BOOKS Comments turned off

Israel: A Geopolitical Tourist Destination Defying the Jewish State’s enemies through the simple act of traveling. Edwin Black

Posted By on April 11th, 2016

For a hard-core segment of travelers to Jerusalem, when the sun sets at the Sabbath, the magic in the air is not just the serene image of a peaceful dusk in an enchanted land. It is the empowering knowledge that the sun still shines on a Jewish State surrounded by fiery military and diplomatic turmoil. Israel remains a nation determined to survive and preserve its sense of magnetic amazement. In the minds of many, a visit to Israel is more than just a vacation. It is a geopolitical destination. Traveling to and enjoying Israel makes a statement to the world and to history. It reflects the steeled determination to be happy and fulfilled in one of the most treasured places on earth, despite a virtual siege around every corner.

When in Israel, especially in Jerusalem, everything about your tourism choices is political—which hotel you select, which taxi driver you hire, which bagel you buy, which restaurant you dine at, what fascination you experience, what memories you return home with. Are you buying a half pound of za’atar in Jerusalem’s teeming Jewish market at Machena Yehuda or at the stone-ensconced spice kiosks that line the time-polished lanes of the Old City? Or do you try both?

Anti-Israel sentiment abounds at the café tables of the Ottoman-era American Colony Hotel in East Jerusalem, while fierce loyalty to the Jewish State is detected in every corner of the modern David Citadel Hotel. Visitors book their rooms accordingly and create their own comfort zones in the respective lobbies.

Like everything else in the Jewish State, Israel’s tourism industry—that is, its hotels, restaurants, amusements, and visitor services—has achieved a modern miracle. Despite wars and pressures, the nation has honed its travel experience to rival the best in the world. Elegant, constantly upgrading, hotels combine with a robust service and physical infrastructure attractive to any visitor. Exciting restaurants, where both ethnic and modern cuisines operate at the culinary apex, cater to all tastes and budgets. Breathtaking vistas in close proximity offer magnificent desert mountains, frothing Mediterranean shores and beckoning hills. Everywhere, one feels the irresistible lure of ancient history and religious authenticity.

POLITICS Comments turned off

Cowardice in the Face of Leftist Jew-Hate How Bernie Sanders and other leftists help whitewash anti-Semitism on the Left. Daniel Greenfield

Posted By on April 11th, 2016

At a Bernie Sanders event in New York City, a black “community activist” began ranting about “Zionist Jews” running the Federal Reserve and Wall Street. At previous events, Sanders had been quick to condemn what he claimed was bigoted and Islamophobic rhetoric by Republicans. But when confronted with the real thing by a left-wing activist at one of his own events, he couldn’t do it.

There was no condemnation of anti-Semitism. Instead after an initial claim that he was proud to be Jewish, he switched to a rambling speech criticizing Israel and distancing himself from Zionism.

Bernie Sanders had suggested at the same event that President Clinton was racist for defending his crime fighting policies to Black Lives Matter protesters, but would not condemn anti-Semitism. Instead of defying left-wing hatred for Jews, he tried to suggest that he wasn’t one of the “bad Zionists”. He was one of the “good Jews” who had a balanced position on Israel and “Palestine”.

It was a sad and shameful display. And this was not the first time that Bernie saw bigotry and blinked.

When NPR’s Diane Rehm accused him of having dual citizenship in Israel, he stumbled through a reply, but never condemned the anti-Semitism inherent in the question. He backed Jesse Jackson despite the Hymietown slur. When asked about it, he did his best to avoid directly condemning anti-Semitism.

Bernie Sanders came out of a political movement rife with anti-Semitism. He encounters it in public on a regular basis. And he is too much of a coward to stand up to it.

After Roseanne Barr ran for president, she stated that during the campaign, “everything I had ever believed about the left was severely shaken” and that she discovered that “many of those I had considered comrades were naked bigots”.

And she did what Bernie Sanders won’t do. She condemned the bigotry.

