Tuesday, March 24, 2015

The BDS Movement Can Be Traced Back to Hitler

From Algemeiner, 16 March 2015, by Edwin Black:


Haj Amin el-Husseini, better known as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, with Nazi SS officers in November 1943. 
Photo: German Federal Archives.

The anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement is said to have ignited in earnest in 2005. It was propelled by significant funding from the Ford Foundation, which poured millions of dollars into anti-Israel NGOs working in Durban, and later by the New Israel Fund (NIF), which financially backed such pro-boycott groups as the Coalition for Women for Peace.

Experts say the BDS modus operendi wields systematic distortion of international law, history, and general fact about the Israel-Palestinian conflict to rally public support. While BDS advocates claim to seek political and economic justice, their actions are increasingly trailed by anti-Jewish actions such as swastika graffiti at Jewish locations, challenges to Jewish students based on their religion, and a general air of anti-Semitic hostility on campus. Today, the BDS Movement stands merely as the leading edge of growing anti-Semitic agitation and anti-Israel mobilization, attracting pure hate elements to their message.

BDS employs such guerrilla tactics as street actions, student harassment, campus disruption, physical assaults, and duplicitous coalition building in moves eerily resembling a Brownshirt playbook. Disarmed and dismayed by the swelling assault, fragmented attempts by Israeli and American Jewish leadership to counter the movement – mainly by assembling bone-dry fact sheets and lifeless statistical arguments – have proven ineffectual.

Now, a number of Jewish organizations are pooling resources and comparing notes to more cohesively combat BDS. To this end, several hundred individuals will gather from March 21-23, 2015 in a Los Angeles hotel at the International anti-BDS Conference convened by the leading pro-Israel group, StandWithUs. The diverse list of speakers include

  • famed attorney Alan Dershowitz, 
  • Bassem Eid of the pro-co-existence Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, 
  • Lana Melman of the Creative Community For Peace, 
  • Richard L. Cravatts of the Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, as well as 
  • this writer [Edwin Black], 
bringing insights into financial investigations of BDS groups funded by tax-exempt charities.

Sporadic outbreaks of anti-Jewish boycotts arising from simple animus can be traced back to medieval times. Boycott, as an identified and organized financial weapon, only appeared on the world stage in 1880, when Irish farm tenants from County Mayo came together to economically isolate their oppressive landlord, Charles Boycott. The anti-Boycott movement became an international cause célèbre, covered extensively by such media giants as The New York Times and The Times of London, both of which acknowledged that the successful campaign against landlord Charles Boycott had spawned a new noun and a verb.


In the last years of the 19th Century, economic pressure tactics were broadly employed by anti-Semite groups across Europe, many now actually using the term boycott. Ottoman Empire administrative restrictions against Jews in Palestine escalated into tough new laws in 1892, several years before the rise of Theodor Herzl and modern Zionism. After WWI, when international law and the 1922 Mandate designated Palestine for Jewish and Arab self-determination, an expanding Jewish presence in Palestine generated a vibrant Zionist economy. A prospering Jewish community in Palestine roiled Arab leaders led by the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al Husseini. From the moment the Mandate began in 1922, the Mufti’s ad hoc boycott became more entrenched throughout British Palestine.

On April 1, 1933, when the Hitler regime formalized its pre-existing boycott Jewish-owned stores as German national policy, the Mufti and his followers saluted and then adopted the Nazi tactic of anti-Jewish boycott, both in name and spirit. Indeed, Hitler became a hero to the Arab community in Palestine and the wider Arab world. After Mohammad, “Hitler” and “Adolf” became the second most popular baby names. Ultimately, in the 1940s, the Mufti joined forces with Hitler, creating three Nazi-flagged divisions of Waffen SS to fight in central Europe. During WWII, the anti-Jewish boycott was coordinated throughout the Islamic world, from India to Iraq, through the Mufti’s “Arab Higher Committee.”

After 1948, when Israel became an independent nation, the Arab Higher Committee and the Mufti transferred their anti-Jewish and anti-Israel boycott to the Arab League’s Central Boycott Office, headquartered in Damascus. This so-called “Arab Boycott” continued its global reach, even requiring American companies wishing to do business in the Mideast and North Africa to certify compliance.

But by 2002, as the world economy flourished and American legislation checked the Arab Boycott, the movement began to recede, even though it continues even now. By 2005 and thereafter, thanks to charitable organizations such as the Ford Foundation and then the New Israel Fund     fortifying groups such as the Coalition of Women for Peace and many others, the anti-Israel movement began to reconstitute under the banner of “political correctness” and “human rights,” fed by a continuously stoked furnace of false narratives and reinvented history, bolstered by highly edited and garbled international law.

Today’s BDS movement, which encompasses campuses, academic groups, and some unionists, flexes the unbroken connective tissue tied to the original anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist political organization of Hitler and the Mufti.

Many of the attendees at the forthcoming StandWithUs International anti-BDS Conference are starting to connect the dots of this lineage of hate. The Jewish community has been slow to react, uncommonly fragmented and disorganized. By coming together, Jewish and Israeli strategists hope to finally get the community on the same page. That page has been ripped from the history books and reprinted as a modern, false narrative; but the text is the same today as it was in the last century.

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Stepping back in time

From JC.com, 19 March 2015, by Efraim Zuroff:

Friday, March 20, 2015

Security Challenges of the New Israeli Government

From BESA Center Perspectives Paper* No. 291March 19, 2015, by Prof. Efraim Inbar**:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The new Likud-led government will be faced with a range of sharp security challenges. It must thwart the nuclear program of Iran and prevent Tehran from gaining dominant control of the region. Israel’s leaders must prepare the IDF for the worst case-scenarios of the threatening strategic landscape.

