RUTHFULLY YOURS

“Jordan is not the only Arab country that does not consider the Palestinians trustworthy partners. The Jordanians still have painful memories from the early 1970s, when the PLO and other Palestinian groups tried to establish a state within a state inside the kingdom, and thus threatened Jordan’s security and stability. Today, there is only one solution: maintain the status quo until Palestinian leaders wake up and start working to improve the living conditions of their people and prepare them for peace with Israel.”

In a rare moment of truth, former Jordanian Prime Minister Abdel Salam Majali admitted that the Palestinians were not “fully qualified to assume their responsibilities, especially in the financial field, in wake of the failure of the Arab countries to support them.”

According to the study, the Jordanian public is totally opposed to the idea of confederation, even after the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. The Jordanians fear, among other things, that the confederation would lead to the “dilution” of the Jordanian identity, create instability and undermine security in the kingdom.

The reality on the ground is that the two-state solution has already been fulfilled: in the end, the Palestinians got two mini-states of their own – one governed by the Palestinian Authority and the second by Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Today, there is only one solution: maintain the status quo until Palestinian leaders wake up and start working to improve the living conditions of their people and prepare them for peace with Israel.

Talk about a confederation between the Palestinians and Jordan has once again resurfaced, this time after a series of unofficial meetings in Amman and the West Bank in the past few weeks. Jordan, fearing that such confederation would end up with the Hashemite kingdom transformed into a Palestinian state, is not currently keen on the idea.

Many Palestinians have also expressed reservations about the idea. They argue that a confederation could harm their effort to establish an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

According to Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr, the first loyalty of radicals is to Islam while the first loyalty for moderates, regardless of their religion, is to the state. Radicals reject the idea of religious equality because Allah’s true religion is Islam; moderates accept it.

Radicals, Khadr charges, also marvel that the moderate “finds hatred for non-Muslims unacceptable.”

If true — and disturbing polls certainly indicate that Khadr’s findings are prevalent — the West may need to rethink one of its main means of countering radical Islam: moderate Muslims and moderate Islam.

After his recent electoral victory, it emerged that Sadiq Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, had described moderate Muslim groups as “Uncle Toms” — a racial slur used against blacks perceived to be subservient to whites, or, in this context, Muslims who embrace “moderate Islam” as, in his view, a way of being subservient to the West.

One of Iran’s highest clerics apparently shares the same convictions. After asserting that “revolutionary Islam is the same as pure Muhammadan Islam,” Ayatollah Tabatabaeinejad recently said:

“Some say our Islam is not revolutionary Islam, but we must say to them that non-revolutionary Islam is the same as American Islam. Islam commands us to be firm against the enemies and be kind and compassionate toward each other and not be afraid of anything…”

According to the AB News Agency,

“Ayatollah Tabatabaeinejad stated that revolutionary Islam is this same Islam. It is the Islam that is within us that can create changes. The warriors realized that Islam is not just prayers and fasting, but rather they stood against the enemies in support of Islam.”

How many Muslims share these convictions, one from a Sunni living (and now governing) in London, the other from a Shia living and governing in the Middle East?

According to an Arabic language article, (in translation) “The Truth about the Moderate Muslim as Seen by the West and its Muslim Followers,” by Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr in 2011:

“Islamic researchers are agreed that what the West and its followers call ‘moderate Islam’ and ‘moderate Muslims’ is simply a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam, a rift among Muslims, a spark to ignite war among them. They also see that the division of Islam into ‘moderate Islam’ and ‘radical Islam’ has no basis in Islam — neither in its doctrines and rulings, nor in its understandings or reality.

Hearing chants of “Long live the Intifada” on video shot at UCI Wednesday night brings back the tumultuous and scary days as a campus rabbi at University of California, Irvine. (Video below)
As the campus rabbi at UCI for almost five years, I became accustomed to constant anti-Israel programs, racist and anti-semitic speakers, anti-Israel marches, protests and disruptions and an administration that looked the other way or denied how bad it was.
The atmosphere was so toxic, that in a blog post in May of 2006, I coined the phrase “UC Intifada” to describe their hateful anti-Israel, anti-Jewish campaign.
The Muslim Student Union later adopted it as their motto, made t-shirts, and it can be seen today on the Students for Justice – UCI Facebook page.
The most infamous episode — but by no means the worst — was in February 2010, when eleven Muslim students conspired to prevent Ambassador Michael Oren from speaking, and then lied about it. This embarrassed then UCI President Drake and the University, and the climate improved as the ring-leaders were now having to defend themselves on criminal misdemeanor charges. They had less time to parade hate and racism. I was asked by a prominent muslim leader to sign a letter requesting charges be dropped. I agreed on condition the group apologize for their behavior. They showed zero remorse.

“Relax, Lieberman won’t bomb Egypt… He’s a pragmatist and he’s harmless”
100 years on, the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Jon Stewart and Joe Biden all agree…
Aryeh’s violin: The Improbable Happiness of Israelis (& Turkish brawl as MPs beat up Kurds)
How British leftists omitted Jews from the list of Holocaust victims

“Relax, Lieberman won’t bomb Egypt… He’s a pragmatist and he’s harmless”I attach several articles concerning the agreement in Israel to bring the Yisrael Beiteinu party into the governing coalition, and appoint its leader, Avigdor Lieberman, as defense minister.