There’s little doubt that Bernie Sanders has encountered far more anti-Semitism in private than he has in public. And at every turn of the road, he made the decision to fall in line and keep his mouth shut.

In the UK, prominent Jews and non-Jews within Labour have been speaking out against growing anti-Semitism within the party and its political adjuncts. But here there’s a culture of silence about anti-Semitism on the left. And those who speak out pay the price. Consider the response to Phyllis Chesler’s The New Anti-Semitism. And, in contrast, the mainstreaming of Max Blumenthal’s blatant bigotry.

The “gentleman’s agreement” used to be that Jews were expected to keep quiet about anti-Semitism on the left while claiming that all the bigots were on the right. Bernie Sanders is a product of that system. His refusal to talk about anti-Semitism while accusing the right of bigotry is typical of how it works.

The Sanders event at the Apollo Theater also featured Harry Belafonte, who had claimed that “Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich” and Spike Lee who had responded to criticism of anti-Semitic stereotypes in his movies by saying that he “couldn’t make an anti-Semitic film” because Jews run Hollywood. What does it say about Bernie Sanders that these are the ugly views of the people whom his campaign used in order to present him to a black audience?

BOOKS Comments turned off

Global Warming Will Kill Our Sex Drives By Rick Moran

Posted By on April 11th, 2016

Is there anything global warming can’t do? It’s absolutely amazing the impact on our planet global warming will have just because the temperature rises a few degrees.

The latest on the catastrophe that will befall us comes from a befuddled academic who claims that warming temperatures will make us less inclined to have sex, thus reducing the number of births in the U.S. by more than 100,000 a year.

ABC Australia:

Temperature impacts the sexual patterns of human beings for two reasons, according to Professor Barreca.

One reason he gave was that human beings did not want to exert themselves physically in hot weather, due to possible discomfort.

The second reason was more scientific.

“The effect of temperature on the production of sperm — that’s been shown to be pretty strong in animals,” Professor Barreca said.

“When you expose a bull to high temperatures, sperm motility and sperm count fall right off.”

He said with the onset of climate change and global warming, the implications could grow.

“According to a state of the art global circulation model, there is going to be about 90 hot days per year by the end of the 21st century — that’s about 60 more days than we currently experience,” he said.

“Using our estimates, we project that the number of births will fall by about 107,000 per year in the United States by the end of the 21st century.”

He said this implied climate could have an impact on the seasonal variation of births, and ultimately change when we have to attend the most birthday parties.

I guess the good doctor never heard of air conditioning.

POLITICS Comments turned off

Clinton Campaign Panel Includes Controversial Muslim Leader Who Fingered Israel for 9/11 Attacks By Patrick Poole

Posted By on April 11th, 2016

A highly controversial Muslim leader appeared on a panel with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles last month. Salam al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), was kicked off of a congressional terrorism commission in 1999 when his organization’s open support for terrorist organizations was brought to light.

Marayati came under fire again just a few years later when on the day of the 9/11 attacks he fingered Israel as the culprit in a radio interview on a Los Angeles radio station.

Under his continued leadership, MPAC continues to promote extremist conspiracy theories, including accusations published on the group’s website in 2010 that Israel was harvesting the organs of Palestinians — a claim that was denounced by the Anti-Defamation League as a blood libel.

But Marayati’s appearance with Hillary Clinton is hardly unusual, as the relationship with the Clinton family goes back to 1996 — when he served as a delegate for Bill Clinton during the Democratic National Convention that year.

Waves of controversy have not stopped Hillary Clinton from continuing to promote Marayati, including appointing him to positions during her tenure as Obama’s secretary of State. So his appearance at the March 24th campaign panel held at the University of Southern California is no surprise.