A new Likud-led government will take office in Jerusalem in the upcoming weeks. The government will have to face many security challenges emerging from the turbulent strategic environment.

The most important issue is Iran. The US is racing toward an agreement that will legitimize the nuclear threshold status of Iran Many key Mideast powers have signaled their displeasure with the nascent accord, as well as their desire to develop uranium enrichment capabilities on par with Iran. 

The American attempt to offer a nuclear umbrella to forestall regional nuclear proliferation – which is a strategic nightmare – is doomed to failure. No Arab leader trusts President Obama. 

...only a military strike to destroy the Iranian capability to produce fissionable material needed for nuclear bombs can stop nuclear proliferation in the region.

The only country with ‘enough guts’ to do this is Israel. This decision must be taken by the next Israeli government. The timetable for such a strike is not to be determined by additional Iranian progress on the nuclear path, but by the perceptions of regional leaders of Iranian ambitions and power. The expansion of Iranian influence to Iraq and Yemen, in addition to its grip over Syria and Lebanon, has heightened threat perceptions. American willingness to accept a greater Iranian regional role undermines American credibility and underscores the need for Israeli action in the near future.

An Israeli strike is needed to prevent nuclear proliferation and to prevent imperial and Islamist Iran from acquiring hegemony in the Middle East. History indicates that such Israeli actions are not welcomed by American administrations, but are highly appreciated later on. In this case, it is Israel that will have to save the Americans from themselves.

Israel’s main challenge is to maintain its freedom of action, while on a collision course with current American policy. This is not an easy endeavor, but Israel has large reservoirs of goodwill in the US which should allow Israel to act on its cardinal security interests against the will of an unpopular American president.

Despite the fact that some of the Arab armies that posed a threat to Israel have largely disintegrated and the power differential between Israel and its Arab neighbors grows constantly, the Jewish state still faces great hostility from Islamist sub-state armed groups. Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad cannot conquer Israel, but have acquired impressive capabilities to cause massive damage to Israel. Large armored formations are still needed to tackle those challenges. In addition, Israel’s active defense missile capabilities must be augmented.

Unfortunately, the IDF is underfunded, which has led to cuts in ground forces and in training for the regular army and its reserves. Whoever will be the new defense minister has the task of securing a much larger, multi-year military budget on which the IDF can definitively plan a sustained force build-up. Israel’s strong economy can definitely sustain larger defense layouts.

Another area that needs attention is the navy. Over 90 percent of Israel’s exports travel via the East Mediterranean. Moreover, this area is rich in energy resources that are vital for Israel’s future prosperity. Yet, the East Mediterranean is increasingly becoming an Islamic lake.

  • Turkey under Erdogan grows more hostile every month. 
  • Syria is an Iranian ally, and its civil war has brought about the rise of Islamist militias of all kinds. 
  • Lebanon is largely ruled by Hezbollah – a Shiite radical organization aligned with Iran. 
  • Hezbollah occasionally perpetrates attacks against Israel and has threatened to hit Israel’s gas rigs at sea. 
  • Hamas, a radical Sunni terrorist group linked to Iran, has taken over Gaza. It has launched thousands of rockets into Israel and staged attacks on Israeli gas installations in the Mediterranean.
  • In Sinai, a plethora of Islamist armed groups are challenging the sovereignty of Egypt and even attacked targets along the Suez Canal. 
  • Libya is no longer a real state and the Islamist militias are fighting to carve out areas of influence. 

In short, we may soon see real piracy and terrorist attacks in the East Mediterranean.

Israel’s responses must include a larger and stronger navy. This is an expensive project that has already started. Hopefully, all budgetary problems will be overcome. Fortunately, some of the vessels needed for this are procured in Germany (not the US), while others can be built in Israel if enough money is allocated.

The strategic landscape of the Middle East is begetting new leaders and new ruling elites. Israel’s intelligence apparatus faces a difficult job in identifying the important players and their modus operandi. Many of the devils Israel knew are no longer in power. This means greater uncertainty and higher chances of surprises. Since Israel cannot prevent all surprises (that is their nature), it must prepare for worst-case scenarios rather than be tempted by best-case, rosy dreams.

*BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.

**Efraim Inbar, a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University, is director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, and a Shillman/Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum.


Thursday, March 12, 2015

"Buji has gone crazy..."

From A7, 11 March 2015, by Benny Moshe, Gil Ronen:


Herzog and Tibi
Herzog and Tibi
Miriam Alster, Flash 90


Nationalist MKs reacted with derision Wednesday after MK Yitzhak "Buji" Herzog (Labor) said in a televised interview that he does “not rule out” allowing MK Ahmed Tibi of the United Arab List to the Knesset's highly sensitive Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.
"Buji has gone crazy, appointing Ahmed Tibi to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee,” said MK Miri Regev (Likud). “Seriously? It is Buji who endangers the security of Israel, despite attempts by some officers to scare the Israeli public against (Binyamin) Netanyahu. Only Netanyahu will safeguard the nation's security and the public knows this well, in its heart of hearts.”
MK Moti Yogev (Jewish Home) called on Herzog to recant.
"MK Buji Herzog's agreement to Ahmed Tibi's membership in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, which stems from his desire to receive the support of the Arabs, expresses irresponsibility and abandon.
"This position of his makes it clear to the entire Israeli public that we must not place trust in him or see him, God forbid, as prime minister. The discussions in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, certainly in the subcommittees, are ones with heavy import and it is not possible to let the MKs who support Israel's enemies into them. Buji – return! Return to the Israeli mainstream, which typified the Labor party in the past, when it was Zionist and pro-defense, and not like today, when you have espoused the radical Left's positions.”

