RUTHFULLY YOURS

There are different kinds of bombs.

Presently we are experiencing bombs falling on Israel, launched by a terrorist government whose goal is the demise of the State of Israel and the annihilation of all its Jewish citizens.

Simultaneously Israel is returning the favor, not in an effort to kill all Gazan Arabs, rather to exterminate the animals who are causing ‘Red Alert’ to be sounded, not only in Sderot, Ashkelon and Ashdod, but also in Beit Shemesh, Jerusalem, Haifa, Caesarea, Tel Aviv, Nes Tziona, Rishon L’Tzion, and many other places, and yes, including even Hebron. (The unconfirmed rumors are that the missile aimed at us fell in the Arab village Daharia, in the Southern Hebron Hills, killing three Arabs.)

Last night one of my granddaughters, who lives in Beit Haggai, in the southern Hebron Hills, where too there was a siren yesterday, called me. Her father (my son) was called up a few days ago in the emergency draft. In tears she whispered, “Saba, I’m afraid.”

There are major differences between our bombs and their bombs. They are aiming for Ben Gurion airport. Their primary targets are civilians.Apartment buildings. Factories. Shopping centers. Wherever. The more dead, the better. After all, that’s the goal.

Before Israel releases its bombs, the intended ‘house’ is notified. Not once, rather twice. “Get out, we are going to bomb this house.” The people inside have, not 15 seconds, but five minutes to evacuate. Then a ‘warning flare’ is released. “We are serious about this.” And only after both these warnings, is the building destroyed.

Of course, these are not random dwellings. These are the home bases of the beasts trying to destroy Israel. If the people inside take the alerts seriously, they are not injured. But lately, the Hamas terror leadership in Gaza has told its citizens to ‘ignore’ the Israeli forewarning. Not only don’t they care if their own civilians are killed. To the contrary, they prefer it. That way they have good photos to show the international media and at the UN.

The goal of Israel’s war against Hamas’ terrorism – which has systematically and deliberately launched missiles at civilians – must not be another ceasefire, but the devastation of the entire infrastructure of Hamas’ fire – logistically, operationally, financially, educationally and politically.

The goal of Israel’s war against Hamas’ terrorism – which has grown in power following each round of clashes and ceasefire – must not be an end to the current cycle of violence, but ending the cyclical pattern of violence, by destroying Hamas’ terrorist capabilities.

The goal of Israel’s war against Hamas’ terrorism – which directly impacts Israel’s confrontation with Iran, regional Islamic terrorism, Hezbollah and other enemies – must be the restoration of Israel’s posture of deterrence, which has been severely undermined by the twenty-one year-old Oslo-driven policy of engagement and containment – rather than devastating – the dramatically expanding Palestinian and Hezbollah infrastructures of hate education, terrorism, in general, and missile capabilities, in particular. Israel’s posture of deterrence has also been crippled by putting up with systematic Palestinian non-compliance, while rewarding Palestinian belligerence and terrorism with territorial, diplomatic and economic concessions; tolerating the deliberate and extensive Palestinian destruction of Temple Mount archeology; and the massive release of Palestinian arch-terrorists.

Israel’s posture of deterrence constitutes the most crucial axis of Israel’s national security in the face of the rising tide of Islamic terrorism, the Arab Tsunami and increasingly violent Muslim intolerance towards the “infidel” Christians and Jews, contending that the Middle East (as well as Spain, Portugal, Southern France, Sicily and parts of Italy’s mainland) is divinely-ordained to Muslims.

A national posture of deterrence is doubly crucial in the Middle East, the world’s leading breeding ground of terrorism, where compromise, concession, retreat and the lack of unyielding posture are perceived by the Muslim/Arab street as indecisiveness, insecurity and weakness, thus fueling further radicalism, violence, terrorism and war.

This op-ed was co-authored with Dr. Daniel Mandel, Director of the ZOA’s Center for Middle East Policy and author of H.V. Evatt & the Creation of Israel (Routledge, London, 2004).

Israelis were traumatized in recent weeks by the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli youths — Eyal Yifrah, 19, Gilad Shaar, 16, and Naftali Fraenkel, 16 — by the Hamas terrorist group, now part of Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah Palestinian Authority (PA) regime. Days later, an Arab Israeli teenager, Muhammad Abu Khdeir, 16, was murdered by what appears to have been a violent underworld group of Jewish Israelis. Former Jerusalem Post editor, David Horovitz, immediately wrote a tendentious article, painting an inaccurate and ugly image of Israeli society, ‘A sobering moment for complacent Israel’ (July 7), in which he contended that “the killing of Muhammed Abu Khdeir must rid us of the illusion that we enjoy a distinctive moral superiority over our neighbors … [without] a reverence for life, we have no particular right to be here at all.”

