whom, in my opinion, he loathes, and alleging that Israel has become "the most diplomatically inept and outrageously incompetent government in Israel's history." He accused Netanyahu of choosing to protect the Pharaoh rather than support Obama who aided the “democratization” of Egypt. He went so far as to say that Netanyahu was "on the way to becoming the Hosni Mubarak of the peace process."

Last February, after being in Tahrir Square, Friedman exulted that the “people” had achieved "freedom" and were heading towards democracy. He dismissed concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood would become a dominant party.

In his latest column he broadly condemned all aspects of Israeli society, even quoting Gideon Levy, the Ha'aretz correspondent, whom many Israelis regard as being more aligned with the Palestinian campaign against Israel than his own country. He described Levy as "a powerful liberal voice" and quoted him alleging that Israel is becoming a failed democratic state.

What provoked the greatest indignation was his remark. "I sure hope that Israel's Prime Minister understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israeli lobby."

For a Jew, purporting to be a friend of Israel, to effectively endorse the distorted thesis relating to the Israeli lobby promoted by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer is unconscionable. Friedman is effectively parroting a hoary anti-Semitic libel asserting that Congress has been "bought" by American Jews who represent 2 percent of the population and that the vast majority of the American public supporting Israel and Congress are simply stooges, manipulated or bribed by the Israeli lobby.

It places him on a par with the anti-Semitic attitudes promoted by Pat Buchanan and one may rest assured that Israel’s enemies will fully exploit his remarks as a means of discrediting American support for the Jewish state.

Friedman continued, suggesting that Netanyahu should test genuine American public opinion by speaking at a liberal campus like the University of Wisconsin, absurdly implying that far Left liberal campuses are more representative of American attitudes than the democratically elected Congress.

The New York Times editorials and columns like that of Thomas Friedman should not be treated lightly. They must be viewed in the context of the recent condemnations of Israel emanating from higher echelons of the Obama administration. Unless vigorously repudiated, these critiques will have a ripple effect with the potential of undermining the, up until now, prevailing bipartisan consensus over Israel.




　

Rena Baldinger: A WIDE VIEW OF A NARROW STREET

Shortly before the light rail started charging its passengers, there was a mad rush to quickly get in however many rides one could possibly fit into a day. Being a good Jew, I made sure to take advantage of the free trips while it lasted.

On an ordinary day, and a most ordinary time, I got onto the light rail along with about 60 carriages complete with teary-eyed babies, all in one compartment. I had a long way to go and didn’t look forward to sharing my small space with so many strangers. Each stop only got worse and worse. I gained an insightful meaning of what panim-el-panim really meant.

To make things worse, we were headed right into the heart and center of Jerusalem. On a whim, plus a desire to get rid of the choking feeling that was threatening to overwhelm me, I stepped off at Machane Yehuda. I breathed in a very welcome breath of air, only to start choking once again by the smoke of a teenager lounging around just looking for someone to pick on. I quickly walked the other way and found myself with a front and center view of a very large, and very dead, fish. My head was spinning, and it hit me that I was in the smack center of the famed Shuk. Every step was another smell, another vendor telling you how cheap his fruit is, another despondent woman begging for coins.

By the time I got to the end of the shuk (or the beginning, depending on where you start from), I was desperate for something to take all the images and sensations out of my mind. Too much of it was giving me a headache. I jingled the coins in my pocket, took them out and counted 12 shekalim. I promptly headed towards the section in a candy store that held the green and red candied bricks they were famed for. I decided that, if nothing else, at least I would be able to have something to show for my trip. Never mind that I was late in getting home to dinner; the bricks would be worth it. I carefully stuffed candy into a bag (with a glove of course) and exhaled when the total came out to 12 shekalim. But it was ok, because the light rail was still free.

Yechezkel Gordon: EXCLUSIVE- MICHAEL SAVAGE SLAMS ORTHODOX JEWISH RABBIS FOR ATTENDING OBAMA CHANUKAH PARTY; DARES AUDIENCE TO REPORT HIM TO ADL FOR HIS COMMENTS

Michael Savage, a conservative talk radio host, had some harsh words for the orthodox Jewish Rabbis that attended the annual Chanukah party at the White House last week together with President Obama.

On his show this past Friday (December 9th), that is syndicated across the U.S. in over 400 markets and heard by 8-10 million listeners a week, Mr. Savage wanted to know what deal these Rabbis received for attending the party with Obama and, "which sect of hasidim went there as quislings, to sell Israel down the river," singling out Satmar and Lubavitch as the possible culprits.

He started off criticizing the President for celebrating Chanukah two weeks early, saying Obama would never disrespect a Muslim holiday like that. But what really got him going was an off the cuff joke that Obama made at the celebration. Obama joked that he would give a kiss and a hug to everyone in attendance except for the Rabbis with the whiskers.

"Why wouldn't he ever say that to the guys with whiskers who practice Islam? Anyone have an answer to that? Anything with Muslims and Islam there like grim faced in the White House, they follow it to a tea, like they walk on glass." He continued, "But with Jews it's two weeks early, we'll light all the candles (and) we'll joke about you guys with beards. Alright come on up, let's break some Matzoh together. But sir it's not Passover? Never mind, come on have some Manischewitz, we like a good party over here ha ha ha."

That's when he turned his anger away from Obama and redirected it towards the Rabbis that attended.

"What do the Rabbis get for this, the guys with the whiskers, what deal did they get for going there? I don't get this because most orthodox Jews are pretty conservative. Don't they understand that Obama is the most anti-Israel President in history? So who are these quisling Rabbis who were there with the black coats? Which sect of Hasidim was there? Is there a Hasidic Jew listening? Which sect of Hasidim went there as quislings to sell Israel down the river? Anyone know? I don't know who the guys with the whiskers were. Was it the Satmar's, was it the Lubavitch, was it another group I never heard of?"

