RUTHFULLY YOURS

On Wednesday, the Jewish Agency and the Absorption Ministry released their aliyah figures for 2014. The numbers show a 10-year high, with 26,500 new immigrants settling in Israel.

According to Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky, the statistics also constitute “a historic shift: For the first time in Israel’s history, the number of immigrants who came to Israel from the Free World is greater than that of immigrants fleeing countries in distress.”

Indeed, of the 26,500 total new immigrants, 3,870 are from the United States and 8,640 from Western Europe, mostly from France.

What Sharansky and other optimists failed to point out, however, is the dark side of this otherwise shiny coin. While it is true that more Jews are opting to leave affluent societies in the West to settle in Israel, they are not simply cheerful pioneers, packing their bags to join their fellow Zionists in the Holy Land.

No, what they are doing is fleeing countries of origin which are becoming increasingly hostile to Jews.

There is nothing wrong with this from an Israeli perspective. On the contrary, the point of the Law of Return was to allow anyone considered a Jew — and persecuted as such by anti-Semites — to seek refuge in the homeland and state of the Jewish people.

What is alarming is the rising need for that refuge, including from countries in which Jews had been safe for decades after the Holocaust.

But it was bound to happen, given the global climate.

The explosion of radical Islamism, coupled with leftist apology for Third World barbarism on the one hand and fear of Muslim accusations of discrimination on the other has enabled old-style anti-Semitism to re-emerge in “polite society.”

· Israeli scientists have developed the basis for an artificial retina.
· Israeli paramedics saved a Palestinian Arab baby who suffered a heart attack.
· Per-capita, Israel is the world’s largest contributor to the fight against Ebola.
· An Israeli startup has developed a portable solar power generator.
· Israel has made large reductions to the prices of electricity, water and gasoline.
· Low cost airline easyJet is starting a Paris to Tel Aviv service.
· 2014 saw 26,500 new immigrants to Israel – the highest in a decade.

ISRAEL’S MEDICAL ACHIEVEMENTS

Breakthrough in development of artificial retinas. Scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv University have developed a wireless, light-sensitive, flexible implantable film that mimics the function of the photosensitive cells in the retina. It could potentially form part of a device to replace a damaged retina.
http://new.huji.ac.il/en/article/24287

Cell analysis system makes first discovery. Professor Itai Yanai of Israel’s Technion developed the CEL-Seq cell analysis method in 2012, identifying the on-off status of each of the 20,000 genes in a cell. It has just been used to determine embryonic development sequences and could help in understanding how cancer develops.
http://www.technion.ac.il/en/2014/12/animal-evolution-mystery-solved/

3D compass in the brain. Scientists at Israel’s Weizmann Institute have demonstrated that brains of mammals (including humans) contain a 3D compass. Microelectrode recordings revealed that certain neurons activate only when the head is at a particular 3D angle. It explains conditions such as vertigo and disorientation.
http://wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il/3d-compass-in-the-brain#.VKgjBckpqSo

Parkinson’s treatment trials success. Israel’s NeuroDerm has announced positive results for its Phase II trials of ND0612H, intended for severe Parkinson’s disease patients. The results indicate that ND0612H may provide an effective alternative therapy to current treatments requiring surgery.

Like a kiddies’ party conjurer, Maria Bhatti uttered some magic words and pulled a peace-loving, tolerant, community-building Muhammad out of her rhetorical hat. Enough to impress the children who now edit The Age and SMH, adults won’t have missed the bloody dagger being palmed from view.

Maria Bhatti, an Australian-Muslim lawyer, writes in The Age: “There are countless sayings of Muhammad (hadith) encouraging people to build community ties, and promoting love service, kindness, humility and other virtuous traits for a more meaningful life. In his last sermon, Muhammad left the following message for humankind: ‘An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.’”