Indeed, Horovitz thinks that this admittedly horrific, bestial crime tells us something about Israelis in general that we didn’t know, or care to think, before: “We Israelis knew we had nothing in common with those Hamas killers who so callously ended the lives of three innocent Israeli teenagers; we were wrong.”

But it is David Horovitz who is wrong. First, Israel’s national existence, like that of other countries, is not conditional on a “distinctive moral superiority” — which Israel actually possesses over its enemies. Second, the way to gauge whether a society supports or reviles terrorism is to observe its reaction to it. Comparison here is instructive.

Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority (PA) has institutionally glorified terrorism against Jews as a national and religious duty. The PA honors, lauds and rewards terrorists — by naming schools andstreets after them; by calling them ‘martyrs’ and paying condolence calls on their families when they’re killed; by hiding wanted terrorists in Abbas’ presidential compound; by paying stipends to those imprisoned and pensions to the families of those deceased; and by demanding the release of jailed terrorists by Israel as precondition of further negotiations.

“I believe that adulterers should be stoned to death. I believe that we should cut the hands off of thieves. I believe the Sharia should be implemented in Denmark. Maybe we should change the Christiansborg Palace [the Danish Parliament building] to Muslimsborg to have the flag of Islam flying over the parliament in Denmark. I think this would be very nice.” — Anjem Choudary, while in Denmark to establish Islam4dk in June 2014.

“[Choudary’s network] has now been proscribed as a terrorist organization operating under 11 different names, but neither he nor any one of his associates has so far been prosecuted for membership of an illegal group.” — Times of London.

“The cure for depression is jihad.” — Abdul Raqib Amin (aka Abu Bara al-Hindi), Scottish jihadist.

The British government has banned three groups linked to Anjem Choudary, a Muslim hate preacher who wants to turn the United Kingdom into an Islamic state.

The move comes after the groups were found to have organized jihadist recruitment meetings in which two Muslim youths from Cardiff were persuaded to fight with Islamic insurgents in Syria.

The Home Office said on June 26 that the groups Need4Khilafah, The Shariah Project and The Islamic Dawah Association are all aliases of al-Muhajiroun, a Salafi-Wahhabi extremist group that was banned in 2006 but has continued to operate ever since then by using different names.

Al-Muhajiroun (Arabic for “The Emigrants”) has also operated under a host of other names, including al-Ghurabaa (Arabic for “The Strangers”), The Saved Sect (aka The Savior Sect), Muslims Against Crusades, Muslim Prisoners, Islamic Path, Islam4UK, Women4Sharia and Islamic Emergency Defence, which is still operational.

Al-Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect were both banned in July 2006, after they organized a march through downtown London to protest the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed. Demonstrators linked to the groups waved placards reading, “Butcher those who mock Islam,” “Kill those who insult Islam,” and “Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on the way.”

Islam4UK was banned in January 2010. At the time, the group described itself as having been “established by sincere Muslims as a platform to propagate the supreme Islamic ideology within the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law” to “convince the British public about the superiority of Islam, thereby changing public opinion in favor of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power to the Muslims in order to implement the Sharia [in Britain].”

Muslims Against Crusades was banned in November 2011, after the group launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates were to function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.

All of the bans have been based on the Terrorism Act 2000, which states that a group can be proscribed if it “commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for, promotes or encourages terrorism or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

Section 1.1 of the Act defines terrorism as the “use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international governmental organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public…for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.”

Announcing the latest ban, Britain’s Minister for Security and Immigration, James Brokenshire, said, “Terrorist organisations should not be allowed to escape proscription simply by acting under a different name.” He continued:

The irrevocable Islamic and Koranic injunction upon all Muslims is to wage relentless war against any non-Muslim nation state that exists within what Islam decrees as the Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam). Wherever the Muslim foot has trod triumphal in the name of Allah, that territory is considered eternally Islamic land. If it is lost, then it enters the Dar al-Harb (the House of War) and must be retaken and the population either forcibly converted to Islam, forced into dhimmi degradation, or exterminated.

According to Abraham I. Katsh, who wrote the following as far back as 1954 in his book, Judaism and the Koran:

“The duty of Jihad, the waging of Holy War, has been raised to the dignity of a sixth canonical obligation … To the Moslem, the world is divided into regions under Islamic control, the dar al-Islam, and regions not subjected as yet, the dar al-harb.

“Between this area of warfare and the Muslim dominated part of the world there can be no peace. Practical considerations may induce the Muslim leaders to conclude an armistice, but the obligation to conquer and, if possible, convert never lapses. Nor can territory once under Muslim rule be lawfully yielded to the unbeliever. Legal theory has gone so far as to define as dar al-Islam any area where at least one Muslim custom is observed.