The New York Times Upfront magazine, distributed by paid subscription to approximately 1 million American 8th to 12th graders, recently included an article, “How the Middle East Got that Way.” Author Joseph Berger, former Times reporter, blames the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 for the current mess in the Middle East.

In his view, “a century ago, two diplomats carved out lines on the Middle East map, creating new nations and sowing the seeds for much of the strife in the region today.”

Referring to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Berger tells students, “Most Arabs opposed the Zionist movement, which called for a Jewish state in Palestine. But world pressure to create a Jewish homeland increased after World War II… because 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.”

The article emphasizes that Western imperialism created the Arab-Israeli conflict because Sykes (British) and Picot (French) disregarded the wishes and rights of the indigenous Arab population and, Berger writes, “Arab leaders were angry” and “felt betrayed.”

The article continues, “In 1947, Britain, with approval from the United Nations, came up with a partition plan (to) create the nations of Israel and Palestine…. The Palestinians and surrounding Arab countries rejected it… (and) fought an unsuccessful war…. In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel expanded territory…by capturing lands where many Palestinians were living…. The occupied Palestinians continue to demand a state of their own.”

Reading this description of historical events, young students, with little pre-existing knowledge about the topic, have no idea why the Jews would want a nation-state in the Middle East, which Berger characterizes as “Arab.” The author portrays the Arabs as victims of Western domination, legitimizing their 1948 rejection of a Jewish state and their subsequent war against newly declared Israel.

Neither the article nor the teacher’s guide or handouts mention the 3,000-year historical connection of the Jews to the area, the continuous Jewish presence in this land, the Jewish immigration to their historic homeland in the late 19th and early 20th century or the promise made to the Jews for a national homeland in Palestine in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. Also lacking is information about the 1922 League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine to create a Jewish national home in today’s Israel, the “West Bank” and Sinai and the UN’s assumption of that international legal commitment.

The article’s failure to provide historical and legal context for the Jewish presence in the Middle East and the establishment of the Jewish state delegitimizes the creation of Israel. The Jews are made to look like foreign colonialists taking Arab land — the false narrative promoted by Arabs and Western progressives.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/435734/print

Political satirist and video maker Ami Horowitz recently visited the campus of Portland State University, posing as a member of Hamas. He asked students to donate to the terrorist organization to help bomb schools, cafés, and other “soft targets” that would help destroy Israel.

Shockingly, Horowitz raised several hundred dollars from students who agreed that Israel needs to be “wiped off the map.” Here’s the unbelievable video:

“Israel is known for its medical-device prowess, producing companies such as OrbiMed-backed Given Imaging Ltd., which went public in 2001 and merged with Covidien Ltd. in 2014. With support from the Israeli government, Israel’s biotechnology market is also expanding, said Erez Chimovits, a senior managing director at OrbiMed.”
OrbiMed Closes Second Israel Venture Fund at $307M

OrbiMed Advisors, which sold Israeli holding cCAM Biotherapeutics to Merck & Co. last year, has raised $307 million for its second Israel-focused health-care fund.

New York-based OrbiMed invests in a series of funds with a goal of providing various types of capital to companies globally. Its funds include a global venture fund, which closed at $975 million last year, and vehicles devoted to Asia, Israel, and royalty and credit opportunities. OrbiMed held a final closing on its $222 million first Israel fund in 2012.

The firm set out last year to raise a similar amount for OrbiMed Israel Partners II LP, according to Managing Director Anat Naschitz. Strong interest in the fund from unidentified health-care companies, family offices and other investors led the firm to take more.

A bigger fund helps OrbiMed carry portfolio companies further and improves its ability to participate in large financings of later-stage companies, according to Ms. Naschitz. The firm expects to back about 20 companies from this fund, making early- to later-stage investments in drug, diagnostic, medical-device and digital-health businesses. Holdings in the new fund include LogicBio Therapeutics Inc., a gene-therapy company.

Dov Waxman, a professor of political science at Northeastern University, says he has written Trouble in the Tribe to investigate the “internecine battle” waged over Israel in the American Jewish community. What emerges instead is an apologia for radical anti-Israel Jewish organizations and a distorted image of organized American Jewry as intolerant, elitist, and intent on silencing those who dare criticize Israel.

The author’s failure to level with the reader is clear by the second chapter. It’s here that Waxman introduces us to his first example of how a dissenting group was “denounced” and “shunned” by organized American Jewry. That group was Breira, an organization established in 1973 following the Yom Kippur War. Breira means “alternative” in Hebrew, and the alternative it offered was a PLO-run state in the West Bank and Gaza. In Waxman’s telling, the group came from “the heart of the Jewish community” but was smeared by right-wing organizations after it came to light that two of Breira’s members had met with Palestinians with close ties to the PLO (in Israel meeting with the PLO was then illegal).

