RUTHFULLY YOURS

THIS BOOK OFFERS AN ASTOUNDING LACK OF HISTORICITY: FOR EXAMPLE “Among other things, he reminds us of an oft-forgotten truth: the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict pre-date the ascendancy of radical Islam.” REALLY? IT IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND…THE ENTIRE CONFLICT IS A RESULT OF CENTURIES OF ISLAMIC ANTI-SEMITISM AND JIHAD….READ ANDREW BOSTOM’S “THE LEGACY OF ISLAMIC ANTI SEMITISM-FROM SACRED TEXTS TO SOLEMN HISTORY.”

SECOND HE OFFERS THE FOLLOWING BLATHER:”….Unfortunately, after having set the stage at great length and very informatively for a discussion of the Jewish future, Eizenstat seems to run out of steam. In “Final Thoughts,” his peroration to the reader, he advocates nothing more original than a “two-state solution,” increased tolerance in Israel for internal dissent, new approaches toward dealing with Israel’s Arab minority…”

THE GUY DID WORK FOR JIMMY CARTER SO SKIP THIS BOOK…..RSK

http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/6140/features/eizenstat-on-the-jewish-future/

Stuart E. Eizenstat is, for many in the Jewish community, a household name—and deservedly so. Since his appearance on the national scene in 1976 as Jimmy Carter’s chief domestic policy adviser, Eizenstat has been U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, an Under Secretary of State, and a Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. When Bill Clinton was president, Eizenstat led negotiations with Switzerland, Germany, and Austria for the return of Jewish property to descendants of Holocaust victims; he is currently co-chair of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute. Eizenstat’s experience as a participant in many of the international dramas of the past four decades and his intimate familiarity with Jewish affairs have left him well prepared to write a big book with the title The Future of the Jews: How Global Forces are Impacting the Jewish People, Israel, and Its Relationship with the United States.
The strongest chapter of this volume—the opening chapter, “A New Multipolar World”—consists of a country-by-country survey of changing economic, social, political, and military conditions in seven countries and regions (including China, of which he offers a superb analysis) that are increasingly important to both the United States and Israel. Eizenstat clearly intends to underscore, from the very beginning, the fact that Israel must pay heed to its major ally’s foreign policy goals as it seeks to cultivate better relationships with these emerging powers.

The plot of The Future of the Jews thickens when, in subsequent chapters, Eizenstat evokes the dangers posed to Israel (and to Jews generally) by a radicalized Islam, globalization, anti-Semitism, and the continued campaign to delegitimize the Jewish state. Eizenstat brings an insider’s perspective to his analysis. Among other things, he reminds us of an oft-forgotten truth: the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict pre-date the ascendancy of radical Islam.

The Jewish Egyptian Revival Passover marks the day on which God liberated the people of Israel from Pharaoh’s rule. So there is no small irony in noting that three millennia after the Exodus, emancipated Jews in Western countries expressed their unique national identity by building synagogues in the Pharaonic style. The first Egyptian-style building of […]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/03/ten_key_points_on_islamic_blasphemy_law.html

There is an intensifying, global campaign to impose Islamic blasphemy law on non-Muslims, including those living outside Islamdom, in non-Muslim societies.

What follows are ten key points on the doctrinal origins and practical implications of this global campaign:

1) According to the Sunna (the traditions of Muhammad and the early Muslim community), by using foul language against the Muslim prophet Muhammad, Allah, or Islam, the non-Muslim transgressors put themselves on a war footing against Muslims, and their lives became licit (such as the poet Kaab b. al-Ashraf, who composed poems denigrating Muhammad, and was assassinated). [see 1.1, 1.2, 1.3]

2) This “offense” was then constructed and legitimated by Muslim jurists when Islam was politically, militarily and economically dominant, so that it was expected that the non-Muslims under Islamic rule would not denigrate the religion of Islam, nor cast aspersions on its major figures or institutions. [see 2.1, 2.2,2.3]