Apparently, Mr. Savage didn't realize that orthodox Jews don't listen to the radio or make phone calls on Shabbos, which starts at sunset on Friday. Thus, no one called in to respond to these comments that he made during the first hour of his Friday show, which airs from 6-9pm eastern time.

Finally, Savage dared his audience to report him to the ADL for his remarks.

"Go ahead, call up the ADL and see if I care, a lot of good they've ever done for me. They're not there when you need them, and they're there when you don't need them. That's all."

Isi Leibler: KUDOS TO FOXMAN

For some months I have been highly critical of the failure of the American Jewish establishment leadership to speak out against repeated hostile policies and statements emanating from various branches of the Obama administration.

I also expressed concern regarding a joint public statement issued by Abraham Foxman, head of the ADL, and his American Jewish Committee counterpart David Harris, which many perceived as an attempt to stifle all political discussion related to Israel in the forthcoming presidential election. If implemented, it would have embargoed both positive or negative comment and discourse concerning policies adopted by parties and candidates in relation to Israel.

Last week, we were bombarded by three separate, appallingly biased and offensive statementsconcerning Israel, expressed by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman.

Not surprisingly, the ZOA and Jewish Republicans vehemently condemned these outbursts, but most of the Jewish leadership once again responded with deafening silence.

However, unlike his other Jewish establishment colleagues, Foxman, the effervescent ADL head, spoke out with vigor and dignity, condemning the offensive remarks and calling on the administration to distance itself from all three outbursts.

In a blazing op-ed in the Huffington Post, Foxman related specifically to Panetta’s remarks blaming Israel for the deteriorating situation with Turkey and Egypt. He stressed that Panetta’s remarks were not merely “inaccurate” but “disturbing and potentially dangerous," adding that “finding fault with Israel at a time of great instability and uncertainty in the region is particularly distressing.” He called on the White House to issue “a clear repudiation” because “if the secretary’s remarks are allowed to stand, this is likely to set in motion events that will exacerbate existing problems … and add fuel to the fire of an already raging region."

In a subsequent interview with the JTA, Foxman also condemned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks castigating Israel’s treatment of women making odious and utterly baseless analogies with the manner in which Iranians treat their women.

Foxman pointed out that, “This is a secretary of state who certainly doesn’t go out to the Arab Muslim world and criticize them for inequalities." “Sure," he said, “Israel is not perfect, human rights could use improvement, but my God, in comparison, I think it is inappropriate, it’s excessive." He described Clinton’s remarks as being “out of line."

Foxman noted that the remarks from all three members of the Obama administration reflected a common theme that came to the heart of the “problem we’ve had with this administration." The three of them are “putting all the onus on Israel and that’s with Panetta, with Hillary and with the ambassador” (referring to the U.S. ambassador to Belgium whose offensive remarks implied that Muslim anti-Semitism was a by-product of Israeli intransigence in the Middle East).

He was careful not to ignore the positive aspects of the administration’s attitude toward Israel such as the ongoing defense commitments which have brought the U.S.-Israeli military alliance to newfound heights. But, he pointed out that the attitude toward Israel is “bifurcated” and the administration has regrettably also “done more to politically distance itself from Israel."

This is not the first time that Foxman spoke out as a lone voice amongst mainstream American Jewish leaders. In the early stages of the Obama administration, he was the only Jewish establishment spokesman to criticize the president when he initially displayed his bias against the Israeli government. In August 2009, in a full-page advertisement in the New York Times, Foxman called on Obama to recognize that "the problem is not the settlements. It is Arab rejection … Mr. President, it's time to stop pressurizing our vital friend and ally."

In March 2010, Foxman was again one of the few Jewish leaders to condemn the histrionics displayed by the president and secretary of state against Jewish construction in the residential areas of Jewish East Jerusalem. He even went so far as to propose a protest march on Washington.

Nobody could accuse Foxman of being a hawk in relation to Israel and over the past six months he made a number of statements with which many of his less dovish Jewish constituents took great umbrage. But this does not negate the fact that when the chips were down and he believed red lines were being crossed in relation to the Jewish state, he was one of the few willing to courageously speak up against the Obama administration.

Once again, despite the fact that it may create major problems with those of his supporters who still blindly endorse all aspects of the Obama administration's policies, the former child Holocaust survivor who rose to become head of one of U.S. Jewry’s foremost organizations again proved to be a trailblazer. One can only hope that his courageous response will serve as an example for other Jewish leaders to emulate.

Rena Baldinger: IN ISRAELI CULTURE SILENCE IS GOLDEN

​The Full Five Finger Gesture is what I call the hand signal that is common to all Israelis. The tip of the thumb is pressed to the gathered tips of all other fingers. No words needed, just a little oomph of the hand. Language here is not just about words; it’s about body language, signals, and oftentimes silence that can be integral to the fibers of a culture.

​Although I considered myself pretty much fluent in Hebrew as a result of an intense studying, I was still nervous about moving here thanks to the language barrier and cultural differences. To say the least, things are very different in Israel than it is in New York, let alone America. However, I embraced the challenge of learning the nuances that define Israeli language and culture. How frustrating it was when I realized that Israelis don’t just have a different language with a different alphabet and opposite writing directions; they also have so many specific distinctions that is similar to learning a whole new language all on its own. I knew I was in for a real learning experience.

