RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2011/5/10/main-feature/1/israel-the-miracle May 10, 2011
In May 1998, the eminent British historian Paul Johnson published an essay in Commentary to mark Israel’s 50th birthday; marking its 63rd, we re-publish the essay here.—The Editors

The state of Israel is the product of more than 4,000 years of Jewish history. “If you want to understand our country, read this!” said David Ben-Gurion on the first occasion I met him, in 1957. And he slapped the Bible. But the creation and survival of Israel are also very much a 20th-century phenomenon, one that could not have happened without the violence and cruelty, the agonies, confusions, and cross-currents of our tragic age. It could even be argued that Israel is the most characteristic single product, and its creation the quintessential event, of this century.

Certainly, you cannot study Israel without traveling the historical highroads and many of the byroads of the times, beginning with the outbreak of World War I in 1914. That great watershed between an age of peace and moderation and one of violence and extremism set the pattern for all that followed, and marked a turning point as well in the fortunes of Zionism.

http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2012/2/2/main-feature/1/hear-o-friends-of-israel/e

PAUL JOHNSON’S HISTORY OF THE JEWS IS A MEMORABLE BOOK AND HIS LAST LINES MOVED ME TO TEARS AS I READ THEM THEN AND NOW……

“That Jews over the millennia should attract such unparalleled, indeed, inexplicable hatred, would be regrettable, but only to be expected. Above all, that the Jews should still survive, when all those other ancient people were transmuted or vanished into the oubliettes of history, was wholly predictable. How could it be otherwise? Providence decreed it and the Jews obeyed. The historian may say: there is no such thing as providence. Possibly not. But human confidence in such an historical dynamic, if it is strong and tenacious enough, is a force in itself which pushes on the hinges of events and moves them. The Jews believed they were a special people with such unanimity and passion, and over so long a span that they became one. They did indeed have a role because they wrote it for themselves. Therein, perhaps lies the key to their story”

HERE IS HIS SON’S WONDERFUL TRIBUTE:

In 1987, exactly a quarter-century ago, the appearance of a work of Jewish history caused a stir. For one thing, the author was not Jewish; for another, the book was unashamedly supportive of the State of Israel, which even then was enough to provoke hostility, especially on the Left. I refer to A History of the Jews, not merely out of filial pride (the author was my father, Paul Johnson) but because my work on the manuscript earned me a mention in the acknowledgements. To this day A History of the Jews has never been out of print, and it occupies a unique place in the historiography of the subject. Friends, acquaintances, and complete strangers, Jews and Gentiles alike, often come up to me to pay tribute to my father. This is less surprising if one has read the book, which concludes with a rousing affirmation of a story that has often been treated as an endless catalogue of persecution and suffering:

The Prime Ministers An Intimate Narrative of Israeli Leadership by Yehuda Avner
New Milford, Conn. and Jerusalem: The Toby Press, LLC 1, 2010. 715 pp. $29.95

Reviewed by Asaf Romirowsky
http://www.romirowsky.com/11112/the-prime-ministers

Former Israeli ambassador Avner offers a literary, distinctive, and colorful look into the inner sanctums of diplomacy and politics of the Jewish state. As speech writer and secretary to prime ministers Eshkol and Meir, adviser to prime ministers Rabin, Begin, and Peres, and ambassador to the court of St. James, Avner is uniquely positioned to bring to light the qualities and the temperaments of these leaders, so influential in laying the foundations of the state of Israel.

Most significantly, Avner shows through firsthand accounts that Israeli prime ministers on the left and the right worked diligently toward peace against seemingly insurmountable odds. His distinctive contribution is to disclose the brainstorming that took place behind closed doors before and after difficult decisions were made public.