Yachad - Ha'am Itanu's head Eli Yishai said:
“The leftist camp has lost all sense of purpose in its quest to steal the government. I am surprised that Buji is prepared, only for his seat, to harm the security of Israel. Ahmed Tibi does not recognize the existence of the state of Israel, and letting him into the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee is a serious danger to its security. It has been proven yet again why the Left must not be allowed to take power.”
Tibi is a former adviser to Yasser Araft, who headed the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for decades and launched countless terror attacks against Jews. He has spoken out in favor of "martyrdom" by Arab terrorists, has a long history of inciting violence by Arabs, has a penchant for hurling coarse insults against nationalist MKs, and is perceived by many as the most clever and dangerous of the Arab MKs.

THE EIGHT STATE SOLUTION A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE FOR THE FUTURE OF ISRAEL


Israel faces three immediate threats today: 
  • the possibility of a nuclear Iran, 
  • well over 100,000 rockets and mortars poised from three directions (Iran, Lebanon, Gaza plus terrorists in Syria and Egypt) and 
  • the Two State Solution.

The first two threats seem obvious, but why do we think that the Two State Solution could lead to the demise of our beloved Israel? After all, it's been the mainstay policy thrust upon Israel with various international initiatives and roadmaps to peace. But in reality it would bring about the opposite result.

The creation of an artificial Palestinian state requiring the uprooting of Jewish families where no Arab population currently exists would lead to indefensible borders for the Jewish homeland. The more moderate PA and Fatah want a Palestinian state as a precursor for the ultimate demise of Israel. Hamas remains opposed to any agreement which establishes a border recognizing the Israeli state. Any proposed re-unification between Hamas and Fatah is an obvious ploy that further threatens the survival of Israel and the Jewish people. The recent attacks against Israel by Hamas are now coordinated with the militant pro-Syrian, Iran-backed Islamic Jihad. Plus the Popular Resistance Committee is yet another terrorist group operating from Gaza.

The Arab Spring has brought about a much less stable region. Israel can no longer allow the rest of the world to dictate policy that makes it more difficult for the Jewish nation to survive. Israel must declare it’s own independent solution with regards to the so-called Palestinian movement and militant jihadism that appears to be on the accendancy. Doing nothing only invites intervention from abroad.

Prior to statehood in 1948 the larger territory was known as the British Mandate of Palestine. The Jewish people, who have been on this land continuously for 3,287 years, were often referred to as the Palestinians from the early 1920's until statehood in 1948. Here are just two examples that prove this important distinction. The Palestine Post was founded by an American Jew in December 1932 in the Mandate of Palestine and supported the struggle for a Jewish Homeland. In 1950, two years after the State of Israel was declared, the paper was renamed The Jerusalem Post. And what started as the Palestine Symphony Orchestra is known today as the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra. 

The Arabs who emigrated to the territory in the late 1800's and early 1900's to live and prosper among the Jews never wanted to be recognized as the Palestinians until it became a convenient tool in their opposition to the Jewish
Homeland. In 1964 the PLO was formed which finally transformed the mantle of Palestinian from the pre-statehood Jews to the post-statehood Arabs.

Historically there never existed an Arab or Islamic state of Palestine with a capital in Jerusalem. The capital of "Jund Falastin" ("The District of Palestine") under the Islamic 7th century occupation was the city of Ramle, 30 kilometers to the west of Jerusalem. It is very important that this historical truth be recognized as a basis for peace.

There is no Occupied territory west of the Jordan River. There is Disputed territory as a result of wars thrust upon Israel by jealous Arab neighbors. Today Arabs live within the State of Israel and in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. These Arab population centers are not going away and neither is the State of Israel.

Gaza is already a state-like entity, since Hamas took it over by force from the PLO in June 2007, thus breaking the Palestinian Authority into two separate entities. If Israel is forced to leave Judea and Samaria as part of a peace agreement, it becomes very possible that the more militant Hamas would eventually take over from the current PA/Fatah regime just as they did in Gaza, either by elections or by force. No one can guarantee otherwise.
 
Due to tribal rifts and local patriotism there will never be a successful unity government among the Palestinian Arab population centers in Judea and Samaria or Gaza. Like the PLO in the past, the PA/Fatah and Hamas do not represent the true ambitions of the majority of peaceful Arabs who just want a better future for their children within a traditional framework and local governance. The failed Two State Solution is rapidly heading to the dustbin of history where it belongs. 

Successful Arab leadership must be independent, local and firmly rooted with a traditional and homogenous sociological foundation. Israel and the world should recognize and support local leadership in the Arab Palestinian population centers that desire lasting peaceful relations as independent city-states. Because of ongoing corruption and an overt anti-Israel agenda, the leaders of the PLO, PA/Fatah and Hamas have devoted almost a half century in a futile attempt to eliminate Israel and destroy all that her citizens have accomplished.

The eight city-states would comprise the areas of Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Jericho, Tul-Karm, Kalkilya, the Arab part of Hebron and the Gaza strip. Local residents would become citizens of these eight independent countries. Any Arab leadership that attempts to circumvent or dominate the development of these Palestinian Emirates would inhibit a future of security and economic opportunity for the citizens of these eight independent countries.
The Arab refugee situation can only be solved if there is lasting stability in the region. In 1948 approximately 500,000 Arabs were uprooted in advance of an Arab attack on Israel. At the same time over 800,000 Jews were thrown out of neighboring Arab countries, and most of the Jewish refugees successfully resettled in Israel. The Arab refugees have since been discriminated against by the Arab countries in the region in conjunction with the biased policies of UNRWA, so not a single Arab refugee has ever been resettled. The former director of the refugee agency in Jordan, Sir Alexander Galloway, actually stated, “The Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore… as a weapon against Israel.” The obvious failure of the peace initiatives, which have been based on false assumptions for so many decades, has only perpetuated the Arab refugee problem and human suffering.