POLITICS Comments turned off

Trump’s Corrupt and Liberal New York Values By Daniel John Sobieski

Posted By on April 11th, 2016

In a Fox News debate, Donald Trump attacked Sen. Ted Cruz’s critical reference to “New York values” with a passionate reference to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. As Real Clear Politics reported his remarks:

I’ve had more calls on that statement that Ted made, that New York is a great place, it’s got great people, it’s got loving people, wonderful people. When the World Trade Center came down, I saw something that no place on earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely than New York.

You had two 110-story buildings come crashing down, I saw them come down, thousands of people killed, and the cleanup started the next day, and it was the most horrific cleanup, probably in the history of doing this, and in construction, I was down there. And I’ve never seen anything like it. And the people in New York fought, and fought, and fought, and we saw more death and even the smell of death, nobody understood it, and it was with us for months, the smell. the air.

And we rebuilt downtown Manhattan, and everybody in the world watched, and everybody in the world loved New York, and loved New Yorkers, and I have to tell you, that was a very insulting statement that Ted made.

Trump once wasn’t so enamored of the World Trade Center or its replacement, the Freedom Tower, describing them in terms that, according to the Independent Journal Review, provoked a backlash from outraged New Yorkers:

In an article from the New York Post dated September 18th, 2001, Trump said of the towers:

“To be blunt, they were not ‘great’ buildings… They only became great upon their demise last Tuesday…”

But Trump’s controversial statements surrounding the World Trade Center towers and the 9/11 attacks were far from over. In 2005, victims of the 9/11 attacks lambasted the billionaire for his insensitive remarks about the proposed “Freedom Tower.”

In regard to the construction of the Freedom Tower, Trump called the building inappropriate, which he suggested was unfit for that part of New York City:

“The Freedom Tower should not be allowed to be built. It’s not appropriate for Lower Manhattan, it’s not appropriate for Manhattan, it’s not appropriate for the United States, it’s not appropriate for freedom.”

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Peter Smith Still Opening Doors for Women

Posted By on April 11th, 2016

Gender equality is now so thoroughly advanced, thanks to Western men, that feminism’s latest wave is free to insist the hijab is no instrument of oppression but a symbol of choice and liberation! You’ve come a long way, baby. Once, only men were privileged to make public fools of themselves.

“Can a privileged white male like me talk about equality and diversity?” While clearly suffering from ‘white-male guilt’, former Victorian politician Rob Hulls, writing in the Fairfax press, grudgingly answered in the affirmative. Bully for him, but that he thought the question worthy of sweating over is instructive. White men are not the flavour of the times. Indeed, those supporting Donald Trump are often described in left-wing media (e.g., in The Huffington Post) as “angry white men” whose influence is dwindling in the racial mixing pot.

I take no personal credit as a white man but it seems queer to me, without in the least belittling other parts of humanity, that the very part of humanity which has made this modern West, in which gender equality and ethnic and sexual diversity can flourish, is the subject of scorn and derision. I will focus on gender equality.

Men and women are one in Christ (Galatians 3:28) and therefore equal; no ifs, buts or maybes. And, in any event, indubitably, life is better for everyone and infinity less mean spirited in societies in which men and women have equal status. But, as we all surely know, that something is closer to God’s intention and better, doesn’t necessarily mean it will hold sway. For most of history and in most places it hasn’t. To wit: bad things have happened, are happening in many parts of the world, and can happen in our part of the world unless we guard the ramparts.

Equality as a state of affairs is often misunderstood. Turning to arithmetic: two plus two makes four but, equally, so does one plus three. Being equal is not the same as being the same. When it comes to men and women there is one important and statistically significant difference across all ethnicities and cultures. Men, on the whole, and with few exceptions, are stronger and more aggressive than are women.