The Prime Ministers illustrates how Israeli statesmen have dealt with and represented the Jewish state to the global community, highlighting the quandaries in which civil servants often find themselves. Israeli ambassadors to the United States, for example, are required to negotiate the political Beltway—as well as the American Jewish community at large—as representatives of the State of Israel, not as commanders or even policymakers. Yitzhak Rabin, for example, was revered as the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff and later the prime minister who dared to embark on the Oslo peace process. But although Rabin understood the need to make a case for Israel in the U.S. political system, as ambassador to the United States in 1968, he was not savvy enough to know what methods might actually backfire. In the eyes of polished diplomats like Abba Eban, Rabin did not seem suited for the role; Eban often complained to Begin and other members of the Israeli parliament about Rabin’s vocal support for Richard Nixon, jumping into what Eban argued should be a non-issue in U.S.-Israeli relations. By 1992, when Rabin was elected prime minister for the second time, it was clear he had learned from the past. Managing to find just the right combination of toughness and flexibility, he charmed Washington and specifically then-president Bill Clinton, who considered him a seasoned diplomat and warrior.

Avner also offers valuable insight to those of his countrymen who would pursue a diplomatic career: “[I]t is not enough for an Israeli ambassador here to simply say ‘I’m pursuing my country’s best interests according to the book.’ … An Israeli ambassador who is … unwilling to maneuver his way through the complex American political landscape to promote Israel’s strategic interests would do well to pack his bags and go home.”

http://www.romirowsky.com/11111/recognition-to-what-end In terms of economics the notion of mutual recognition refers to international agreements in which two or more countries agree to recognize one another and guarantee free movement of goods and services without the need to harmonize member states’ national legislation. A good illustration of this would be the European Union. The Middle East […]

http://letthemfight.blogspot.com/

After ten years of nearly constant derisiveness and complacency toward force protection and convenient ignorance of policies that have caused the severe wounding and killing of thousands of American Servicemen, The New York Times took the time to write about the loss of income for Afghan businesses in Afghanistan. The businesses they were lamenting have been thriving for most of these past ten years on what they declared to be 54 billion dollars in aid skimmed largely from US government coffers at the expense of the American Taxpayer; taxpayers, President Obama and his” port side” colleagues feel aren’t paying enough to support government ventures as it is now.

The New York Times shouldn’t fret, however, for it is just a matter of time before the appropriate Federal Department makes the case that in order for the training effort to be successful, we will have to continue to financially support the effort. It is important for the Times to reconsider it’s perception of Afghan businesses as entrepreneurial genius and see them for what they truly are; the pragmatic exploitation of funding by Islam’s spiritual enemies from the west. It is also worth their while to consider appearance of transformation within that society for what it is; Islamic pragmatism.

http://sarahhonig.com/2012/02/02/another-tack-with-intent-to-deceive/

Appearing in Ramallah on the Palestinian Authority’s Shaheed (martyr) Day, Knesset Member Ahmed Tibi proclaimed that “nobody is more admirable than the shaheed… the ultimate source of pride… the symbol of the homeland… who blazes the trail for us and paves the path to liberty with his blood.”

To preempt Israeli backlash, Tibi feigned innocence. The word shaheed, he averred, means a person “killed by the occupation.”

Yet in everyday Arabic, suicide-bombers and perpetrators of any bloodcurdling atrocity in Allah’s name are popularly dubbed shaheeds. The Palestinian Authority’s media, schools and mosques – all under professed moderate Mahmoud Abbas’s control – glorify shaheeds as models of emulation for all, from pint-sized preschoolers onward.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/14661/Read-All-About-it-Al-Gores-melting-Antarctic-claims-refuted-by-reality–Climate-Depots-AZ-Global-Warming-Report-counters-Gore

Read All About it: Al Gore’s ‘melting’ Antarctic claims refuted by reality — Climate Depot’s A-Z Global Warming Report counters Gore — Poor Al: Antarctica has been cooling and sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in past few summers’

Al Gore’s trek to Antarctica with global warming activists Richard Branson, NASA’s James Hansen and Climategate’s Kevin Trenberth among many others, is designed to alarm the public that somehow something is amiss there. Gore is warming of a melting continent.