Complex problems require simple, workable solutions. The development of the Palestinian Emirates is a viable alternative based on the sociology of the different clans and tribes in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. This initiative will bring about a stable peace to the region and added security for Israel...

Follow the link to access the full site

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

New Israel Fund Lawyer Testified for PLO

From A7, 24 Feb 2015 by Ronn Torossian:


This week a New York court ruled that the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) were responsible for encouraging and inciting terror attacks during the Second Intifada. After weeks of trial, a jury found that this organization supported international terrorism and 10 American families who had their loved ones murdered and maimed were awarded $655 Million dollars.

As Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of the Israel Law Center case noted after trial, “We started out more than a decade ago with the intent of making the defendants pay for their terrorist crimes against innocent civilians and letting them know that there will eventually be a price to be paid for sending suicide bombers onto our buses and into our cafes.”
This is a major victory for Pro-Israel lawfare. It is a victory of the good who fight evil.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu rightfully called on the international community to follow the court’s example and punish those who support terrorism.

This is a major victory for Pro-Israel lawfare.  It is a victory of the good who fight evil. However, when there are winners there are also losers.


An extreme left-wing Israeli attorney, Michael Sfard testified as an expert witness for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) during the trial, as he has previously provided paid testimony on behalf of the PLOThis is consistent with his previous lawfare work for extreme left wing Israeli organizations funded by The New Israel Fund (NIF).

Sfard is an attorney for a number of organizations who are funded by the New Israel Fund related organizations, including Yesh Din, Breaking the Silence, and  Al-Haq, a leading anti-Israel “lawfare” NGO, on a lawsuit filed in Canada seeking a judicial declaration of Israel’s guilt in committing “war crimes” and deeming the security barrier illegal.

The New Israel Fund has long used warfare – and fund organizations where Sfard works – and this Israeli lawyer came to New York to testify for lawyers. That is the essence of the New Israel Fund.

The radical, extremist New Israel Fund recently petitioned the Supreme Court on behalf of terrorists and their families, including the terrorist who tried to kill American-born Rabbi Yehuda Glick, the terrorist who slammed his tractor into a bus, two who drove their cars into people near train stops, and those who murdered five Israelis a few months ago in a brutal massacre during morning prayers in Jerusalem.

Israeli academic Professor Gerald Steinberg recently said of donors to the New Israel Fund that it is as an organization that “..claims to support Israel and human rights principles, they enable the highly destructive activities that do the opposite. By the time these funders acknowledge this failure and end their support, the damage will be done.”

Donors to New Israel Fund must stop funding the New Israel Fund. 

Shamefully, donors include
These wealthy American Jews can do so much good with their money.  Giving to the New Israel Fund is dangerous to the State of Israel. 

Today their “expert witness” lost in a terrorism case.

The JCRC silently endorses their positions on BDS, that is their funding of organizations that promote BDS, by partnering with NIF in Boston – and allowing NIF to march in the Israel Day Parade.

Rosa Luxemburg, a prominent Bolshevik once said, “I have no room in my heart for Jewish suffering – Why do you pester me with Jewish troubles?”

Those who support the New Israel Fund are helping to harm the Jewish people.  The New Israel Fund must be ostracized by the Jewish community.

New Israel Fund: Funding Israel's Destruction

From A7, 5 March 2015, by Ronn Torossian:

In recent weeks in the U.S., there has been an outpouring of anger against the New Israel Fund (NIF) for their ongoing anti-Israel activities.  Numerous exposes in the New York Observer, Jewish media outlets, word of mouth and more are challenging Jewish donors to the NIF on how they can allow themselves to harm Israel. 

And there is more planned, including advertising campaigns and websites.

And the focus upon the NIF’s support for BDS has left donors unable to respond with any justification – as only people who oppose Israel can support BDS. Tellingly, Alisa Doctoroff, President of the UJA Federation, has been silent in the face of calls for her to resign due to her financial support for NIF, and so too has Karen R. Adler, a leader of the JCRC and the Jewish Communal Fund.

There is a conflict of interest between supporting NIF and BDS and serving on the board of a Jewish organization. 

The only public comment has come from attorney Michael Sfard, who represents NIF-funded organizations and Peace Now, Yesh Din, etc., and who issued a statement on the NIF website  without responding to the facts which were revealed i.e. that he testified on behalf of the PLO at the New York trial where the organization was found guilty of international terrorism and murder...

He did not refute the accurate claims that he testified for the PLO, that the NIF supports BDS, or attempt to deny the countless other anti-israel activities NIF is involved with.

Yet, they continue with their dangerous work.  The New Israel Fund/Shatil is now advertising a social-justice fellowshipa “10 month experience where fellows spend 32 hours per week interning in an approved, individually-selected Israeli non-governmental organization (NGO),” in an area of importance to these [self-hating] Jews.