Given the carnage, persecution and intolerance perpetrated by Muslims, under the claimed guidance of Muhammad and Allah, just how much of this soft-soap (however innocently and naively conjured) is it possible to swallow without throwing up? I must admit to having just returned from the bathroom. My limit had been reached and breached. Allah said:

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by his Messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. (Koran, 9:29, Pickthall version)

Now call me a paranoid unbeliever if you like but I don’t get the sense of universal fraternity here. True, it matters not whether I am black or white, which is some comfort for us lily-whites, but as a Christian, I am to be fought against, finding acceptance only by paying the tribute and being brought low. Was Allah mistaken in saying this? Did He really mean it? Muhammad’s last message seems so inclusive. It was probably an oversight that he didn’t mention people of different faiths or no faith. Or, men and women? Back to Allah:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other… good women are obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded…those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them…(4:34)

I don’t want to go on with this quoting from the Koran. There is a lot of intolerance to be found. Alexis de Tocqueville claimed to have studied the Koran. “I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad,” he wrote. Messages of peace and goodwill dripping from the lips of moderate Muslims don’t do it for me; particularly when I see the intolerance in the Koran being preached and acted out pretty well wherever Muslims form large numbers. Of course, most Muslims are not radicals. However, it seems to me that only radical Muslims have any knowledge of Islamic scripture. So, never the twain meets. The moderates mouth platitudes based on their own imaginings while the radicals accurately follow their scripture.

Michael Ledeen ends another year touting the allegedly Good “opposition” movement of former Iranian prime minister Mousavi, the “Green Revolution” leader under house arrest since 2009.

Ledeen concludes:

If we had a foreign policy team worthy of us, we’d be supporting the Iranian opposition, but Obama has proven that he prefers Khamenei to Mousavi.

I was baffled by this same sentiment back in 2009, and remain so today.

How might it be “worthy” of the United States to back a man who wants to turn Iran, as Mousavi declared in 2009, “to the pure principles of the Islamic revolution”? Lest there be any doubt, that “Islamic revolution” would be the Khomeini revolution of 1979. Mousavi’s wife, Zahra Rahnavard, meanwhile, is the perfect sharia-state-mate. Author of the hejab-boosting “Beauty of Concealment and Concealment of Beauty,” Mrs. Mousavi “had a major role in forming `Gasht-e Khaharan-e Zeinab,’ the female street police units that harass women to enforce `Islamic behavior.’ ”

The facts suggest that what we were looking at in Iran then and and are looking at now is just another power struggle among competing Islamic blocs — not the romantic struggle, as our most prominent pundits have insisted, for a Western concept of liberty that literally does not exist within Islam.

But there is something in the Mousavi case that is even more disturbing. How is it possible to imagine that a man almost certainly involved in the 1983 truck bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut is now or ever a candidate for US support?

Back in 2009, Robert Baer wrote in Time magazine:

Before we go too far down the road cheering the forces of Iranian democracy, let’s not forget that its public face, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, has American blood on his hands. He was Iran’s Prime Minister during most of the 1980s, a time when the country was waging a terrorist campaign against the U.S.

There’s an old Cold War joke — pre-pantyhose — that to defeat communism we should empty our B-52 bombers of nuclear weapons and instead drop nylons over the Soviet Union. Flood the Russians with the soft consumer culture of capitalism, seduce them with Western contact and commerce, love bomb them into freedom.

We did win the Cold War, but differently. We contained, constrained, squeezed, and eventually exhausted the Soviets into giving up. The dissidents inside subsequently told us how much they were sustained by our support for them and our implacable pressure on their oppressors.

The logic behind President Obama’s Cuba normalization, assuming there is one, is the nylon strategy. We tried 50 years of containment and that didn’t bring democracy. So let’s try inundating them with American goods, visitors, culture, contact, commerce.

It’s not a crazy argument. But it does have its weaknesses. Normalization has not advanced democracy in China or Vietnam. Indeed, it hasn’t done so in Cuba. Except for the U.S., Cuba has had normal relations with the rest of the world for decades. Tourists, trade, investment from Canada, France, Britain, Spain, everywhere. An avalanche of nylons — and not an inch of movement in Cuba toward freedom.

In fact, one could argue that this influx of Western money has helped preserve the dictatorship, as just about all the financial transactions go through the government, which takes for itself before any trickle-down crumbs are allowed to reach the regime-indentured masses.

My view is that police-state control of every aspect of Cuban life is so thoroughly perfected that outside influences, whether confrontational or cooperative, only minimally affect the country’s domestic trajectory.

So why not just lift the embargo? After all, the unassailable strategic rationale for isolating Cuba — in the Soviets’ mortal global struggle with us, Cuba enlisted as a highly committed enemy beachhead 90 miles from American shores — evaporated with the collapse of the Soviet empire. A small island with no significant independent military capacities, Cuba became geopolitically irrelevant.

