Moshe Phillips is president and Benyamin Korn is chairman of the Religious Zionists of America, Philadelphia, and both are candidates on the Religious Zionist slate (www.VoteTorah.org) in the World Zionist Congress elections.
The campaign against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress has reached a new low, crossing the line that divides criticism of Israel from the darkest antisemitic canards.
We do not use the term “antisemitism” lightly. Criticism of individual Israeli leaders or specific Israeli government policies is of course perfectly legitimate. But every sober-minded observer understands that criticism of Israel is sometimes just a thin mask for promoting anti-Jewish stereotypes and conspiracy theories.
The campaign of whispers, leaks and rumors against Prime Minister Netanyahu this week dropped that mask and began promoting one of the ugliest anti-Jewish canards: that Israel is trying to control the United States government.
A full-page ad in The New York Times on Feb. 19 featured photos of a smiling President Obama and a scowling Prime Minister Netanyahu, under the headline: “Who is our Commander in Chief?”
The message could not have been more clear: the Israelis –the Zionists, the pro-Israel lobby, the Jews– are trying to turn Israel’s prime minister into America’s commander in chief.
Even now, after many years of unwavering Iranian commitment to “the bomb,” Washington still refuses to give up hope on diplomacy. Soon, however, President Barack Obama and his supporters will finally understand that Iran’s posture on nuclear “negotiations” has always been a contrivance. Then, when even the most residual military options will already have been forfeited, Israel’s only remaining hope for long term survival will likely have to rest upon certain indispensably complementary strategies for nuclear deterrence and ballistic missile defense.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understands that Israel can never rely too heavily upon anti-missile defense systems. Inevitably, such systems would have “leakage.” Like it or not, therefore, Israel will have to depend upon some form of “coexistence” with an already nuclear Iran. Although an eleventh-hour preemption against Iranian nuclear assets and infrastructures might still seem appropriate in some circles, it could no longer be undertaken without incurring genuinely overwhelming costs.
This post is a analytical explanation of a film produced by Al-Hayat Media of the Islamic State, which portrays the ritual slaughter of 21 Coptic Christians on a beach in Libya, in the film “A Message Signed with Blood to the Nation of the Cross”. Words in blue are from the film, either in the form of titles or sub-titles, or as narration. Text in red is for the words of Muhammad or the Qur’an. This is Part 2 of a paid of posts about this film. Part 1 is Bearing the cross: a letter to the Islamic State. This post has also appeared on Lapido Media.
The Coast of Wilāyat Tarābulus [in the region of Tripoli] by the Mediterranean Sea
The people of the cross, the followers of the hostile Egyptian Church
The opening scenes show the 21 men being led along the coast towards the camera, each one held by a hooded captor.
This is the first of a two-part post on the 21 Egyptian martyrs killed in Libya. This first part is a reflection, as a Christian, on aspects of this event and reactions to it. The second part, ‘A message signed with blood to the Nation of the Cross’ consists of explanatory notes on the texts – spoken and written – which were part of the Islamic State’s film of their ritual beheadings. This post has also appeared on Lapido media.
The Islamic State sent me a letter this week. This letter was in the form of a short film produced by the Islamic State’s Al-Hayat Media centre. This was not addressed to me personally, but to all Christians everywhere. Its title was A Message Signed with BLOOD to the Nation of the Cross. This was a video of the ritual slaughter of the 21 Egyptian Christians. Their blood flowing in the ocean waves was the ‘signature’ at the end of the video.
As I write this it is Ash Wednesday. This is the start of forty days of Lent, a period of fasting and contemplation for Christians all over the world. For many centuries it has been a custom of Christians to receive a mark of the cross in ash upon the forehead as a sign of repentance.
As I received this mark of the cross today I was thinking of the 21 Egyptian Christian martyrs. Copts permanently bear the sign of the cross, tattooed on their wrists, as a sign that they will refuse to renounce their beliefs.
Alfred Lord Tennyson once wrote: “In the spring, a young man’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love.” On this winter day, awakening to a temperature reading of minus one degree, this old man’s thoughts turned toward global warming (or climate change, as it is now termed), and its relative importance in a world in which one third of the population lives amidst poverty and/or disease, and one in which Islamic extremists have barbarically assaulted Western culture.
Climate change has become a big and emotional political football. Both sides festoon their respective positions. Some on the Right are deniers, as are some on the Left. The former claim that man has had little impact on the environment, despite evidence that carbon emissions are rising. The latter state that if man simply eliminated his carbon imprint the planet would revert to the status quo. The Left, especially, uses embellishment to further their cause. They speak of polar bears disappearing off melting ice floes and forecast that whole communities will disappear into rising seas. Mainstream media news coverage, laced with alarm, furthers their cause.