The Full Five Finger Gesture is just one of many examples of the often “lost-for-words” language. Raising one’s arms all the way to the heavens as if praying on the High Holy days and yelling incomprehensible gibberish at an unbelievable rate is another. A pretty popular one is honking on the horn, slamming on the brakes, and sticking one’s hands out the window with obscene gestures—simultaneously. Thus I learned a fundamental lesson; every culture has its own idiosyncrasies, its own wordless language that practically defines it; you actually don’t have to say a word.

The culture that Israel has created for itself is generally seen as rude, possibly violent, out of line and impatient. Oblivious foreign victims such as myself simply have to maneuver their way through and try to survive the onslaught of a whole new language within a language.

​Yet another “language” that’s not really language (i.e. words being spoken) is silence. I learned this specific way of communicating on a Friday night out walking with a friend. Although it was a half hour walk and women usually have an intense need to talk two words per footstep, we said nothing to each other—we simply enjoyed the fresh air and each other’s company. As we reached the point where we had to part ways, my friend turned to me and said, “I love knowing that I have a friend who I don’t always need to be talking to. I’ve never felt more comfortable.” After that, I set about thinking hard about what that meant. Sometimes not saying anything can speak volumes; sometimes a long and strained silence can be a code for: “I want to yell as loud as possible!!”

The Jewish people as a united culture know that the gift of speech is not something to be taken lightly, and that many times the wise and correct thing to do is to remain silent. Sometimes silence defines us as a people, and other times, it’s a lack thereof that defines us—when we cry out at the injustice of a certain law or action or country…when we take a stand for ourselves and show that we can speak the diplomatic language, the presidential language, or the lay-people language. But what ultimately characterizes us as a people and as a culture is our ability to make use of the words of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi: “The best medicine of all is silence,” and the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel (Avos 1:17): “All my days I have been raised among the Sages and I have found nothing better for oneself than silence.”

So whether it’s the language with no words that the inhabitants of Israel are famous for, or whether it’s the art of silence that the Jewish people as a whole embody, both are crucial to the expression of culture that is created through these unique “languages.”

Josephine Levin: IN TIMES OF WAR, TURN TOWARDS G-D FOR SALVATION

​Daily we are bombarded with two messages. One message is that Iran that has publicly called for the total destruction of Israel and the Jewish people has or will soon have nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The second message is whatever Israel decides to do–just do not strike at Iran!

​Last year John Bolton, the former Bush administration ambassador to the UN, said Israel had only until August 21, 2010 to stop Iran. This was the date that Russia would begin unloading nuclear fuel rods into the Iranian reactor. After that Mr. Bolton claimed the situation would be at the point of no return because any attack that would occur after the rods were unloaded into the reactor would cause radiation to escape into the atmosphere and possibly into the waters of the Persian Gulf. Mr. Bolton claimed that Israel's prior strikes on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak 1981and the attack on the Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007 took place before the nuclear fuel rods were unloaded into the reactors.

​Has Israel really had the opportunity to strike at Iran but missed it? Here are the facts: Since 1991 the US has operated a no-fly zone over Iraq and no one can enter these skies without the express permission of the United States, So If Israel missed the opportunity to strike at Iran before it would be too late, then who in fact is to blame for this? Surely Mr. Bolton must have known that Israel would need the permission of the United States to fly over Iraq to attack Iran. The shortest route for Israel to strike at Iran is to fly over Iraq. At the end of this month the official agreement between the US and Iraq of 2008 that allows for this nofly zone is due to expire and there is speculation that if the nofly zone over Iraq is removed then Israel might strike at Iran. Is it a coincidence that this nofly zone has been in operation until the Iranians have or are about to have a nuclear bomb? Iran has stated that no matter who attacks them they will retaliate against Israel.

​During the Gulf War of 1991 Israel was attacked by more than 40 scuds fired by Saddam Hussein from Iraq and not once was Israel able to retaliate because the United States would not supply Israel with "friendly" codes for the US AIWACS so that Israeli planes would not be shot down over the Gulf. Those of us who were here during the Gulf War and spent a lot of time in sealed rooms, putting gas masks on our children, while our country was not allowed to defend itself will never forget this. Israeli planes apparently took off at least 5 times to defend our nation that was under attack by Iraqi SCUD missiles and Moshe Ahrens who was then Minister of Defense revealed that he had to call our planes back, as they would have been shot down by American forces over the Gulf. We were like sitting ducks with no one to defend us except the Lord our G-d, the Creator of the universe, and in fact so many miracles took place at that time that even the most secular and non-believing Israelis began to take notice. Only one person was directly killed by a SCUD. In a Ramat Gan apartment that was totally destroyed was found an infant lying unharmed in a crib - like Daniel in the Lion's Den. There were many more stories of miracles that took place in Israel during the Gulf War.

​We in Israel see that with few exceptions the entire world has moved against us and anti-Semitism is as high if not higher than the years preceding the Second World War. Only 66 years after the Holocaust the world is setting us up for another one. In the entire European Union we have only one friend Czechoslovakia. Italy has also been one of our only friends but this may change with the new political realities in Italy.

​During the Second World War Hitler's African Corps under his general Rommel were only a few hours away from entering Jerusalem. Rabbis in Jerusalem called on the people en masse to enter the synagogues and pray that Jerusalem and Israel would not fall to the evil Nazis and their prayers were answered. Rommel's forces were defeated by Montgomery November 11, 1942 and in fact it has been recorded that all kinds of weather also helped stop Rommel at the Battle of El Alamein in Egypt.