3) The jurists saw any such denigration as an unacceptable hostile act, punishable by death, automatically, as per three of the main Sunni schools of Islamic Law (Maliki, Shafii, Hanbali), and the major Shiite schools. According to the fourth major school of Sunni Islamic law, the Hanafi, the punishment of a non-Muslim guilty of blasphemy is left to the discretion of a Muslim judge. The death penalty was in fact most often applied by the Hanafis. (see 3.1, 3.2) Qadi Iyad (d. 1149), the great Almoravid jurist, captured the doctrine’s animating Muslim supremacism in his seminal Ash-Shifa, which includes one of the most authoritative analyses of Islamic blasphemy law’s treatment of non-Muslims, ever written: “Once Islam was firmly established and Allah had given it victory over all other religions, any such detractor that the Muslims had power over and whose affair is well-known, was put to death.”

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2935/debunking_the_hugo_ch_vez_re_election_myth Hugo Chávez may be dead, but the myth of his four consecutive re-election victories is still very much alive Hugo Chávez may be dead, but the myth of his four consecutive re-election victories is still very much alive. With recent news that Chavez’s remains will no longer be embalmed, it’s time to bury that […]

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3625/germany-radical-islamists More recently, Salafists have issued death threats against German politicians, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “The groups aim to change our society in an aggressive belligerent way so that democracy would be replaced by a Salafist system, and the rule of law replaced by Sharia law.” — Hans-Peter Friedrich, Ministry of the Interior, Germany […]

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/jamie-glazov/remembering-a-dissident-3-1-1/

Editors’ note: Yuri Glazov, Russian dissident and the father of Frontpage’s editor Jamie Glazov, died 15 years ago today on March 15, 1998. The editors felt it would be appropriate to mark this occasion by reprinting Jamie’s dedication to his father from our March 11, 2012 issue. We also hope readers will consider contributing to the Yuri Glazov Memorial Award to keep the memory of Yuri and his fight for freedom alive. [See info at bottom of article for U.S. and international donations.] Frontpage’s editors would also like to stress that in the last year the situation in Russia has become far worse — with Putin’s increasing state repression, ruthless crack-down on human rights and the implementation of the re-Stalinization campaign.

One day, when I was nine years old, my father and I were on our way to Church. As we neared the entrance, I spat on the ground. Reflexively, my dad’s arm shot out across my chest like a railway barrier, blocking my motion forward. We stood there, frozen in time, for some three seconds until my father uttered, in a very serious but patient way: “It is ok to spit outside of KGB headquarters, but never in front of a place such as this.” I registered the message and indicated my understanding — and we proceeded on our way.

That was my dad’s moral clarity and sharp, quick-witted way with words; and the sacred values that spawned those words made a profound impression on me from the moment of my birth. I was born into a family of Russian dissidents — a father and a mother, Yuri and Marina Glazov, who put their clenched fists up and went toe-to-toe with the Evil Empire.

Throughout my youth, my dad shared many stories with me, which included how he had always been aware, even in his youth, that he existed in a slave camp masquerading as a country and that he perpetually dreamed of escaping it. He spent his young years studying maps, trying to decipher which body of water he could swim across to escape the communist paradise he languished in. But his life ended up going a different way: he confronted the slave masters, rather than escaping the prison they had built.

My father was a scholar at the Soviet Academy of Sciences and a professor at Moscow State University. His main field of study concerned Oriental languages and cultures, with a specialty in the Chinese, Sanskrit and Tamil areas. Despite his rewarding career, my dad put everything on the line and began to attend human rights demonstrations in Moscow on behalf of political prisoners. He also started to sign letters of protest against the political repressions that were heightening in the country in the 1960s, connected as they were to the re-Stalinization of the Soviet Union after the Khrushchev thaw. The activities my dad engaged in could land a Soviet citizen in the gulag or a psychiatric hospital for decades.