Examine what Israeli daily Ma’ariv – no friend of the “right” - wrote of a previous NIF/Shatil training seminar.
A participant wrote that she found herself training “with Palestinian and Jewish human rights activists who negated the State of Israel's existence. With people who want to annihilate the State without ruling out violent means, who believe that the State of Israel was born out of sin and who apologize for its existence, who loathe Israel and its symbols, who justify harming Israel, its soldiers and all its institutions, who devote their lives and efforts towards turning Israel into a bi or multi-national country. These people are fighting for one nationality alone – Palestinian. These same people oppose communal or civil national service for Arabs within the State. They also equate Israel's actions with those of Nazi Germany.”
She further noted, “I found myself with human rights activists who reject Israel’s right to exist. Who are striving for the destruction of Israel. Do NIF donors know that their money is funding the destruction of the state?” 
This event participant defined herself as “left-wing, Zionist, and religious.” She supports criticism of Israel and works among Arabs because of her belief in equality.
"Do the supporters of the Fund have any idea that the numerous organizations benefiting from its support and counsel are putting all their effort into negating Israel as a Jewish and democratic state? Is the Fund itself openly working towards removing the 'Jewishness' from the State? Is the Fund trying to turn Israel into a country 'for all her inhabitants' (editor's note: this phrase is used by those who do not wish Israel to be called a Jewish state or homeland) alongside a Palestinian state? Is the Fund backing the fact that the aim of the Palestinian society sector within Shatil is to strengthen the expression of the Palestinian nation, and that on the Jewish side of the spectrum the aim is to strengthen freedom of religion and not Jewish identity and the national expression of the Jews in their homeland?”

The New Israel Fund – and its donors – including Alisa DoctoroffMurray Koppelman, the Leichtag Foundation and others are simply wrong.

As former President Clinton political strategist Hank Sheinkopf noted,
“Those who stand with New Israel Fund are standing against Israel. To suggest otherwise is a lie. I urge anyone affiliated with the NIF to stop supporting this organization financially. The New Israel Fund must be ostracized by the Jewish community.”

New Israel Fund: Partnering to Harm Israel

From A7, 9 March 2015, by Ronn Torossian, CEO of 5WPR, 1 of the 25 largest PR Agencies in the US:

This weekend, Rachel Liel, Israel director of the New Israel Fund (NIF) was featured in an article in Ynet, the online version of Yediot Achronot.  While NIF faces intense heat surrounding their support for BDS and other Anti-Israel campaigns, Liel took the opportunity to list some of NIF’s politically-correct work, including projects which benefit ultra-Orthodox women, work to end discrimination in the workplace, and other campaigns which are hard to challenge.

Liel ignored the fact that much of NIF’s $30 Million is spent on projects which harm the State of Israel. 

YNET’s journalist also neglected to mention the fact that Rachel Liel’s husband, Alon is one of the world’s leading organizers of world boycotts against Israel. 

Alon Liel, Israel's former ambassador to South Africa, is a member of two organizations which receive large funding from NIF.  He is on the management team of Ir Amim, which works against Jewish interests in Jerusalem, and is also a member of the extremem left B'Tselem Public Council.

Alon Liel supports a cultural boycott of Israel, having supported author Alice Walker’s Anti-Semitic refusal to allow a Hebrew translation of her bestseller “The Color Purple.” He works extensively worldwide on PR campaigns which harm Israel, working to generate headlines which read “Boycott My Country.” 

He holds radical viewpoints which the majority of Israelis, even those on the left, oppose, from calling on High School trips to the Golan to be cancelled as they are “a provocation to peace”, to claiming that the  boycott is a “more pressing issue than the Iran issue.”  Liel has endorsed an academic boycott against Israeli academic institutions, and has called Jonathan Pollard a traitor.

Liel noted, “The simple act of marking settlement products differently to Israeli products pulls the rug from under the refusal to declare a border. I buy Israeli products every day and do my best not to buy Israeli products from the Occupied Territories. I don't see why you, living outside Israel, shouldn't have the same choice."  Actress Scarlett Johansson was rightfully applauded for not giving in to BDS from across the Pro-Israel spectrum on this very issue – and Liel’s remarks must be condemned.

The Liel’s seem like two peas in a pod.

Last week, Rachel Liel had an interview in Yediot Achronot, where she referred to accusations that NIF organizations handed information to the infamous UN Goldstone Commission by claiming that “The information was taken from publications and from websites and was not actively delivered to Goldstone.”

At the same time, Adala, a major NIF organization claims the opposite on their website, as they note “This week, seven human rights organizations based in Israel presented a report to the UN Fact-Finding team investigating allegations of war crimes during “Operation Cast Lead” in Gaza, led by Justice Richard Goldstone."

No room for doubt. The New Israel Fund is a radical organization which harms Israel.

Monday, March 09, 2015

Raging Rudy Giuliani excoriates Barack Obama

From Western Free Press, February 13 2015, by David Leeper:

At times screaming with rage, Rudy Giuliani excoriates Barack Obama for his weak and feckless policies toward the global threats of radical Islam and a nuclear-armed Iran.

This powerful speech was delivered at the Iranian-American Community of Arizona symposium “Countering Islamic Fundamentalism and a Nuclear-Armed Iran,” February 13, 2015, Phoenix, Arizona.

Part 1 (Ed: note the last few minutes, commencing at 10:30)