​I do not know what the Rock of Israel is going to do to protect us but Iran is one of the most seismically active regions in the world and has had and can have major earthquakes of mass destruction. Also, punishing weather, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc. are being experienced by many of the nations that seek to destroy us. The LORD our G-d also twice created a no-fly zone over European skies with the eruption of the Icelandic volcano. In 2010 Japan agreed to build 5 earthquake proof nuclear reactors in Iran. In March, 2011 Japan was struck by a major earthquake and tsunami that damaged the so called earthquake proof Japanese reactors and there was a meltdown at Fukashima which is still not under control.

​Iran has stated more than once that no matter who strikes at them they will retaliate against Israel.

According to our biblical prophesies we have been brought back here by HaShem from the four corners of the world to prepare for the coming of the Kingdom of G-d on the earth and not to be exterminated by those who hate us. As a woman of faith in the Kadosh Baruch Hu I can sleep at night here in Jerusalem putting my trust totally in HaShem. A G-d who parted the Red Sea can do anything. In truth we can depend on no one but our Father in heaven.

​

Yechezkel Gordon: 2012 ELECTION COVERAGE: The Latest Polls, Upcoming Debates & Primary Info, and Exclusive Analysis

Upcoming Republican Primaries:
Iowa Caucus: Jan. 3
NH Primary: Jan. 10
SC Primary: Jan. 21
FL Primary: Jan. 31

Analysis: Most candidates have converged on Iowa to make the most of the remaining weeks until the nations first caucus.
••••••••••

Upcoming Republican Debates:

•Date: December 10
•Place: Des Moines IA
•Sponsor: ABC News / Des Moines Register /
Iowa Republican Party

•Date: December 15
•Place: Sioux City, IA
•Sponsor: FOX News / Iowa Republican Party

•Date: December 27
•Place: Des Moines, IA
•Sponsor: Ion TV / Newsmax

Analysis: The debate on Dec. 10 will be the first one since Herman Cain dropped out of the race and Newt Gingrich will be the focus of attention. Mitt Romney will try to portray him as a longtime Washington insider and a former lobbyist. Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum will all toot their conservative credentials and contrast them with Gingrich's more liberal policies. Don't be surprised if Romney gets attacked as well for being a flip-flopper on many conservative principals, especially after we saw from the FOX interview how much this accusation gets under Romney's skin.
••••••••••

LATEST POLLS:

IOWA (31 Delegates)

Newt Gingrich 27%,
Ron Paul 18%,
Mitt Romney 16%,
Michele Bachmann 13%, Rick Perry 9%,
Rick Santorum 6%,
Jon Huntsman, Jr. 4%, Gary Johnson 1%,
Someone else/Not sure 7%

•Poll date: December 3-5, 2011
•Poll source: Public Policy Polling
•Margin of error: ±4.1% •Sample size: 572

Analysis: Gingrich's rise to the top in this staunchly conservative state has surprised many, but there's no telling if he has a large enough ground operation to turn his impressive poll numbers into a victory on election day. The poll numbers for Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have pretty much remained steady for the past few months, seeming to indicate that the undecided voters and those that will break off from Gingrich, will end up dividing themselves amongst Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry. A poor showing in Iowa from any of the above mentioned threesome, could very well spell the end of their campaign.

NEW HAMPSHIRE (23 Delegates)

Mitt Romney 39%,
Newt Gingrich 23%,
Ron Paul 16%,
Jon Huntsman, Jr. 9%, Michele Bachmann 3%, Rick Perry 3%,
Herman Cain 2%,
Rick Santorum 1%, Undecided 4%

•Poll date: November 28-30, 2011
•Poll source: NBC News/Marist
•Margin of error: 3.7%
•Sample size: 696

Analysis: Romney is expected to win this primary for two main reasons. He's well known throughout NH since he was the Governor of neighboring Massachusetts, and the open primary system that allows independents to vote alongside republicans, is a major boost to the more moderate Romney. Gingrich and possibly Huntsman are the only ones with a real chance of defeating Romney in this primary. Conservative candidates have never done well in this primary, and there's no reason to believe this time will be any different. A poor showing by Huntsman will bring his campaign to an end.

Isi Leibler: FUROR DOWN UNDER

In June 2010, amid considerable controversy, an Australian branch of the New Israel Fund was launched by its president, former MK Naomi Chazan, who a few months earlier had been disinvited from an Australian Zionist speaking engagement because of controversies associated with the NIF.

In October, I wrote a critical review of the NIF, observing that while the majority of the organizations which were beneficiaries of more than $200 million in funds dispersed by the NIF were engaged in worthy welfare and developmental projects, vast funds were also being provided to groups engaged in campaigns to delegitimize Israel.

Foremost among these groups, I referred to Adala, which, in addition to promoting the Goldstone report, urged foreign governments “to re-evaluate their relationship with Israel," described Israel as "a colonial enterprise promoting apartheid," called for implementing the Palestinian right of return to Israel, provided affidavits to Spanish courts to charge Israeli officials with war crimes and defended a Hezbollah spy as a "human rights defender."

I also related to NIF-sponsored “Breaking the Silence," another organization that had paved the way for the Goldstone report.

Presumably in order to improve its image, the Australian NIF invited a prominent Israeli to promote its case to the Jewish community and Australian media. It made the disastrous blunder of selecting David Landau, a talented and articulate writer who has published a number of influential books, including the recent biography of David Ben-Gurion based on interviews with President Shimon Peres. The NIF also highlighted the fact that he was orthodox and a former yeshiva student.

However, Landau, a former editor of Haaretz, is renowned for promoting far Left views which the majority of Israelis would consider contemptible. He is the Israeli correspondent of The Economist which, to put it mildly, is unfriendly to Israel. He is also highly regarded by the BBC, which frequently interviews him.

