RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/wrong-again_773261.html

To hear it from the New York Times editorial page, the many issues surrounding the attacks in Benghazi are now settled.

In a December 30 editorial, published under the headline “The Facts About Benghazi,” the newspaper proclaims an end to the 15 months of debate about the fatal attacks on the U.S. consulate on September 11, 2012. Citing an “exhaustive investigation by The Times” that it says “goes a long way toward resolving any nagging doubts about what precipitated the attack” and “debunks Republican allegations,” America’s Newspaper of Record declares that “in a rational world” the investigation “would settle the dispute over Benghazi.”

Well then.

It’s hardly surprising that the New York Times would find the New York Times the final word on an issue.

But for the rest of us, rational and irrational alike, this revisionist account is neither authoritative nor definitive. The central thesis of the piece is wrong, and the sweeping claim the author has made in defending it is demonstrably false.

Here’s the background.

In a long, front-page article published in late December, David Kirkpatrick, the Cairo bureau chief of the New York Times, offered an account of the attacks in Benghazi based largely on interviews with Libyans there, including some who participated in the attacks. From these interviews and others, Kirkpatrick declared that there is “no evidence that al Qaeda or other international terrorists had any role in the assault.”

http://carolineglick.com/the-new-york-times-destroys-obama/

The New York Times just delivered a mortal blow to the Obama administration and its Middle East policy. Call it fratricide. It was clearly unintentional. Indeed, is far from clear that the paper realizes what it has done.

Last Saturday the Times published an 8,000-word account by David Kirkpatrick detailing the terrorist strike against the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. In it, Kirkpatrick tore to shreds the foundations of President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism strategy and his overall policy in the Middle East.

Obama first enunciated those foundations in his June 4, 2009, speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University. Ever since, they have been the rationale behind US counterterror strategy and US Middle East policy.

Obama’s first assertion is that radical Islam is not inherently hostile to the US. As a consequence, America can appease radical Islamists. Moreover, once radical Muslims are appeased, they will become US allies, (replacing the allies the US abandons to appease the radical Muslims).

Obama’s second strategic guidepost is his claim that the only Islamic group that is a bona fide terrorist organization is the faction of al-Qaida directly subordinate to Osama bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Only this group cannot be appeased and must be destroyed through force.

The administration has dubbed the Zawahiri faction of al-Qaida “core al-Qaida.” And anyone who operates in the name of al-Qaida, or any other group that does not have courtroom-certified operational links to Zawahiri, is not really al-Qaida, and therefore, not really a terrorist group or a US enemy.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14331#.Usau2ptX_zZ Why does Torah use three different words to describe what amounts to a single description of his stubborn obstinacy? The dramatic duel between Moses and Pharaoh in Torah is depicted in ten plagues which God inflicted on the Egyptians in order to convince Pharaoh to allow the Hebrews, as they were then called, to leave Egypt, […]

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=6899

Assessing Kerry’s proposal

The value of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s assessments and proposed peace agreement, which would reduce Israel to a 9-to-15 mile waistline (the pre-1967 lines), in the increasingly raging Middle East, is consistent with Kerry’s track record.

Kerry’s Syrian track record

Until the eruption of the civil war in Syria, Kerry was a member of a tiny group of U.S. senators — along with Chuck Hagel and Hillary Clinton — who believed that President Bashar Assad was a generous, constructive leader, areformer and a man of his word. Kerry was a frequent flyer to Damascus, dining with Assad and his wife at the Naranj restaurant in central Damascus. Following a motorcycle ridewith Assad, he returned to Washington referring to the president as “my dear friend.”

In September 2009, Kerry opined that “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,” while Assad was conducting hate-education, repressing his opposition, hosting and arming terrorist outfits like Hezbollah, cozying up to Iran, and facilitating the infiltration of jihadists into Iraq to kill U.S. soldiers. WikiLeaks disclosedthat on February, 2010, Kerry told Qatari leaders that the Golan Heights should be returned to Syria and that a Palestinian capital should be established in east Jerusalem. “We know that for the Palestinians the control of Al-Aqsa mosque and the establishment of their capital in east Jerusalem are not negotiable.”

According to the London Telegraph, Kerry was a fierce critic of the Bush administration’s hardline against Assad, advocating a policy of engagement — rather than sanctions — against terror-sponsoring Syria. In March 2011, Kerry subordinated reality-driven hope to wishful-thinking-driven hope: “My judgment is that Syria will move; Syria will change, as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States and the West.” However, more than 200,000 deaths and 2 million refugees later, Assad’s Syria has certainly changed for the worst. In January 2005, following another meeting with Assad, Kerry said: “This is the moment of opportunity for the Middle East, for the U.S. and for the world. … I think we found a great deal of areas of mutual interest … strengthening the relationship between the U.S. and Syria.”