The 10 Most Important Jihad Stories of 2014
10. The abduction of the Nigerian schoolgirls
Abubakar Shekau, the leader of the Nigerian jihad group named the Congregation of the People of the Sunnah for Dawah and Jihad and better known as Boko Haram (“Western Education Is Sinful,” or “Books Bad”), disgusted and horrified the world last May, and even provoked a Michelle Obama hashtag, by abducting over three hundred schoolgirls and selling them into sex slavery. Shekau even published a video in which he gloats about the abduction, telling the girls’ grieving families:
I abducted your girls. I will sell them on the market, by Allah….There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell.
Shekau had a point: the Qur’an really does allow for the owning of sex slaves. Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). It also says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general, as does this passage:
Certainly will the believers have succeeded: They who are during their prayer humbly submissive, and they who turn away from ill speech, and they who are observant of zakah, and they who guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed (Qur’an 23:1-6).
None – absolutely none – of the extensive international coverage of the abduction discussed the justifications for this practice within the Qur’an. This refusal to deal with the root causes only ensured that the practice would happen again, and it did later in the year, when the Islamic State pressed Yazidi and Christian women into sex slavery.
9. Britain’s capitulation on Muslim rape gangs
Britain’s Birmingham Mail reported in November that Birmingham’s City Council buried a report about Muslim cab drivers exploiting non-Muslim girls back in 1990.
A researcher, Dr. Jill Jesson, drafted a report on this issue. But, she explained,
the report was shelved, buried, it was never made public. I was shocked to be told that copies of the report were to be destroyed and that nothing further was to be said. Clearly, there was something in this report that someone in the department was worried about.
Authorities were worried because Jesson’s report illustrated that virtually all of the exploitative cab drivers were “Asians,” the British media euphemism for Muslims, and their victims were “white,” i.e., non-Muslim. The exploitation of these girls stems from Qur’an-based religious beliefs, but British officials were terrified because stopping this exploitation would appear “racist.”
Jesson elaborated:

Members of Congress come and go, and many leave Washington no better or worse than they found it. A few make a mark, and Congress is losing one of them: Tom Coburn.

The senator doesn’t leave behind him a stack of legislation with his name, or grand bipartisan deals. He doesn’t leave stunts, public tantrums, an adoring press corps, or, for that matter, many adoring GOP colleagues. Mr. Coburn didn’t really “do” legacy. Which is why this rather humble Oklahoman will have one.

What Mr. Coburn does leave is a more informed electorate and a better Republican Party—two groups that benefited enormously from his focus on first principles: adhering to the Constitution, limiting federal government, and protecting individual liberties. In his three terms in the House and 10 years in the Senate, he became most known for forcing Congress (in particular his own caucus) to reconcile its actions against those principles. His long-term efforts to decode the federal government—voluminous reports on waste and fraud, demands for more transparency—were likewise aimed at giving voters the tools they need to hold members true to those principles.

The real key to Mr. Coburn’s success was a skill too little valued in Washington today: hard work. He was an accountant and then an obstetrician before coming to D.C., and never lost that belief that he needed to earn his paycheck. He was in the office every morning by 7:30. He’d read every word of every report his staff gave him—and send it back with typos circled. He read every bill and objected if he wasn’t given the time to do so before a vote. He’d dive into monstrous sections of the federal government—the budget, veteran affairs, disability payments, the tax code—and not re-emerge until he knew it front to back. He was a policy innovator, in particular on health care.

Many was the time this reporter would stumble across some government outrage, and call Mr. Coburn’s office for his take—only to discover he’d written a bill to fix the problem a year earlier. That knowledge was power; he was a formidable opponent because he knew more than the appropriators, the negotiators, the bills’ authors. An all-time favorite line came from one of his staffers who, in the middle of a Coburn budget fight with Congress, wryly commented: “I don’t know why they bother. Fighting with Coburn over the budget is like waging a land war in Asia. You can’t win.”

Another Coburn strength was his skill at practicing politics, without being political. He knew every arcane rule in the Senate and was willing to use them to force a clarifying moment. When he first arrived in Washington, some accused him of grandstanding—until they realized his interest was in shining a light on everyone but himself. The pity is that history rarely hands out awards to those who stop bad things. Tom Coburn blocked more bad ideas and lousy legislation in Congress than most Americans will ever know.

An influx of new Security Council members means a likely ‘yes’ vote—and a veto dilemma for Obama.

Long-standing Palestinian efforts to use the United Nations to achieve internationally recognized statehood status nearly succeeded early Wednesday. Just after midnight, the Security Council narrowly rejected a Jordanian draft resolution fixing a one-year deadline for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, requiring Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 lines, and declaring Jerusalem the capital of “Palestine.”