Many Israelis still recollect that in September 2007, in the course of an intimate gathering at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, he informed then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that "it has always been my wet dream to address the secretary of state” and suggested how to act in relation to Israel. He then went on to describe Israel as a politically "failed state" and urged the U.S. to impose a solution on Israel, telling Rice, “I implore you to intervene,” and adding that the government of Israel "wished to be raped." His remarks appeared in the media and created a considerable furor.

Last year, in the course of condemning the Knesset for its current controversial NGO legislation, Landau stated, "I call on parliaments throughout the democratic world and inter-parliamentary associations to boycott Israel's parliament, once the pride of the Jewish people, until it buries the bill and recovers its democratic heritage."

Australian Jews, a largely post-Holocaust community, are passionately Zionist and strongly committed to pro-Israel advocacy. Over the decades, they have succeeded in cultivating a climate of political bipartisanship and friendship toward Israel that is probably unique in the Western world. Their leaders have also maintained a tradition of avoiding public criticism of security policies adopted by the democratically elected government of Israel.

Many Jewish leaders were apprehensive that Landau would articulate his anti-government views to the Australian media. Danny Lamm, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, refused to meet or endorse him, and subsequently bitterly criticized some of his remarks to the media.

However, NIF Australia President Robin Margo seemed unconcerned that linking his organization with a person espousing such views would be counterproductive. In fact, when the West Australian Jewish community’s Director of Public Affairs, Steve Lieblich, circulated my article on the NIF and background information about Landau to his colleagues on the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Margo declined to refute the information and instead sought to intimidate him by threatening that he could be subject to legal action for “distributing grossly defamatory material." "I suggest you take legal advice," he told him.

In such an environment, one might have expected Landau to be cautious about expressing his more radical views. But in fact, he told the media that McCarthyism in Israel was rife and that "the poison of the occupation is seeping back and corroding our democracy… Local Jews needed to speak out instead of blindly toeing the government line."

He castigated settlers, alleging that they "resort to subterfuge to make life difficult for the Palestinians." As an example he claimed that “little settler boys" scattered drawing pins on the carpets of mosques. In a subsequent ABC interview, he conceded that his grandchildren lived over the Green Line, claiming that they were being brainwashed to discriminate against Arabs.

He also stated that Baruch Goldstein's murderous rampage in Hebron in February 1994 was not the act of a man who had lost his senses but a calculated operation to "derail the Oslo Peace process."

At a breakfast meeting in Sydney, prefacing remarks endorsing the actions of the NIF-sponsored "Breaking the Silence,” Landau defamed the Israel Defense Forces.

He recounted how 25 years ago while on reserve duty in Hebron he had witnessed a fellow soldier committing an unspecified act of "bestiality” that tortured him to this day and that he had not yet confided to anyone, including his wife. One could of course ask him to explain why, after witnessing “bestial” acts committed by a fellow soldier, he failed to report the incident immediately to his commanding officer. And why should he raise this issue now, in such a vague and tortuous manner, in Australia of all places?

In fact, this vague charge of IDF “bestiality” was a prelude to Landau’s lauding the NIF-sponsored organization. BTS, created in 2004, paved the way for the Goldstone report by releasing unsubstantiated anonymous “testimony” from former Israeli soldiers accusing the IDF of war crimes that was plastered on the front pages of the global media. Although the claims were subsequently proven to be without substance, the damage was irreversible, and Israel came to be considered in many countries as a criminal state.

When the Goldstone commission compiled its despicable report -- from which Goldstone himself has now distanced himself -- BTS provided it with “evidence” of alleged Israeli war crimes.

In March this year, BTS hosted an exhibit in Sweden, introducing it with the statement: "We are the oppressors, we are the ones that are violating human rights on a daily basis. We are basically creating terror against us."

This is the organization whose budget the NIF tripled last year and whose spokesman told the Australian media and Jews that it represents the "conscience of our people."

The NIF is entitled to sponsor enemies of Israel and the Jewish people. But it should do so transparently, so that naive charitable donors are not duped into believing that their contributions are being utilized to transform Israel into a better society. It is surely also unconscionable for the local affiliate of the NIF to host an Israeli emissary who undermines the long-standing efforts of Australian community leaders to maintain strong bipartisan support for Israel.

Isi Leibler: ISLAMIC ASCENDANCY INTENSIFIES US APPEASEMENT

It is ironic that while President Barack Obama portrays himself as a friend of Israel and solicits funds from Jewish donors, two senior members of his team were providing chilling insights to what Israel may expect should the current administration be returned to office.

After reaffirming that the U.S. retains "an unshakable commitment to Israel's security,” U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta crudely told a Brookings Institution forum that it was high time for Israel to "get to the damn negotiating table.” He ignored the fact that even after a 10-month settlement freeze, the Palestinians had refused to engage in direct negotiations with Israelis. He went on to repeat the mindless mantra that Israel is "partly" responsible for its diplomatic isolation. He demanded that Israel take further bold action to overcome the conflict with the Palestinians by making additional unilateral concessions which the Arabs would no doubt take on board in the context of their long-term strategy to dismantle the Jewish state in stages.

He demanded that Israel "reach out to mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability,” specifically mentioning Turkey and Egypt. Here, he also he failed to take account of Israel's extraordinary efforts to retain good relations with Egypt, which is currently in the process of being taken over by jihadist groups and disregarded the fact that Erdogan’s Turkey is now openly allied with the genocidal Hamas. For a U.S. defense secretary to implicitly blame Israel for the erosion of relations with these countries is simply inexplicable.