On February 24, 1968, my father signed the Letter of Twelve, a letter written and signed by twelve Soviet dissidents to the Supreme Congress of Communist Parties in Budapest denouncing Soviet human rights abuses. He was immediately fired from his work for being “unprofessional” in his scholarly studies (even though he previously had received high praise for his academic studies).

http://www.prudenpolitics.com/newsletter?utm_source=P&P%20Auto%201&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6540 Two cats fighting on the back fence can ruin a man’s sleep, but in the cat world, the noisy arguments between Tom and his feline lady friends rarely settle anything. All they accomplish is more cats. The Democrats have used this formula to great advantage over the years, squabbling like cats and moving on […]

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/03/14/bon-voyage-president-obama-in-israel/

In anticipation of President Obama’s forthcoming visit to Israel The New York Times published three “Op-Ed” columns in a single day (March 13) assessing the dim prospects for Middle East peace – and, to be sure – holding Israel responsible. Even if “Op-Ed” refers only to location (adjacent to the editorial page) rather than to policy (deviating from the editorial position), this was an unusual, but hardly random, concentration of journalistic firepower.

With his characteristic airy detachment, columnist Thomas Friedman seemed to applaud Obama’s belated realization that given current realities on the ground, “benign neglect” toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is preferable to active intervention. After all, as Friedman correctly notes, “the most destabilizing conflict in the region is the civil war between Shiites and Sunnis,” not the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Furthermore, the obstacles to an Israeli-Palestinian peace are, at least at the moment, insurmountable. Why? Because Israeli settlers and Hamas rockets make it so. Note the moral equivalence.

Nonetheless, Friedman prepared questions for the President to ask Israeli officials – but not Palestinian officials in Ramallah: How can “your relentless settlement drive” fail to undermine Israel as “a Jewish democracy” and further “delegitimize” Israel worldwide? Shouldn’t Israel “be constantly testing and testing whether there is a Palestinian partner for a secure peace” – as though Israel had not repeatedly done that ever since the Oslo Accords were drafted. “As a friend,” Friedman also wants to know whether Israel even has a long-term strategy for peace.

http://www.jewishledger.com/
The Big Lie: Israel Apartheid Week
Spring is here and so too are Israel Apartheid Week and poison ivy. Apartheid Week is an insult to all thinking Americans in and out of academia, just as poison ivy is an irritant to our skin and well-being. Charles Jacobs, founder of the Boston-based Americans for Peace and Tolerance, reminds us of the venality of the Apartheid Week movement as it personally attacks and intimidates individual students while playing havoc with the truth on campuses throughout the country.

“At Harvard”, he tells us, “students personal space was violated when ‘eviction notices’ were pasted to the doors of their dormitory rooms by members of the so-called Palestine Solidarity Committee. This kind of Saul Alinsky in-your-face type of intimidation goes beyond the norms of society and it, along with the threat and reality of physical harm, is behavior that ought not be tolerated.”

Nasty ‘apartheid walls’ — a mockery of the barriers Israel has used to effectively defend its citizens from the real and present danger of terrorism — and other symbolic constructs are springing up on campuses around the country as a way to push forward lies about Israel’s alleged discrimination against its Arab minority.

Meanwhile, no matter how depraved and vile the mendacity of the Arab effort, college administrators generally, under the false flag of ‘free speech,’ stand aside. It is a stretch to interpret the actions of these Apartheid Week demonstrators as speech that is free if it is aimed at those it targets and bullies.

Almost more egregious than the lack of college reaction to the intimidation of Jewish students is the lack of a full-throated response from key elements of the Jewish community. Yes, there are groups that are active. Charles Jacob’s American Peace and Tolerance, The David Project (another group Jacobs helped found), the Zionist Organization of America, Stand-With-Us, Campus Watch, CAMERA and others are now working on many campuses, but coordination is yet to happen and much goes undone.