Because the U.N. Charter requires nine affirmative votes from among the Security Council’s 15 members (assuming no vetoes) to pass a resolution, Jordan’s proposal failed—by one vote. There were eight in favor, two against, and five abstentions. Nonetheless, a pro-Palestinian, U.N. Charter-compliant majority may soon exist.

And absent more-effective U.S. diplomacy, the Obama administration could soon face making a choice that it would dearly like to avoid: whether to veto a biased, anti-Israel resolution. The Palestinian Authority has already significantly upped the ante by moving, later on Wednesday, to join the treaty creating the International Criminal Court.

A firmer U.S. strategy might have prevented the dilemma from arising. The White House’s opening diplomatic error was in sending strong signals to the media and U.S. allies that Mr. Obama, wary of offending Arab countries, was reluctant to veto any resolution favoring a Palestinian state. Secretary of State John Kerry took pains not to offer a view of the resolution before it was taken up. Such equivocation was a mistake because even this administration asserts that a permanent resolution of the Israeli-Arab conflict requires direct negotiations and agreements among the parties themselves.

No draft resolution contrary to these precepts should be acceptable to the U.S., or worth wasting time on in the diplomatic pursuit of a more moderate version. This American view, advocated for years and backed by resolute threats to veto anything that contradicted it, has previously dissuaded the Palestinians from blue-smoke-and-mirror projects in the Security Council.

Remembering the Pro-Israel Work of a 104-Year-Old Oscar Winning Actress By Daniel Greenfield

Luise Rainer, an actress who won two Oscars back to back after emigrating from Germany, died at the age of 104. While she is remembering for her place in old Hollywood, often overlooked is the pro-Israel work of this Jewish actress.

Rainer participated in the United Palestine Appeal’s Night of Stars (Palestine was the British Latin designation used for a colonial territory that included Israel). She was the chairwoman of the American tour of the Habima Theater, which stood to reason as her acting aspirations had begun as a young girl when she planned to join the Habima Theater.

Newspaper accounts show her continuing to appear at Combined Jewish Appeal events alongside Israeli speakers. While coverage of her largely vanished when she walked away from Hollywood as a young woman, it would appear that she remained active in pro-Israel coverage.

There have been few interviews of Rainer in recent years even though she remained articulate and clearminded.

A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll reveals that nearly 6 in 10 people believe race relations are bad, with 23% saying they are “very bad.” The causes of these perceptions are many, including nationally publicized police killings of two black men, disorderly and violent demonstrators ignoring the facts of the cases to brand the police “racist,” a lazy media neglecting to dig up and then publicize those facts, and a president, Attorney General, and mayor of New York willing to exploit and widen racial division and consort with hustlers like Al Sharpton.

What we see at work in these events is the long established racial narrative in which endemic white racism accounts for all the ills that afflict black people. Not just individual whites harbor this original sin, but our educational, political, social, justice, and economic institutions are racist as well, favoring white people and hence conferring on them “white skin privilege.” The wide scope of racism means that no matter how well meaning towards blacks, or how socially and economically disadvantaged, individual whites cannot purge themselves of racism. Only radical transformation of all our institutions can redeem America from racism.

This fairytale regularly ignores numerous facts. The decline in black poverty, for example, calls into question the notion that there is “institutional racism” warping the economy. Thanks to postwar economic growth, the black poverty rate decreased from 87% in 1940 to 28% today. Similar improvement can be seen in the growth of the black middle class and increases in black home ownership. And the claim that blacks are shut out of the job market is hard to square with the fact that millions of illegal aliens are working in this country, and immigrant entrepreneurs are creating small businesses.

Similarly, the idea that the police are an “occupying army” targeting blacks, a cliché we heard repeatedly during the recent demonstrations over the police shootings in Ferguson and Brooklyn, is exploded by simple statistics that show about 200 blacks a year––most shot while possessing a gun or knife––are killed by police officers, while almost 6,000 a year are killed by other blacks. It’s a strange “army” that endangers itself in order to protect and save the lives of those it’s allegedly “occupying.”

Then there’s the “voter suppression” charge, the assertion that attempts by states to ensure only legal voters cast ballots really are designed to discourage black voters. The increasing numbers of black people registering and turning out to vote belie this claim, as does the much greater number of blacks holding elected office. Indeed, in 2012 the proportion of black voters turning out in the national election was greater than that of white.