In the same speech, he warned Israel that if it acted alone in relation to Iran, it would place America in an unenviable position, cost many lives and lead to global economic chaos. As former Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams observed, Panetta eased Iranian concerns by effectively nullifying long-standing American statements that "all options are on the table" to curb the nuclear threat.

A defense secretary does not make such statements unless he has the backing of his president.

Panetta’s provocative address was followed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who pontificated on Israel as a democratic state and harshly criticized proposed legislation restricting the foreign funding of non-governmental organizations. While this has generated considerable controversy in Israel, it is unprecedented for an American secretary of state to become involved in such a debate and publicly criticize the government of a purportedly close ally. Especially when one considers that Clinton has hardly been forthright in condemning human rights violations and vile anti-Semitic outbursts displayed in Muslim countries or by groups who are emerging as the new dominant forces in such countries.

Even more disconcerting were Clinton’s remarks concerning a marginal number of misguided Israeli soldiers who sought to boycott events in which female singers participated. This issue and the clumsy manner in which it was handled by the Israel Defense Forces has admittedly distressed many Israelis. But what justifies an American secretary of state who says nothing about women’s rights in Saudi Arabia or other Arab countries becoming involved in this? And to make an analogy of this episode with the segregation of African-Americans in the 1950s does not merely reflect ignorance, but is downright offensive. Clinton even said that this Israeli behavior reminded her of the way Iranians treated women.

Finally, the Jewish U.S. Ambassador in Belgium, Howard Gutman, appointed to the role because he was a major fundraiser for Obama, tells European Jewish leaders and lawyers that "a distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned, and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” The clear innuendo was that Muslim anti-Semitism is a byproduct of Israeli intransigence in the Middle East, and therefore can be understood and implicitly justified. These sickening remarks were made by a U.S. ambassador to Belgium, one of the most anti-Israeli countries in Europe.

These outbursts signal that despite favorable public opinion and congressional support, Israel continues to face hostility and difficulties from the U.S. administration.

The timing of these provocative outbursts makes them especially reprehensible. They occurred concurrently with the election results from Egypt, which confirmed that the Muslim Brotherhood, combined with the even more extreme Salafis, emerged with 60 percent of the vote, reflecting the radical Islamist tide sweeping through all the North African Arab states.

In fact, our worst fears have been realized, and Israel is now surrounded by a ring of fanatically hostile Islamic states. The Muslim Brotherhood, creator of Hamas, is an outright jihadist organization whose charter unequivocally calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of all Jews.

In this context, it is exasperating and sickening to continue to be subject to delusionary spins by Western politicians and liberal media suggesting that the Muslim Brotherhood has turned a new page, is now tolerant and, to quote some U.S. administration officials, is even in the process of becoming "secular.” In addition, the only issue over which Sunnis and Shiites have been able to overcome their passionate differences is their frenzied shared hatred of Israel and dissemination of anti-Semitic propaganda indistinguishable from the vilest Nazi propaganda.

Yet, in the Islamic grand order, Israel and the Jews are merely the "canary in the mine" and represent a minor component of their global ambitions. Were Israel to disappear from the map or succumb to Islamic aggression, far from easing tensions, this would merely embolden Islamists towards their goal of conquering Europe and, ultimately, global domination.

Israel can do little to influence the course of events in the Arab countries, and its leaders have wisely stood aside. But it is surely now time for the Obama administration to recognize that its policies of appeasement have led to disastrous consequences. Instead of trying to mollify Islamists by distancing themselves and making one-sided criticisms against Israel, they should gird themselves for a long-term struggle against fanatical Islamists who have been conditioned into believing that they can best achieve their global objectives through intransigence and intensification of violence.

American Jews can make an important contribution in this area. Yet, alas, most of their leaders remained silent despite the reprehensible remarks directed against Israel by leading Obama administration officials. While, not surprisingly, the Zionist Organization of America, Simon Wiesenthal Center and Jewish Republicans protested, so far of the Jewish establishment leaders only Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League actually condemned Leon Panetta’s remarks. The principal American Jewish agencies responded with deafening silence. One is even tempted to enquire whether they have in fact collectively decided not to rock the boat and to eliminate Israeli issues from political discourse. How else can one explain the absence of response to such provocations? Which leads us to ask, will Jews at the grassroots level remain satisfied that their principal spokesmen remain silent on such issues?

Isi Leibler: THE ASSAULT AGAINST JEWISH JERUSALEM

The ongoing pressures exerted against construction in Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem such as Gilo reflect intensified global efforts to redivide the city. Like many aspects of the Israeli-Arab conflict, the issue of Jerusalem is being reviewed in a vacuum, without relationship to the reality on the ground. This overlooks the abominable restrictions on freedom of worship in East Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967, when the city was under Jordanian control. Jewish holy sites, including the 2,000-year-old Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, were desecrated and the tombstones were used to build latrines, and all 58 synagogues in the Old City, including the ancient Hurva synagogue, were razed to the ground.

The uninhibitedly anti-Semitic Jordanian military governor of the Old City, Abdulla el Tal, proudly proclaimed that, "For the first time in 1,000 years, not a single Jew remains in the Jewish quarter … and as not a single building remains intact, this makes the return of the Jews here impossible." Christians were also maltreated, with more than 60 percent of them leaving Jerusalem during that period.

Yet, since the reunification of the city in 1967 following Israel’s defeat of the combined Arab assault, complete freedom of religion was immediately extended to all citizens of Jerusalem. In addition, universities, hospitals and social service facilities provided absolutely equal services to Jew and Arab alike. One need only visit any of the major hospitals in Jerusalem to verify the extraordinary high standard of health benefits that unification provided for Arab residents.