Part 2 



Full text of Mayor Giuliani’s speech follows:
Thank you, Linda [Chavez], thank you very much. Thank you, Linda, thank you. Thank you, very, very much. Thank you very much, and thank you so much for coming. And as Linda said, it is very encouraging to see that we have so many more people than we did I think it was just a little over a year ago when we were here. Which means that we’re trying to present, what we’re trying to get the American people to understand, what we’re trying to get the people of Arizona to understand, is happening. And this is very, very difficult, because we’re trying to break through an administration and a media that refuses to tell this message. I have never seen anything like this, and I’ve been in public office a good deal of my life and involved in public affairs all my life. I have never seen anything like this, the inability to get this story across. 
Do you know what (Kaler Mueller) who came from Prescott, Arizona and those faces that you see right there, representing the 120,000 members of the MEK that have been slaughtered, and my 343 firefighters who died on September 11, and my 2,700 citizens, innocent people who died on September 11, and the soldiers at Fort Hood who died with a man yelling Allah Akbar, or the Jewish people who were just sitting there being shot and killed just a few weeks ago in France because they’re Jewish, you know what they all have in common?
They have in common a movement the President of the United States will not recognize. [applause] They have been murdered, they have been slaughtered, they have been raped, they have been tortured, they have been beheaded, they have been burned by a movement that the President of the United States will not recognize. What is wrong with him? [applause]
Is there no passion? Is there no passion for the lives of these innocent people? Is there no caring for them? Do you know what the slaughter at Fort Hood was described as? Workplace violence. Workplace violence. This is a captain in the United States Army who had become a jihadist two years before, who was communicating with Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen. Doesn’t take a genius to figure out the cause for which he was murdering. He told us, “Allah Akbar.” But the President of the United States doesn’t see the connection. Just the other day he called the slaughter of those Jewish people in France a random act. Mr. President, wake up! Come off the golf course. Come back on earth. These people have all been murdered by a movement.
I agree it’s diverse. I agree it has many forms. Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Qaeda in Yemen, self-generated Jihadists like the Boston Marathon killers. But it’s connected, it’s connected by two things. It’s connected by a common ideology, which is the misuse of the Islamic religion for the purpose of defending the slaughter and desecration of human beings. And it’s united by one other thing, money and support from the regime of Iran. Those are the two things that connect it. And our president is sitting down and negotiating with the regime of Iran. Iran has probably been responsible for more American deaths than any singular terrorist group. It is undisputably the largest supporter of terrorism in the world. It just once again we found out was responsible for the murder of all of those Jewish people in Argentina back in 1994.
We will never forget the American hostages that were held by the Iranians. It seems to me President Obama has forgotten it. I haven’t forgotten it. I remember every day of it. [applause] And I remember Linda, I remember Linda, they were held for months and months and days and days and weeks and weeks, as they looked into the eyes of a weak president, Jimmy Carter. And they were never released. And the moment they look into Ronald Reagan’s eyes, the moment he put his hand on the Bible and put his hand up they released them. [applause]
Well once again they are looking into weak eyes, the eyes of our president, begging for an agreement with Iran at all cost.
So let’s review the agreement, because this is really what’s at stake here. And then one other thing that’s so important. Iran wants, it says, the peaceful use of nuclear power. Iran has 300 years of natural gas and oil reserves and they haven’t started fracking or hydraulic drilling yet. They may have 1000 years of reserves. I’m an expert on energy because that’s what my law firm does. Iran does not need a nuclear power plant for power. They got plenty of energy, plenty of energy to export to the rest of the world. There is no reason in the world for them to have the peaceful use of nuclear power. Maybe France needs it. Maybe countries without natural resources need it, but Iran doesn’t need it. So why have they been doing this? They’ve been doing this because they want to become a nuclear power. Not only that, they have written that, they have said that, they have described that. The president reformer who runs Iran, Rouhani, in ’03 and ’05 continued to enrich uranium while they had a standstill agreement with us. He did it secretly and bragged about it, and we’re negotiating with them.
This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that? A moron. [applause] An agreement with Iran with regard to nuclear power should be very simple. Iran should not be allowed to have any form of nuclear power. [applause]
Most of us, maybe not all of us in this room, went through the Cold War. Those of us in the Reagan administration certainly remember it. General Shelton fought it, the Cold War, because it wasn’t always a cold war. And the big fear during the Cold War was that a madman would come along and be able to get his finger on the button in the U.S. or Russia, and all of a sudden we could destroy the world. We saw movies about that, we saw Broadway plays about that, we saw comedies about that, and we read books about that. And we were afraid of that. And it never happened, thank God.
These people in Iran, the Ayatollah and the mullahs, have already told us they are insane. They have already described to us in words and deeds the actions of insane people. I didn’t say irrational, I said insane. I believe the Ayatollah is truly insane. He lives in a different world than the real world in which we live, which is probably the best definition of insanity you can have. He’s like the guy walking around Bellevue Hospital thinking he’s George Washington. He’s a madman. He’s announced that he wants to destroy the state of Israel.
And we are upset that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to come here and defend his country? When someone who is a few hundred miles away wants nuclear weapons and has threatened to destroy his country of six or seven million people? It’s smaller than New York City.
Believe me, when I was Mayor of New York, if someone threatened to destroy New York City I would go anywhere, any place, any time, and I wouldn’t give a damn what the President of the United States thought, to defend my country. That is a patriot. That’s a man who loves his people. That’s a man who protects his people. That’s a man who fights for his people. Unlike our president.
Twelve red lines to Saudi Arabia. Twelve red lines, they all turned pink, and the last one turned yellow. He backed down to Assad 12 times. You don’t think that had a connection to what Putin did in Crimea? If you don’t, you don’t understand world history, you don’t understand world diplomacy, and you don’t understand power politics. Putin looked one time at Obama and he said, “I can take advantage of this man, because he is weak.” [applause]