“Thanks to this concept, the Moslem is required to subdue the infidel, and he who dies in the path of Allah is considered a martyr and assured of Paradise and of unique privileges there.”

It is not only Israel, the Jewish state, that is to be warred and aggressed against by the followers of the “religion of peace” but all lands that have been lost to erstwhile Muslim invasion and occupation: They include Spain, Portugal, Sicily, parts of France and Italy, Hungary, Austria, the Balkans, Greece, southern Russia, India—all lands considered to be in the Dar al Harb. And the Islamic war is against not only Christians and Jews, but Hindus, Buddhists, Bahai, and all non-Muslim faiths or those who have no faith.

As a veteran, and as a governor who has supported Texas National Guard deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, I can understand the emotions behind isolationism. Many people are tired of war, and the urge to pull back is a natural, human reaction. Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further.
That’s why it’s disheartening to hear fellow Republicans, such as Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), suggest that our nation should ignore what’s happening in Iraq. The main problem with this argument is that it means ignoring the profound threat that the group now calling itself the Islamic State poses to the United States and the world.
In the Islamic State, which came to prominence in Syria and now controls ample territory, weapons and cash in both that country and Iraq, the world is confronting an even more radicalized version of Islamic extremism than al-Qaeda. This group is well-trained, technologically sophisticated and adept at recruitment, with thousands of people with European passports fighting on its side, as well as some Americans.
This represents a real threat to our national security — to which Paul seems curiously blind — because any of these passport carriers can simply buy a plane ticket and show up in the United States without even a visa. It’s particularly chilling when you consider that one American has alreadycarried out a suicide bombing and a terrorist-trained European allegedlykilled four at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.
Yet Paul still advocates inaction, going so far as to claim in an op-ed last month in the Wall Street Journal that President Ronald Reagan’s own doctrines would lead him to same conclusion.
But his analysis is wrong. Paul conveniently omitted Reagan’s long internationalist record of leading the world with moral and strategic clarity.
Unlike the noninterventionists of today, Reagan believed that our security and economic prosperity require persistent engagement and leadership abroad. He, like Eisenhower before him, refused to heed “the false prophets of living alone.”
Reagan identified Soviet communism as an existential threat to our national security and Western values, and he confronted this threat in every theater. Today, we count his many actions as critical to the ultimate defeat of the Soviet Union and the freeing of hundreds of millions from tyranny.

http://micahedmond.com/about/

Micah’s life is a testament to the American dream, proving that anyone can succeed in America regardless of race, religion, or socio-economic status. From humble beginnings in Columbia, South Carolina Micah was adopted by a Jewish family at the end of high school and converted to Judaism.

Understanding the value of education, Micah put himself through Williams College serving in the local Massachusetts Air National Guard and working campus jobs like washing dishes.

Upon graduation Micah started a career on Wall Street, but felt a deeper call to public service. He joined the Marine Corps, was commissioned at Quantico, Virginia and after two overseas tours returned to Alexandria, Virginia to serve his last tour at the Pentagon. During his eight years in the Marine Corps, Micah served as aid-de-camp for two senior generals and speechwriter for the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

After leaving the Marine Corps, Micah continued his public service as a senior staffer for multiple members of the House Armed Services Committee. As a congressional staffer he also served as President of the Congressional Jewish Staff Association.

Micah returned to the private sector by launching his own consulting firm to advise businesses on the impact of federal spending and regulations in the national security sector.

While in private practice, Micah was called back into public service as the senior defense advisor for President Obama’s Simpson Bowles Commission and the U.S. Congress’ Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction where he produced bi-partisan solutions to solve our federal budget deficit and national debt problems.

Once again returning to the private sector at the Aerospace Industries Association, Micah was a key advocate for the U.S. Industrial Base, which supports thousands of local jobs, small businesses and new careers in the science, technology, engineering and math fields.

Micah’s eighteen years of work experience in the public and private sector provide him a broad understanding of the array of issues facing constituents in the 8th District; including small businesses owners, those serving in the military, employed by the federal government or large federal contractors.

Micah attended Williams College for his BA and Johns Hopkins for his MA and MBA. He is a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Why does America convey neutrality between a nation that is indisputably free and a government that is not?

On June 2, the Palestinians announced a new unity government, which included Hamas, an organization designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist group.

American aid to the Palestinians since the mid-1990’s, according to a Congressional Research Service report, has exceeded $5 billion. In recent years it has averaged $500 million per year.

The report notes three major U.S. objectives of these funds: preventing terrorism against Israel from Hamas; fostering “stability, prosperity, and self-governance on the West Bank”; humanitarian aid.