Ironically, Jews today are the ones being discriminated against by their own government in their own capital. In 1967, immediately after the liberation of Jerusalem, Moshe Dayan effectively handed over the keys of the Temple Mount to the Waqf, the Muslim religious authority, which has retained total control and jurisdiction over this extensive area, which includes the holiest Jewish site in the world. It proved to be a disastrous blunder. The situation was further aggravated by the rabbinate, which on Halachic grounds, prohibited Jews from visiting the holy site. However, today many national religious rabbis maintain that Jews are entitled to visit most of the area and even consider it a mitzvah to pray there.

On a recent visit to the Temple Mount, I was astonished to observe the bizarre spectacle of Jews being bundled off by Israeli police in cooperation with the Waqf for quietly engaging in private prayer. I was informed that some Jews who were seen praying are permanently prohibited from visiting the area. This is scandalous. For Israeli police to deny Jews the right to pray at their holiest site in their own capital because it offends Moslem sensitivities is surely outrageous. It amounts to practicing inverse discrimination, denying the same freedom of worship to our own people which we take pride in guaranteeing to others.

This chaotic arrangement also provided fuel to Palestinians to initiate a massive exercise in historical revisionism in order to bolster their false narrative. They are now frenziedly attempting to deny the Jewish links to Jerusalem and make the preposterous allegation that the Jewish relationship to Jerusalem was effectively a Zionist fabrication designed to justify the “invasion” of Palestine. It is a form of revisionism no less obscene than Holocaust denial and has emerged as a central tenet of hostile Palestinian nationalism.

As late as the 1930s, even Muslim Council guidebooks identified Solomon's Temple on the site. It is only since 1954 that such references have been expunged. In 2000, at the Camp David meeting, Yasser Arafat stunned U.S. President Bill Clinton by declaring that “Solomon's Temple was not in Jerusalem, but in Nablus." On another occasion he said it was in Yemen. Others, like Palestinian Authority spokesman Saeb Erekat, alleged that “the issue of the Temple … is a Jewish invention lacking any basis."

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas now repeatedly dismisses any Jewish link to the Holy Land, and the authority’s Information Ministry website describes the Jewish connection to Jerusalem as a “biblical myth." Sari Nusseibeh claimed, "The historical ties and attachments of the Palestinians precede any Israeli claim to Jerusalem."

These expressions were recently extended to even include denial of a Jewish link to the Western Wall. Only last week, Ahmed Al-Tayib, the Sheik of Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, the principal global religious authority for Sunni Muslims, warned that the continued “Judaization” of Jerusalem, which he claimed had originally been constructed by Arabs, would result in the annihilation of “the Zionist entity in Palestine."

In addition, we are witnessing a systematic ongoing course of wanton destruction in which bulldozers have been employed on the Temple Mount by the Palestinian Waqf to eliminate ancient Jewish archaeological evidence and yet, despite protests and expressions of outrage from most Israeli archaeologists, the government has refused to intervene.

The links of the Jewish people to Jerusalem are at the very core of our national and spiritual history and identity. For more than 2,000 years of exile we yearned and prayed for a return to Jerusalem, and since 1800 Jews have constituted the majority of the population of Jerusalem. It is noteworthy that Yitzhak Rabin's last speech before his assassination pledged to the Knesset that Jerusalem would never again be divided.

Yet the sad truth is that in addition to condemning any construction in Jewish Jerusalem as “undermining the peace process," neither the U.S. nor the Europeans have even recognized Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem. There is no doubt that if any areas of Jerusalem were ever to fall under Palestinian jurisdiction, the despicable discriminatory practices applied by the Jordanians until 1967 would be reintroduced. Abbas has already publicly proclaimed that not a single Jew would be permitted to live in any future Palestinian state.

It is also inconceivable that neighborhoods like Ramot, Gilo, French Hill, Ramat Eshkol and Givat Zeev would ever be cut off from Israel. No power could evacuate more than 100,000 Jews from these areas.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel allegedly criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently over the announcement of new construction in Gilo, but in view of her personal Berlin background she should be sensitive to the highly negative aspects of dividing a city. Although it will never happen, greater autonomy and allocation of municipal duties could be extended to Arabs in areas in which they comprise the majority of inhabitants.

Interestingly, a recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion demonstrated that 59 percent of Arab residents in Jerusalem were satisfied with their standard of living and that the majority strongly objected to dividing the city and living under Palestinian jurisdiction. In fact, as many as 40% stated that if the city was divided, they would prefer to move to an Israeli neighborhood rather than fall under the authority of the corrupt Palestinian Authority and possibly eventually find themselves under Hamas control.
•••••••••
The writer can be reached at ileibler@netvision.net.il. His website is www.wordfromjerusalem.com.

David Keyes: IS IT FAIR TO COMPARE HAMAS TO AL-QAIDA?

In May, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel would not negotiate with Hamas because it is the “Palestinian version of al-Qaida.” This incendiary rhetoric is not only untrue, it polarizes the parties and distances the possibility of peace.

British newspaper The Guardian, unlike Netanyahu, knows that “Hamas is not al-Qaida” and that the two groups are “radically different.” One Harvard scholar rightly noted that “assertions about a Hamas-al Qaida alliance are incorrect.” The Christian Science Monitor echoed that “Hamas is a far, far cry from the utopian global fighters of al-Qaida.” Unfortunately, some persist in spreading the myth that Hamas is the “Palestinian version of al-Qaida.” To dispel this untruth once and for all, below is a compilation of just a few of Hamas and al-Qaida’s radically different views.