“The ice on land is melting at a faster rate and large ice sheets are moving toward the ocean more rapidly. As a result, sea levels are rising worldwide,” Gore wrote on January 31 during his visit to Antarctica. [See: Gore in Antarctica! Warns of rapid melting and rising seas! See more reports on Gore’s Antarctic trip here.]

But beginning on page 7, Climate Depot’s A-Z Climate Reality Check makes a mockery of Gore and company’s claims. The vast majority of Antarctica is cooling and gaining ice, according to recent peer-reviewed studies and data.

As for sea levels, Gore is apparently clueless on the latest sea level data. See: European Space Agency global sea level reveals ‘two year long decline was continuing, at a rate of 5mm per year’ & ‘In August 2011, NASA announced that global sea level was dropping and was ‘a quarter of an inch lower than last summer.’ [See related Gore reports: Climate Depot’s Point-By-Point Rebuttal to Gore’s Highbrow Scientific Arguments & Greens Give Gore 2 Thumbs Down: Gore’s climate ‘reality’ show faces strongly negative reviews from his fellow global warming activists]

http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com/2012/02/amusement-park-turns-serious.html “In pretty much all of the scenarios and solutions regarding Israel and the “Palestinian” Arabs, that “they” present, be they “liberal”, “post”, open minded or just good ole anarchists, their paths all lead to a common end, the disappearance of Israel as a Jewish State as we know it. Some of the solutions are […]

http://michaelcutler.net/

http://www.caps-blog.org/articles/2012/02/02/napolitano-links-homeland-security-economy-thus-demonstrating-lack-of-mouth-ear-coordination/

Hi Gang:
My commentary today focuses on my most recent article for the CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) website which I have attached below. This time we will consider the statements made by none other than Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of the DHS, the agency I have come to refer to as the Department of Homeland Surrender.

If we were to prioritize the most important reasons that a government exists, protecting the lives and well being of the citizens of the country that is under the jurisdiction of that government would have to rate as the number one purpose for a government. In order to achieve that critical goal most countries have assembled military forces that are supposed to keep the enemies of those nations as far from the borders of those countries as possible, thereby preventing their respective countries from being invaded and/or attacked by their enemies.

From a military perspective, the borders of the nation it defends are the last line of defense while for law enforcement agencies within those countries, the borders are the first line of defense. Clearly the borders of a nation are of extreme importance and go to the very issue of sovereignty! When we studied geography back in school, whether it was in elementary school or at the university level, borders defined the nations that we studied and, throughout history, conflicts that resulted in wars often began over the issue of the placement of borders.

Our nation’s well being obviously depends on its security. Security, however, cannot be achieved when our borders only exist on maps and where unknown millions of illegal aliens who have evaded the vetting process that being inspected by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors provides. Yet the President and many of our nation’s politicians have declared that it would be appropriate to provide a “pathway to citizenship” or at the very least, a “pathway to legal status” to unknown millions of illegal aliens whose true identities including their countries of citizenship and criminal backgrounds and possible association with criminal or terrorist organizations is unknown and unknowable.

http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/4428

On a stage adorned with American flags and amid the glitter of Las Vegas, Donald Trump, who had been threatening a third party run for the presidency, revealed he is endorsing Mitt Romney for president of the United States. Earlier in the day it had been rumored that ‘The Donald’ would be endorsing New Gingrich but that turned out to be false. Whether ‘The Donald’s’ gurus in media attention planned the “mistake” we will probably never know. A more valid question is this. Why should we care who Donald Trump endorses for President?

To say that ‘The Donald’ has a penchant for attracting the white-hot lights of media attention would be to state the blatantly obvious. For months Mr. Trump advanced the idea that he might enter the race for the presidency but whenever pushed to declare “yea” or “nay” alluded to the ridiculous notion that his contract with NBC wouldn’t “allow” him to run…equal time restrictions, don’t you know. Right. And if you believe that…well, “you’re fired!”