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2015/02/19/if-only-germany-had-solved-its-unemployment-problem-in-1933-germans-wouldnt-have-become-nazis/?print=1
If Only Germany Had Solved Its Unemployment Problem in 1933, Germans Wouldn’t Have Become Nazis By David P. Goldman
Officially, the election on March 17 is among Israelis. Depending on how we vote, either Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will remain in office and form the next government led by his Likud party, or Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni will form a government.
But unofficially, a far greater electoral drama is unfolding. The choice is not between Netanyahu and Herzog/Livni. It is between Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama.
As the White House sees it, if Herzog/Livni form the next government, then Jerusalem will dance to Obama’s tune. If Netanyahu is reelected, then the entire edifice of Obama’s Middle East policy may topple and fall.
Secretary of State John Kerry made clear the administration’s desire to topple Netanyahu last spring during his remarks before the Trilateral Commission. It was during that memorable speech that Kerry libeled Israel, claiming that we would automatically and naturally become an apartheid state if we didn’t give Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to the PLO, Jew free, as quickly as possible.
Despite Israel’s venality, Kerry held out hope. In his words, “if there is a change of government [in Israel], or a change of heart, something will happen.”
In Washington, they are practically praying for a Christian terrorist. At a breakfast in January, President Obama reached all the way back to the Crusades for an example of violence purportedly motivated by Christian extremism. Days later, when three Muslims were murdered in Chapel Hill, social media erupted with demands that Christians be called upon to condemn the attacks in the same way that Muslims are called upon to condemn acts of Islamic terrorism, and the disappointment was palpable when the man charged with those murders turned out to be a militant atheist and Rachel Maddow fan who was angry about a parking dispute.
State Department flack Marie Harf, fresh off her jobs-for-jihadis bit, offered up Joseph Kony — a practitioner of Ancholi mystical traditions with 88 wives, a flair for Biblical apocalypticism, and, if we take him at his word, 13 spirits (one of them Chinese) dwelling within him — as an example of “Christian militant” terrorism. This isn’t new: Timothy McVeigh (agnostic) and John Salvi (a schizophrenic who believed himself to be one of the thieves crucified with Jesus and who obsessed over an imaginary scheme in which the Vatican would issue its own currency) have been presented from time to time as evidence that the violent jihadist tendency is not limited to the religion of which jihad is a central tenet. Meanwhile, in the real world . . . President Barack Obama, who still believes that his job consists of giving speeches, convened a “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism,” the purpose of which was to provide a platform for the president to give a keynote speech. In it he insisted, as he does, that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that arguments to the contrary only lend credibility to the Islamic terrorist organizations that have nothing to do with Islam.
Let Republicans unleash him on the Duchess of Chappaqua. Atop years of management experience, a glistening conservative-reform record, and eleven consecutive victories for county and state offices among reliably Democratic voters, Governor Scott Walker (R., Wis.) offers Republicans this secret weapon: a battle-tested executive who is immune to the Richie Rich caricature that Democrats hurl at GOP nominees.
Especially opposite Hillary Clinton, Walker — not Jeb Bush — is fully vaccinated against the Left’s class-warfare virus. Scott Walker and a man out standing in his field. Democrats stereotype the Republican party as the natural habitat of rich old white guys. Yes, Walker is a white guy. However, being Caucasian is not a choice, and fair-minded liberals would forgive him that. It should help that Walker secured ever-higher reelection margins as executive in Milwaukee County. Its 27 percent black population is twice that of the nation. Walker would be age 49 on inauguration. Jeb would be 63. Hillary would be 69. The “cranky geezer” rap that helped sink John McCain would miss Walker, especially beside Hillary, who clearly is no spring hen. As for “rich,” the late governor Ann Richards (D., Texas) famously slammed Poppa Bush. “Poor George.
In yet another deplorable display of betrayal, the Obama administration belatedly acknowledged that it is withholding information from Israel pertaining to the P5 + 1 talks with Iran. The administration’s shocking announcement followed initial denials by both the State Department and the White House that they were engaged in this type of duplicitous conduct against a strategic ally. Fearing fallout from the revelation, the White House claimed it acted to prevent the Israelis from leaking “cherry-pick[ed]” information and failing to properly contextualize.
The revelation demonstrates three unwavering facts. First, the White House has probably already caved in to nearly all of Iran’s demands and fears that premature release of facts highlighting Obama’s capitulation will influence congressional leaders to take action against any deal that enables the mullahs to maintain threshold status. Second, it makes evident the lengths to which the Obama administration will go to sabotage an alliance that has endured for over 65 years. And third, it demonstrates the administration’s outrageous hypocrisy for when it comes to damaging leaks; it is the Obama administration and not Israel that maintains an awful track record.