On territorial compromise:

Hamas: “We do not recognize the state of Israel or its right to hold onto one inch of Palestine.” –Mahmoud al-Zahar, foreign minister

Al-Qaida: “We will not recognize a state for the Jews, not even one inch of the land of Palestine …” –Osama bin Laden

On death:

Hamas: [D]eath for the sake of Allah is [our] most coveted desire.” –Hamas charter

Al-Qaida: “[T]he most honorable death is to be killed in the way of Allah.” –Osama bin Laden

On co-existence:

Hamas: "By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine.” –Abdul Aziz al-Rantissi, co-founder

Al-Qaida: "Just as the law of extermination was applied to the infidel forces among the nations in previous days and no one could escape it, so it will be applied to the infidel forces in our day and no one will escape it ... the American state, the Jewish state, and all other infidel countries will certainly be destroyed." –Saif al Din al Ansari, senior leader

On America:

Hamas: “America declared war against God ... God declared war against America..." –Abdul Aziz al-Rantissi, co-founder

Al-Qaida: “Every American man is an enemy to us." –Osama bin Laden

On targeting civilians:

Hamas: “Whoever comes from abroad and lives on the land of Palestine is considered an occupier, even if they are women or old people. They are all occupiers. Besides, don't forget that they all serve in the army. They are all considered soldiers ... There is no difference [between civilians and soldiers].” –Umm Nidal, member of the Palestinian Legislative Council

Al-Qaida: “[T]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.” –Osama bin Laden

On genocide:

Hamas: “Allah, take the Jews and their allies, Allah, take the Americans and their allies ... annihilate them completely and do not leave anyone of them." –Yussuf al-Sharafi, member of the Palestinian Legislative Council

Al-Qaida: “We [are] promised by the Prophet: Judgment day shall not come until the Muslim fights the Jew, where the Jew will hide behind trees and stones, and the tree and the stone will speak and say, ‘Muslim, behind me is a Jew. Come and kill him.’” –Osama bin Laden

On incitement:

Hamas: “The Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the Earth ... Allah will kill the Jews in the hell of the world to come, just like they killed the believers in the hell of this world.” - Atallah Abu Al-Subh, former culture minister

Al-Qaida: “Every Muslim, from the moment they realize the distinction in their hearts, hates Americans, hates Jews and hates Christians.” - Osama bin Laden

On democracy:

Hamas: “[T]he Koran [is our] constitution.” –Hamas charter

Al-Qaida: “We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it ... [Democracy is] the essence of infidelity and deviation from the true path.” –Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, deceased senior leader

On global domination:

Hamas: “[T]he march of resistance will continue until the Islamic flag is raised, not only over the minarets of Jerusalem, but over the whole universe."–Mousa Abu Marzouk, senior leader

Al-Qaida: “I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad.” –Osama bin Laden

On Bin Laden’s death:

Hamas: [W]e most certainly condemn the murder of this Arab and Muslim Holy Warrior, may Allah have mercy upon him and may [he] take his rightful place together with the Martyrs and the Righteous.” –Ismail Haniyeh, prime minister

Al-Qaida: [B]in Laden, may God have mercy on him, was killed in a place where truth shines and where sincerity for good deeds and the call for truthfulness exist ... Congratulations to the Islamic Nation on the martyrdom of their devoted son Osama.” –Al-Qaida statement

*****

Besides both being racist, genocide-preaching, death-glorifying, Holocaust-denying, civilian-shield-using, theocratic, tyrannical, terrorist organizations that wage suicide bombing campaigns to eradicate Israel, dominate the world and humiliate the U.S., Hamas and al-Qaida have almost nothing in common.

•••••••••••••••••••
David Keyes is the executive director of Advancing Human Rights and co-founder of CyberDissidents.org. He can be reached at david.keyes@advancinghumanrights.org.

Yechezkel Gordon: UN RESOLUTION ON IRAN IS PREDICTABLY SOFT AND PATHETICALLY MEANINGLESS

Inside the International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna, diplomats from around the world tried to formulate a resolution to repudiate Iran for it's suspicious nuclear intentions. Sitting around a long conference table in a spacious room were the leading diplomats of the west including the US, Britain, France, Germany, and the diplomats of Russia and China.

The meeting was held in response to a report released the other week by the IAEA, indicating that they had gathered clear proof that Iran's nuclear program was not designed to produce energy for civilian use, as they claim, but rather to built a nuclear weapon.

Yukiya Amano, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, addressed the gathering. "Throughout the past three years, we have obtained additional information which gives us a fuller picture of Iran’s nuclear program and increases our concerns about possible military dimensions," he said.

"The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device," Mr. Amano said.

"I ask Iran to engage substantively" with the I.A.E.A. "without delay and provide the requested clarifications regarding possible military dimensions to its nuclear program."

Now with such clear evidence, you would expect it to be a slam dunk that the international community would issue a strong and powerful condemnation together with a new round of crippling sanctions. But this is the UN, and nothing is ever simple at the UN.

So the diplomats spent hours together passing around a pen and paper, quarreling over the weakest possible wording for the resolution. In the end Russia outdid China, turning the resolution into one big diplomatic joke that's certain to make the Iranians erupt into laughter.

According to the AP, the resolution expressed "serious concern that Iran continues to defy the requirements and obligations contained in the relevant IAEA Board of Governors and UN Security Council Resolutions." It also spoke of "deep and increasing concern about the unresolved issues regarding the Iranian nuclear program, including those which need to be clarified to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions."

Maybe we should just put Iran in time-out until they start behaving. Or threaten to take away there dessert until they promise to be our friends. I mean are you kidding me! This is what the UN expects to force Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment program? No wonder the Israelis are preparing for a military strike to end this problem for once and for all.