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=14477

In his data-filled book “How Civilizations Die: (And Why Islam Is Dying Too),” which was recently published in Hebrew, David Goldman offers a fresh view on the new historical reality unfolding before our eyes.
A conversation with David Goldman can take you through different worlds and times. It is a real pleasure to speak with an intellectual with his breadth of knowledge. Goldman’s book “How Civilizations Die: (And Why Islam Is Dying Too)” has recently been published in Hebrew by a new publishers, Sela Meir. For years, Goldman was a popular columnist for the Asia Times under the pen-name of Spengler. Oswald Spengler, the author of “Decline of the West,” published after the First World War, was probably the first to claim that modernity would cause a demographic decline which would bring about the demise of Western civilization. In his data-filled book, Goldman offers a fresh view on the new historical reality unfolding before our eyes.

My starting point was from the observation that major countries of the west were disappearing. I then began investigating why that should be the case. During the last few years, some really authoritative research showed the relations between religion and fertility. I don’t think that this is so much a religious issue but a sense of confidence in the future. Religious faith is one expression of confidence in the future.

You surprised me in all that regards Islam. It has been known for some time that Europe is sinking demographically, but that this should be extended to the Muslims, too?

Indeed, Muslim birthrates are falling even in Europe. The single factor that best explains fertility across the whole Muslim world is literacy. Just on a purely statistical basis one can explain 60 percent of the variations of fertility on the base of literacy. And where you have detailed data, for example in Iran or Turkey, you can show a very strong differential in fertility between women with an elementary school education, a high school education and a college education. This is also exactly what is happening in Israel, and in Judea and Samaria. I am aware that convergence of fertility is an enormously controversial issue. Yet it is clear that there has been a convergence.

What about Iran?

In the case of Iran, we have something that has literally never been seen in all of world history, astounding demographers. The average Iranian comes from a family of seven children. For the average Iranian today, if you exclude some of the minorities, fertility is 1.6 to 1.7.

The Iranian leadership speaks about this issue publically and warns against a demographic catastrophe. Now, the west has a demographic problem too, but for a rich country and a poor country this is somewhat different. On current trends, by 2040 Iran will have an elderly-dependent ratio of 30%. And this is in a country with a personal income of merely a tenth of the United States! Going from 8% of elderly dependence in 2005 to 30% in 2040 — this is a catastrophe. No poor country in the world can deal with that kind of problem. So at this point it becomes a major strategic factor. From the grim viewpoint of the current Iranian leadership, this encourages adventurism.

I do not view demographics as destiny, but I do think that it is an important factor in Iranian calculations. They are at the peak of their power; they have a big young generation; they feel they have the historic opportunity to establish Shiite dominance in the Middle East. If they lose this opportunity now, they may never have another. So their willingness to take risks, including risks related to developing weapons, supporting terrorism, intervening in Lebanon, Yemen, Afghanistan and elsewhere, is all the greater.

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=6901

When U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry landed in Tel Aviv on Thursday for the 10th time in a five-month period, he was met with the news of a severe deterioration in the medical condition of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Though Sharon has been comatose for the past eight years, his kidneys began to fail two days ago. According to his doctors, this means that his other organs are soon to follow suit. It appears that Sharon, the man whose physical, military and political strength have been legendary throughout his lifetime, is now finally on his deathbed.

At a joint press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu upon his arrival, and prior to a private meeting later in the evening at which Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni were also present, Kerry conveyed his sympathy to the Sharon family and the people of Israel.

“We remember his [Sharon’s] contributions, sacrifices he made to ensure the survival and the well-being of Israel,” Kerry said, before launching into a mini-speech about the “framework” agreement he had brought with him.

Kerry’s message could not have been more sadly ironic, given the circumstances of his desperate shuttle diplomacy, aimed at getting Israel to make extensive territorial and security concessions on behalf of Palestinian statehood. It was Sharon, after all, whose understanding that it would be a cold day in hell before any genuine agreement could be reached with the Palestinians caused him to undertake a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria. This disastrous move involved the evacuation of every last Jew from those areas. It was the response of the war-weary ex-general (with a late-in-life desire to be praised by the press after years of vilification) to the daily slaughter of Israeli civilians by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorists.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/01/02/desperate-for-mideast-deal-kerry-gets-earful-from-netanyahu-about-growing-wave-of-terror-attacks/?print=1

AND ON NEW YEARS EVE, NETANYAHU RELEASED 26 MORE TERRORISTS…SO HIS SERMONETTES RING HOLLOW…..RSK

http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Israel-prepares-to-release-third-group-of-Palestinian-prisoners-336601

Secretary of State John Kerry was in Jerusalem today determined to ram through a Mideast peace deal despite recently spurning Israel on the Iran nuclear deal and pressing forward without the cooperation of half of the Palestinian territories.