So we are here to appeal to you. We know your senators, particularly Senator McCain understands this as well or better than I do.
The President of the United States should not be allowed to reach an agreement with Iran without presenting it to the United States Congress. [applause] This is not, this is not a dictatorship. this is not a country run by one man. This is not a country run by one branch of the government. The Congress of the United States speaks for the people of the United States. This agreement is too important to be imposed on us the way President Obama has ignored the laws in so many other ways, and gotten away with it because he has a press who defends him no matter what he does. [applause]
I don’t need the water. [laughter] A little Scotch wouldn’t be bad.
So that’s my first point. My second will be briefer. And it picks up on what General Shelton said at the end, and we can’t forget it.
As we look at that big picture of an agreement with Iran and what it might mean and what it should contain and how it should be reviewed by Congress and how we can’t let this president get away with reaching an agreement without going to Congress so it can be reviewed and carefully reviewed.
The second thing we cannot forget, and many of you who have been involved in this for a long time know about this and many of you don’t. We have almost 3,000 people who are in Iraq right now. They are listening to this. I think they are listening to it live, but they certainly would be listening to it on tape very, very quickly. They are being held hostage there. They are being held hostage in a camp called Liberty. Over a hundred of them have been killed in that camp. It is a concentration camp. It’s a disgusting place. And it’s a killing field, where it will—the Iraqis or the Iranians working with the Iraqis will come in and shoot some of them.
Now, you say, well, my goodness, this is going on all over the world and t]here are many situations like the one I’ve just described, of people who are being tortured and people who are being treated horribly. Because, again, I believe our president doesn’t see this, we live in a cruel and we live in a mean world, to some extent. They don’t all like us. The president doesn’t seem to understand that. Some of them don’t want to negotiate, some of them just want to murder and kill and maim.
But there’s something different about these 3,000 people. Each one of them has a piece of paper signed by a member or the American military at a high level giving them the protection of the Geneva Convention and the United States. They did that in 2003 when they laid down their arms to protect themselves, so that they would be protected by the United States military.
To me, and I know to your senator, because he and I have talked about this, Senator McCain, this is a solemn pledge. Not of one general or colonel, not of one president or the other, but of the United States of America. Each one of these people is in possession of such a piece of paper. And we have dishonored it. We’ve left them there.
The State Department under Hilary Clinton and now John Kerry puts every obstacle in the way of their either coming to the United States or getting to other countries. We’ve gotten some out. If this were an administration of dignity and honor, if this was an administration and a president who truly understood what it meant to be an honorable man and an honorable president, that piece of paper would be vindicated. That piece of paper would be honored.
Instead it is being ignored because he is so stupidly trying to reach an agreement with Iran, he wants nothing to stand in the way of it. So far a hundred people at least have been killed because of that stupidity. All the president of the United States has to do is send five or six, or the general could probably figure it out better, seven airplanes to Baghdad with appropriate troops. Say get the hell out of the way and take those people, put them on a plane, and bring them to Arizona, New York, California, New Mexico. [applause] Or they could fill half an apartment building in New York. This is a miniscule number of people. This is not a big thing to do. And we’re leaving them there to get killed and to be sitting ducks, and it’s because the president is so desperate to make an agreement that finally is against our interests anyway. And if we are not going to live up to our word of protecting them by taking them out of there, because we granted them asylum status, if we’re not going to do that, then let’s give them the arms to defend themselves. [applause] Because they were pretty darn good at it before, and I’m sure they’d be very good at it again.
The MEK, the organization we’re talking about, answers a question I am asked all the time. “Where are the moderate Muslims? Where are the Muslims that stand up against terrorism? Where are the Muslims who are outraged by the fact that there are some Muslims, some, not a majority, not an overwhelming majority, but a fairly large number, supported by a state, Iran, where are those Muslims who condemn that?” Well, I’m going to tell you where they are. They’re right here. That’s the MEK. [applause] Organization, the interim president of that organization, is a woman. Women can’t drive in Saudi Arabia. The head of this organization is a woman. [applause] You saw those pictures of those gatherings, I believe it was in Paris, a hundred thousand people showed up in Paris. This is not a small organization. General Shelton and I have been before hundreds of thousands of displaced Iranians who are ready to take their country back. And here’s their platform, here’s their charter, here’s their constitution. It’s going to sound awfully familiar. They believe in free elections. They don’t want to control Iran, they want the Iranian people to have an election in which the leader of Iran is freely elected. They want an Iran that is dedicated to religious freedom, safety for Jews and Christians, safety for Muslims who may not want to practice their faith or Muslims who may want to practice their faith in a different way than other Muslims. They want an Iran that gives women equal rights with man. [applause] They want an Iran that’s build on the rule of law and they want an Iran that is a non-nuclear Iran. That’s the alternative, that’s the alternative to the Islamic fundamentalist extremists. President Obama should embrace them. President Obama should save them. He should embrace them. And he should put them up as a model of what is needed in the Islamic world. And instead, what he’s doing in my humble view is selling us out to Iran.
It must be stopped. It has to be stopped. Our last resort is our Congress. But you know something, our Congress is always our last resort because it is our Congress which represents our people. And I implore our Congress to stop this weak president for doing things that will be so difficult to reverse that even if the next president were a Ronald Reagan it might be difficult to reverse.
After all, we are never going to bring (Kaeller Mueleer) back to life and we are never going to bring those people there back to life. And I am never going to have my ten close friends that I lost on September 11th who were killed by Islamic extremist terrorists, I’m never going to have them ever again. and I’m never going to have my 343 firefighters. Never going to have them ever again.
We can’t bring them back, but we can make sure there aren’t more of them. This president isn’t doing it. This president is moving us in a much worse and really frightening direction. And Congress must stop it, and the people must stand up and say, no, no, no, we will not sell out to Iran the way Chamberlain sold out to Hitler. No! [applause]