Throughout most of history women have occupied a secondary position to men – certainly outside the narrow confines of the home. Their childbearing role undoubtedly contributed to this. But, undoubtedly, their lesser physical strength and aggressiveness were defining. This hasn’t changed, yet women in the Western world now occupy positions of authority in all walks of life.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Alan Moran The Climateers’ Moveable Feast

Posted By on April 11th, 2016

After the Paris powwow in December the action switched to Davos. Then the serried legions of jetsetting carbonphobics repaired to the four corners of this tormented planet with renewed messages of a doom that only other people’s money can avert.
The Paris COP 21 at the end of last year may have set an all-time record for conference attendance of officials, NGOs and lobbyists—40,000 plus at least 5000 from the media. Virtually every world leader made an appearance, many changing their schedules at short notice to attend the opening rather than the close. There may have been a thousand booths of different organisations and countries, and in the course of the deliberations there would have been over 800 formal meetings and presentations.

During these meetings statesmen and NGOs repeated the same messages they had delivered dozens, sometimes hundreds of times. We heard how the ice was melting, the rivers were drying and sea levels were rising. We heard how tropical diseases were going to engulf us unless we took action and how, in view of the rapid expansion of renewable technology, that action was going to be much cheaper. Moreover if we used less energy we would be better off because we would spend less money. National spokesmen boasted of the sacrifices they were making and how much they were doing to advance the clean/low energy cause at home and abroad, while NGOs urged faster and further action.

The conference featured a constant series of street theatres. 350Org staged a major concert featuring, among others, Patti Smith, Flea (of the Red Hot Chilli Peppers), and Thom Yorke (of Radiohead). When musicians are lecturing us on policy we know the end of rational government is near.

The only note of dissent was the counter-conference hosted by the Heartland Institute, which featured genuine scientists, including the recently deceased great Australian Bob Carter, who demonstrated that:

the earth was not warming to a level that might cause unease;
there was no increase in inclement weather events;
sea levels were not rising;
the emission-restraining actions by the developed world would be meaningless since the developing world, especially China and India, would take no such measures and their emissions already exceeded those of the developed world.

The protesters outside and inside the Heartland event far exceeded the invited attendees. Among them, with his own camera/sound crew, was the University of Queensland’s John Cook, who originated the story that 97 per cent of scientists agree about human-induced global warming. Actually, only 1.6 per cent of the thousands of papers Cook and his activist team studied were said to have explicitly endorsed the warmist view and even some of these scientists have rejected the researchers’ classification of their papers.

Politics and diplomacy were the dominant issues in Paris. Few were concerned about the science or economics of climate change. Even the source material in the IPCC Fifth Assessment issued in 2014, once the 6000 pages of jargon and intimidating diagrams had been navigated, asserts that with a three-degree warming total loss of global GDP compared with business-as-usual is just 2 to 3 per cent over the course of a century. That’s just half a year’s growth even without any mitigatory action, such as planting different crops. Meanwhile the apparently trivial costs of preventing the emissions rest upon massive new breakthroughs in renewable energy technology and a Philosopher’s Stone discovery of how to capture and store the carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

In view of the IPCC’s sober assessment of losses from climate change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) could hardly endorse the double-digit losses in global GDP claimed by hack studies like those of Stern and Garnaut. It did however promote alarmist studies, such as one that topically claimed climate change was killing more people than terrorism.

In January, the UN cavalcade moved on to Abu Dhabi where UN chief Ban Ki-moon said: “Sustainable energy is the thread that connects economic growth, social equity, and our efforts to combat climate change.” Leaders of the world’s mendicant states queued up to divert to themselves funds from this major oil producer and owner of Manchester City.

ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

Iran’s Deadly Ambition The Islamic Republic’s Quest for Global Power by Ilan Berman Reviewed by Elan Journo

Posted By on April 11th, 2016

Claremont Review of Books

“No, Iran Isn’t Destabilizing the Middle East.” Paul Pillar’s article in The National Interest a month before the Iran nuclear deal was signed attacked critics of the negotiations. Pillar disputed the “badly mistaken myth” that Tehran is “‘destabilizing’ the Middle East or seeking to ‘dominate’ it or exercise ‘hegemony’ over it, or that it is ‘on the march’ to take over the region.” On the contrary, while we might dislike Iran’s conduct—bolstering the Assad regime in Syria, backing Hezbollah in Lebanon, nourishing Hamas in Gaza, dominating what’s left of Iraq, funding and training the Taliban in Afghanistan, and arming Islamist rebels in Yemen—Iran is simply reacting to its circumstances as any other state would. Iran’s distinctive ideological character and stated goals, in other words, are at best peripheral to understanding and evaluating its conduct.