Kerry and President Obama are both desperate to make the forging of some peace plan a legacy issue, and Kerry quickly jumped into the task after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — who was reportedly critical of Obama’s stance toward Israel — left the post.

Hamas not only dismissed Washington’s fresh push for talks over the summer, but welcomed Kerry by firing at least three rockets from Gaza into Israel over the past five days.

“I know that you’re committed to peace, I know that I’m committed to peace, but unfortunately, given the actions and words of Palestinian leaders, there’s growing doubt in Israel that the Palestinians are committed to peace,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in remarks with Kerry at his side before their meeting.

“A few days ago in Ramallah, President Abbas embraced terrorists as heroes. To glorify the murders of innocent women and men as heroes is an outrage. How can President Abbas says – how can he say that he stands against terrorism when he embraces the perpetrators of terrorism and glorifies them as heroes? He can’t stand against terrorists and stand with the terrorists. And I’m wondering what a young Palestinian would think when he sees the leader of the Palestinian people embrace people who axed innocent men and women – axed their heads or blew them up or riddled them with bullets – what’s a young Palestinian supposed to think about the future? What’s he supposed to think about what he should do vis-a-vis Israelis and vis-a-vis the state of Israel?” he continued, referring to the 26 Palestinian prisoners released by Israel as a good-faith gesture toward restarting negotiations.

“So it’s not surprising that in recent weeks Israel has been subjected to a growing wave of terrorist attacks. President Abbas didn’t see fit to condemn these attacks, even after we learned that at least in one case – I stress, at least in one case – those who served and are serving in the Palestinian security forces took part in them.”

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

In 1967, folk singer Arlo Guthrie played a song on a left-wing New York City radio station that was supposed to sum up the cultural difference between the culture and the counterculture.

On one side of the moral equation in Alice’s Restaurant you had Office Obie and the nameless army officers who were rulebound fascists and on the other side you had the easygoing hippies who believed in community, hanging out and letting things slide. Culture would drag you into court for littering with twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs as evidence while counterculture would shrug and invite you to dinner.

Culture was bureaucratically and violently absurd. Counterculture was humanely lovingly absurd.

That’s still the image that the left likes to wear like an old pair of jeans. It’s still just a bunch of easygoing fellows out to build community and take on Officer Obie’s senseless repressive rules. But then the counterculture became the culture and the left became Officer Obie.

http://www.mideastoutpost.com/archives/turn-off-the-light-unto-the-nations-ruth-king.html

Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion proclaimed: “History did not spoil us with power, wealth, nor with broad territories or an enormous community: however, it did grant us uncommon intellectual and moral virtue, and thus it is both a privilege and an obligation to be a light unto the nations.”

Where did that hubris-fraught term originate? From the Book of Isaiah. There are three references.

“Yea, He saith, ‘It is too light a thing for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the scions of Israel, and I shall submit you as a light unto the nations, to be My salvation until the end of the earth’ (Isaiah, 49:6)

“I the Lord have called unto you in righteousness, and have taken hold of your hand, and submitted you as the people’s covenant, as a light unto the nations” (Isaiah, 42:6)

“And unto your light, nations shall walk, and kings unto the brightness of your rising” (Isaiah, 60:3)

The notion mesmerized those who aspired to become a utopian, agrarian, virtuous, socialist model to the world. It even lured some realists who wanted the nation to be admired, respected and looked upon as a role model.

In the early post-independence years, the “light” bearers of Israel were depicted as super heroes–farmers/scholars who made the desert bloom and could turn their plough shares and pruning hooks into rifles at a moment’s notice to defend their nation, yet remain devoted to the goal of achieving peace with their neighbors and eager to make sacrifices to obtain it. Who would not be delighted by this image, coming as it did only three years after the Holocaust? How comforting was it to see them as models to illuminate a dark and venal world?

But Israel’s implacable neighbors sought only to destroy it and the price of survival became a seemingly endless series of wars, which sat ill with the utopian image.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/how_craven_art_thou_professor.html

It is troubling that the term academic has become a term of opprobrium. But after reading the fourth volume of the Journal of Academic Freedom (JAF) published by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), it is abundantly clear why this is the case. What they call academic freedom is merely a tactic to falsify history and harm the State of Israel.

The American Association of University Professors was started in 1900 when “noted economist Edward Ross lost his job at Stanford University because Mrs. Leland Stanford did not like his views on immigrant labor and railroad monopolies.” Thus, the AAUP was formed “to ensure academic freedom for faculty members.”

Which brings us to the decision about boycotting Israeli universities and Israeli researchers. Although the American Association of University Professors is against this boycott, the authors in the latest issue of the Journal of Academic Freedom, one of AAUP’s publications, support the boycott.

Marjorie Heins in “Rethinking Boycotts” explains that “one of the many groups that sponsored the call for [boycott, divestment, and sanctions] was the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI).” In fact, at Discover the Networks, one learns