The trouble with Waxman’s narrative is that neither Breira’s position nor its members’ PLO meet-and-greet was the issue. What did Breira in was not dissent, but flying under a false flag. What was exposed, through a monograph put out by Americans for a Safe Israel—Waxman incorrectly names it American Friends for a Safe Israel—was who was in Breira’s leadership. The group’s first two paid staff members came from CONAME, as did 19 other members of Breira, many of whom held positions on its executive and advisory committees. CONAME originated as a front group for the Socialist Workers Party, and was described by Time as one of the Arab or pro-Arab organizations working in the United States. The group specialized in bringing anti-Israel speakers like Israel Shahak (who called the whole idea of a Jewish state “unjust and absurd”) to American campuses. During the 1973 war, it had joined with Arab and pro-Arab organizations in sending telegrams to Congress urging “no arms to Israel.” When this was exposed, the group claimed lamely that its name had been used without its consent.

Breira had roped in a number of high-profile Jews who took at face value Breira’s claim to be pro-Israel. When they realized they had been duped, some—including Harvard sociology professor Nathan Glazer, scholar of Judaism Jacob Neusner, and Rabbi Robert Gordis, editor of Judaism—jumped ship. Internal dissent doomed the organization. None of this you would learn from Waxman.

The groups that followed Breira fared better, Waxman says, undercutting his own argument that such groups are ostracized. He mentions the New Jewish Agenda (like Breira, long deceased) and the New Israel Fund, which Waxman describes as a “human rights organization.” He mentions in passing that it funds Adalah, but doesn’t say what Adalah is—an Arab-run legal center that rejects the legitimacy of the Jewish state. In other words, the New Israel Fund is pulling a Breira: It pays lip service to Zionism, saying it wants Jews to achieve “self-determination in their homeland,” but it supports groups that do not. Which is not Zionism. It is talking out of both sides of your mouth.

If I had a shekel for every threat I’ve heard from disgruntled citizens to “leave the country” if a certain politician rises to power or a particular policy is implemented, I’d be rich.

Having just returned from a trip to the United States, where Trump-o-mania has some people in a frenzy over the possibility that the real estate mogul might win the presidential election in November, I thought I could escape some of this type of hysteria by returning home to Israel, where such hyperbole is so commonplace that it is barely noticeable.

But there is no rest for the weary, as I would discover on the day of my flight to Tel Aviv, when the announcement was made that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had entered into a coalition deal with former foreign minister and nemesis, Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Lieberman.

That this deal entailed the replacement of Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon was of no source of concern to me. Though Ya’alon has an illustrious history and a reputation for being both a serious military man and levelheaded think-tank member, I gave up on him when he started preaching morality to Israeli society. At a time when both radical Islamists and Western professors, as well as huge swaths of the British Labour Party, are waging a frontal assault on the Jewish state, accusing it of atrocities it does not commit, the last thing Israel needs is a cabinet member adding fuel to the anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic fire.

I therefore say goodbye to Ya’alon without a heavy heart. Though Lieberman leaves much to be desired, at least he believes in meting out the death penalty to terrorists. Nor is he even as “right-wing” as his detractors claim. Like the positions of Trump, Lieberman’s are often indistinguishable from those of his left-wing counterparts. It’s the “take no prisoners” rhetoric and associations with dubious characters that make both men controversial.

Something is going on in the climate-change wars. Man’s role in our changing climate, according to Mr. Obama, is “settled” science, much as eugenics was once “settled” science. The latter was based on Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Among its consequences: it made phrenology an accepted study, it abetted discrimination, and it fostered the concept that the less fit should not over-breed. Steven Levitt’s claim in Freakonomics, that abortions reduce crime rates, has its origins in eugenics.

Anti-intellectualism is not confined to climate. The rationalization for transgender bathrooms is based on identity politics, not science. When Curt Schilling said that “a man is a man no matter what they call themselves,” he was fired. He may have been politically incorrect, but, x and y chromosomes say he was factually correct. As William McGurn recently noted in The Wall Street Journal, Schilling was “…Galileo, with ESPN filling in for the Holy Office.” Science is, as Mr. Obama should know, a process of discovery. When “science” strays beyond the limits of what has been established as scientifically true, it begins to resemble pseudo-science.

For years, debate has swirled around the role of man’s impact on climate. Those on the left claim that he bears principal responsibility, while those on the right question the degree of man’s effect. Both acknowledge that the earth’s climate has never stood still, and both parties recognize man has played a role. The debate: Where on the spectrum should man’s responsibility lie and what should be done to alleviate harm, while allowing economies to grow? Should we spend time assigning blame, or should we look for solutions to problems caused by climate, regardless of man’s role?

Both sides have become mulish in defense of their turf. The right receives donations from the oil, gas and coal industries – all of which have been critical to the standards of living we enjoy. The left gets support from environmental and green-energy groups, which have abetted our quality of life. Society has benefitted from both. Both richer and poorer nations require the former, but it is only developed nations that can afford “green energy.” When the battle is joined, it is society that suffers.