Hillel, in the best position of any Jewish organization to respond on campus, has a mixed effort with a Shaliach program on 56 campuses and active support for the Israel on Campus Coalition, an organization it helped start. But it does not deal with Apartheid Week directly nor does it confront this systemic threat on all campuses.

There are, of course some stellar participants who rise to the occasion. A stalwart cadre of Hillel leaders around the country who have seen this all before deal with it bravely and with intelligence. But there is also a passivity on a number of campuses and not just where there is an absence of any organized Jewish presence. Even more difficult though, are campuses where faculty and/or administration aid and abet the intimidation of Jewish students and demean pro-Israel opinion. Columbia University and Brooklyn College stand out as recent examples of this type of travesty. Federations too are more often than not capable of only the most pro forma actions, and rarely connect with students and faculty on campus who have to confront these falsehoods.

The Apartheid Week people, on the other hand are well programmed, intrusive and without opposition too often have free reign on campus for their hatred and lies.
The proper answer for the besieged pro-Israel students and faculty on every campus, of course, is the ultimate one: the truth. Not a defensive truth or a partial one. But a focus on the Israeli reality in which five million Jews and two million Arabs, both Christian and Muslim, live together in a democratic open society.

It is the Arab Middle East where the mirror image of Israel exists. That is the land of hatred and apartheid. That is the land where the ancient Jewish presence was excised by either forced emigration or violent intimidation, and the slaughter of Christians, Jews and other minorities, including Muslims who don’t practice Islam in the way the majority prescribes it, continues. That is the land where women are demeaned and gays persecuted. It is the land of countries where personal freedom exists hardly at all.

For some reason, our organizations and leaders shy away from these truths and because of that they are absent from this very argument.

It is Israel where all citizens have the right to vote. It is Israel where democratic institutions such as a free media exist. In a more rational world it would be Arab apartheid that would be highlighted this month, while Israel’s bravery for being that lonely beacon of individual rights and democracy for all would be celebrated.
Israel Apartheid Week as we know it is a total fabrication meant to snare the unknowing and seduce the uninformed. It is foreign to our soil and ought to be opposed by every American.

Two things you can do:

1) Ephraim Karsh of the Middle East Forum provides an excellent essay on the previous page.(see below) Read it and forward it to anyone on a college campus whose email address you may have (the essay may also be forwarded from the Ledger website, www.jewishledger.com).

2) Support organizations and individuals actively involved in this struggle; work with Hillel and urge them to stand tall; take steps to fill the void on campuses without any Jewish organization. Working to bring the Jewish world together on this issue is the best way to let those who malign Israel and murder the truth know they can’t do it with impunity.

It’s unfortunate that this apartheid accusation occurs every spring. But as we pointed out, so does poison ivy. Poison Ivy and the lies of Apartheid Week never fully go away, but when summer comes we usually have them both under control.

—nrg

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/case-drones-home-article-1.1287635#ixzz2NWFlrz5a

There were good reasons to object to John Brennan’s confirmation as CIA chief. But the administration’s refusal to handcuff America’s ability to defend itself by promising never, under any circumstances, to use a drone against American citizens in the U.S. is not one.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) filibustered Brennan’s nomination because, he believed, “no American should be killed by a drone, on American soil, without first being charged with a crime, without first being found guilty by a court.”

While Paul claimed to rely on our Constitution, in fact his position is contrary to what our Constitution provides and what our Founders intended. The Constitution declares its purpose is to “insure domestic tranquility (and) provide for the common defence” — both of which impose on our government the duty to provide security for this country.

Rendering the President unable to use whatever measures are then needed, including a drone, to prevent terrorist murders of our people, by an enemy who is a U.S. citizen, would handcuff our government’s ability to perform that function.

Alexander Hamilton, one author of the Constitution, and a primary advocate for its adoption, wrote in Federalist Papers No. 23 concerning “the care of the common defence” as requiring “powers . . . without limitation: Because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them . . . for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power.”