Sunday, March 08, 2015

Iran’s hunger for hegemony

From Arab News, 3 March 2015, by Abdulrahman Al-Rashed:

Iran's fingerprints are everywhere. Its activities expand throughout the region, mostly around Saudi Arabia, in Iraq, Yemen, the Gulf, Syria and Lebanon, where it is involved in politics, media, oil, weaponry and religion. ...

Iran is currently in an offensive state, the likes of which we have not seen in modern history. It is directly fighting in Syria and Iraq, and has proxies in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen and elsewhere. It also has a presence in Sudan, although President Omar Bashir claims he has shut down all Iranian offices.
Yemen is the latest Iranian venture, but Tehran is incapable of succeeding there. Regardless of how much effort it makes via the Houthi rebels and ousted President Ali Abdullah Saleh, Yemen remains socially and politically close to Saudi Arabia.

... Iran’s expansionist appetite is not only a threat to countries in the region but it also targets areas of stability and supports violent groups that threaten the world.

This has been the nature of the Iranian regime since the 1980s. It imitates the old Soviet model by supporting what it calls “liberation movements in the Third World,” for the sake of harming regimes that do not agree with its political path.


Iran also focuses on supporting certain groups in the region against central governments. In Lebanon, it supports Hezbollah and has weakened the central government, although the latter does not oppose Iran in Lebanon’s surroundings.

Similarly, Iran has supported Hamas against the Palestinian Authority, although the latter was never against Tehran. Iran has supported the Houthis for years, although Saleh’s regime then had good relations with Tehran.

In Iraq, Iran’s policy and involvement is much clearer. It supports militias and parties more than it supports the central government. Tehran supports the so-called popular mobilization forces in Iraq as an alternative to the national army, parts of which do not agree with Iran.

In this context, and that of an arms race, all parties are re-evaluating their military capabilities and looking to strengthen them. If Iran does not end its incursions in the Gulf and beyond, and if it continues to reject solutions to major struggles such as Syria’s, then confrontations will increase and their severity will worsen....

Thursday, March 05, 2015

Netanyahu takes apart the looming Iran deal.

From WSJ, 4 March 2015:

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 

President Obama thought so little of Benjamin Netanyahu ’s speech to Congress Tuesday that he made clear he hadn’t watched it and said the text didn’t “offer any viable alternatives” to the Administration’s pending nuclear deal with Iran. We’ll take that presidential passive-aggression as evidence that the Israeli Prime Minister’s critique was as powerful as Mr. Obama feared.

For all the White House’s fretting beforehand about the speech’s potential damage to U.S.-Israel relations, Mr. Netanyahu was both bipartisan and gracious to Mr. Obama for all he “has done for Israel,” citing examples previously not publicly known. But...

the power of the speech—the reason the Israeli leader was willing to risk breaking diplomatic china to give it—was its systematic case against the looming nuclear deal.

Point by point, he dismantled the emerging details and assumptions of what he called a “very bad deal.” The heart of his critique concerned the nature of the Iranian regime as a terror sponsor of long-standing that has threatened to “annihilate” Israel and is bent on regional domination. 

The Administration argues that a nuclear accord will help move the revolutionary regime toward moderation. But Mr. Netanyahu spent some 15 minutes laying out the regime’s historical record.

Since Hasan Rouhani became president in 2013, Iran’s internal repression has become worse than in the days of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Iran has 
  • doubled down on its military support for Bashar Assad in Syria, 
  • gained control of north Yemen through its Houthi militia proxies, and 
  • continued to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and Shiite militias in Iraq.


Mr. Netanyahu noted that the pending deal would lift the economic sanctions that have driven Iran to the negotiating table.
“Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger?” Mr. Netanyahu asked. “Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?” 
These are good questions that the Administration should be obliged to answer.

The Prime Minister also rightly raised doubts about whether even an intrusive inspections regime could guarantee enough notice if Iran seeks to divert its nuclear capabilities to build a bomb. North Korea agreed to inspectors in a deal with the Clinton Administration, he noted, only to oust them years later and build its nuclear arsenal:
“Here’s the problem: You see, inspectors document violations; they don’t stop them.” 
He also zeroed in on the deal’s acceptance of Iran’s already robust nuclear infrastructure, coupled with a 10-year sunset provision after which Iran could enrich as much uranium in as many centrifuges as it likes. To appreciate the scope of this concession, recall that the Administration and U.N. Security Council demanded that Iran “halt all enrichment activities” in a resolution adopted in 2010.

The Administration now says that it can’t plausibly forbid Iran from having some enrichment capability. But the only alternative to zero enrichment isn’t the major capacity the White House is now prepared to concede to Tehran. Such a capability makes it easier for Iran to cheat on any agreement it signs. The sunset provision also means that Iran can simply bide its time to build an even larger nuclear capacity.

“Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal,” Mr. Netanyahu said, and it could also “get to a bomb by keeping the deal.”
Mr. Netanyahu was especially effective in rebutting the Administration’s claim that the only alternatives at the current moment are Mr. Obama’s deal—or war. This is the familiar false choice—his way or disaster—that has become a hallmark of the President’s political argumentation.

But Mr. Netanyahu said there is a third choice—negotiate a better deal. 

He pointed out that sanctions had driven Iran to the negotiating table when oil was $100 a barrel and it would be under greater pressure now when oil is closer to $50. For all of its fanaticism and ambition, Iran is still a relatively weak country under great economic pressure. The U.S. has leverage to drive a harder bargain if it is willing to use it.

Mr. Netanyahu hinted that he could still accept some kind of agreement, despite attempts to portray him as opposed to any concessions. But the Prime Minister made clear in particular that any sunset provision would only be acceptable if it hinged on a change in Iran’s behavior.
“If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires,” he said to a standing ovation.
Given Mr. Obama’s reaction, the Prime Minister knows his real audience is Congress and the American people. His speech raised serious doubts about an accord that has been negotiated in secret and which Mr. Obama wants Americans to accept without a vote in Congress. Now maybe we can have a debate worthy of the high nuclear stakes.