When Hamas joined the Palestinian government on June 2, the United States recognized the new government and there was no indication that the substantial funding Palestinians get from American taxpayers would be impacted. Business as usual would continue.

It shouldn’t surprise that U.S acceptance was seen as a green light for terror. Shortly thereafter, missiles started flying again from the Hamas-governed Gaza strip into Israel, and shortly after that, three teenage Israeli boys, one with dual American-Israeli citizenship, were kidnapped and murdered.

The response from America’s president to the kidnapping/murders was to convey American neutrality to an act of terror and to “urge all parties to refrain from steps that would further destabilize the situation.”

It should be clear to all that the world is spinning out of control and becoming an increasingly dangerous place because where there is supposed to be leadership from the leader of the free world there is now a vacuum.

Even independent of the inclusion of a designated terrorist organization in the Palestinian government, the neutral posture of the current American government toward the Palestinian Authority vis- a- vis Israel is quite incredible.

Freedom House is a non-partisan organization in Washington that rates nations around the world regarding freedom. Nations are rated either “free, partially free, or not free.”

Israel is rated “free” and on a scale of 1 – 7, where “1” is the highest rating, Israel is graded 1 on “political rights” and 2 on “civil liberties.”

Attorney General Eric Holder can hardly contain his tears when explaining his program titled “Justice AmeriCorps,” to provide emergency legal representation for the tens of thousands of Central American minors crashing our southern border.

“How we treat those in need, particularly young people who must appear in immigration proceedings, many of whom are fleeing violence, persecution, abuse or trafficking – goes to the core of who we are as a nation,” Holder said while detailing his program to provide 100 lawyers and paralegals for the minors.

And yet it was (then) Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder who concocted the “legal” cover for the INS to mace, kick, stomp, and gun-butt their way into the home of Elian Gonzalez’s legal custodians (legal U.S. citizens and residents all) on the morning of April 22, 2000, wrench a bawling 6-year-old child from his family at machine-gun point and bundle him off to Castro’s terror-sponsoring fiefdom, leaving 102 people (legal U.S. citizens and residents all) injured, some seriously.

Even as the mace dispersed and Elian’s custodians sought medical help for their injuries, FoxNews Andrew Napolitano already had Eric Holder’s number:

“Tell me, Mr. Holder,” Judge Napolitano asked on April 23, 2000, “why did you not get a court order authorizing you to go in and get the boy [Elian Gonzalez]?”

Holder: Because we didn’t need a court order. INS can do this on its own.

Napolitano: You know that a court order would have given you the cloak of respectability to have seized the boy.

Holder: We didn’t need an order.

Napolitano: Then why did you ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for such an order if you didn’t need one?

Holder: [Silence]

Napolitano: The fact is, for the first time in history you have taken a child from his residence at gunpoint to enforce your custody position, even though you did not have an order authorizing it. When is the last time a boy, a child, was taken at the point of a gun without an order of a judge…Unprecedented in American history.”

Holder: “He was not taken at the point of a gun.”

After a light-hearted exchange about the chance of reaching our destination without getting hit by a missile barrage, my taxi driver’s tone darkened.

“Tell me the truth,” he said. “How do feel when the siren goes off?”

“Startled,” I answered. “But getting used to it.” (Thanks to Iron Dome, I thought, otherwise I would probably be as terrified as the residents of Sderot and other southern towns, who have been under this blitz for years.)

Stopping at a red light, the driver leaned over to me and lowered his voice.

“It scares me to death,” he admitted, in what struck me as a feat of extraordinary bravery for an Israeli male.

He then explained that he has been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder since being seriously wounded 12 years ago in a suicide bombing. Though he has learned to keep it under some degree of control, he said he relives the horror “every time there’s a flare-up in the situation.”

Little wonder.

It happened on a Friday afternoon, on April 12, 2002, at the Mahane Yehuda outdoor market in Jerusalem, when a 17-year-old girl belonging to the Hebron branch of the Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades detonated an explosive device strapped to her body. Four people were killed that day, including two foreign workers from China, and more than 100 were wounded, among them my taxi driver, all because they were out shopping for food for Shabbat.

It was one of many such grotesque attacks on innocent civilians carried out by Palestinian terrorists from Gaza and Judea and Samaria. The aim to annihilate the Jewish state is one thing these assaults had in common. Another is that each was the result of peace talks.

Indeed, the bombing in question was part of the Second Intifada, waged against Israel following the so-called “failure” of the 2000 Camp David Summit. In fact, it was the inevitable outcome of Israeli peace overtures and concessions to Palestinian Liberation Organization chief Yasser Arafat. An arch-terrorist with genocidal goals and behavior, the Nobel Peace prize he won for signing the Oslo Accords became his most lethal weapon. And he used it with a vengeance.