Pillar spent nearly thirty years as a senior intelligence analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency, and holds impeccable academic credentials. He can hardly be dismissed as a fringe figure. Indeed, the gist of his view—that we shouldn’t worry about Iran’s distinctive ideological character—informs the Obama administration’s approach to Iran. The Obama team acknowledges Iran’s pervasive violation of rights domestically, its wholesale backing of Islamist terrorism, and its ominous nuclear program. But these actions have little to do with one another, or with any larger strategic threat. Moreover, despite the weekly “death to America” chants (merely “rhetorical excess,” according to John Kerry) and the stated desire to wipe Israel off the map, Iran’s leaders supposedly care chiefly about “regime survival” and the economic aspirations of their citizens—as if a brutal theocracy, deep down, wants what’s best for its people. On the unstated premise that everyone in politics has a price, Obama has even suggested that the nuclear deal could entice Iran to improve its conduct while taking on its “rightful role” in the community of nations.

BOOKS Comments turned off

An angel called Gabriel: The priest who stands with the Jewish State By Ilse Posselt

Posted By on April 11th, 2016

“What I want for my children and their children is that they will love God – and love the land of Israel,” Naddaf says.Father Gabriel Naddaf never intended to step into the limelight. Popularity and prominence hardly figured into his plans for the future. But the Greek Orthodox priest who pastors his flock from Nazareth knew he was called to speak the truth on behalf of Israel, the tiny sliver of a country in the midst of a roiling Middle East where he and his fellow Christians are safe to live, thrive and worship.

Naddaf’s conviction has little to do with politics. The truth, he knew, was found in the source of all he believes: the Bible. And the Bible is clear about God’s everlasting commitment to the Jewish People. Moreover, it teaches that the title deed for the Land of Israel is held by the Almighty and pledged with a covenant to the children of Abraham.

And so the Arabic-speaking, Christian priest who calls the Jewish state home stepped up as an objective voice telling those who wished to hear – and often those who did not – of the freedoms, rights and security Israel’s non-Jewish citizens enjoy.

The past four years have proved particularly eventful for Naddaf. It started with his public call on Christian Israelis to join their Jewish brothers and sisters in shouldering the responsibility of guarding the Promised Land. Then came the establishment of the Christian Recruitment Forum as a formal platform to encourage his flock to join the Israel Defense Forces and the Christian Empowerment Council – a mouthpiece on behalf of Israel’s Christian citizens.

Both the forum’s and council’s efforts are supported by the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, led by Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, who has been by Naddaf’s side since the very beginning, funding the council’s $150,000 annual operating budget.

“We have a wonderful, close relationship, and we are very thankful for the support that enables and strengthens us,” Naddaf says of his backers. “When I described our need for help to Rabbi Eckstein, he promised that his fund, which raises money from Christians all over the world who love Israel, would help us create programs that help Christian Arabs integrate into Israeli society,” Amit Barak, the forum’s project manager, says.

“Our connection with the IFCJ has played an extremely important role in helping us strengthen our relationship with other Christians around the world. We explain to people how Israel is the safest place for Christians to live in the Middle East, and tell them about the efforts being made to help integrate Arabs into Israeli society.”

Then there was an opportunity to address the United Nations. And then a flurry of invitations to share his testimony with audiences around the world. Despite an increasingly jam-packed schedule, Naddaf also found the time to author a booklet warning international Christians against the malice masquerading as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and act as the voice of those forging a non-Arab, Aramaic identity in the Land of Promise.

All too soon, the priest who never intended to step into the limelight became a household name in Israel.

Naddaf has gone by many titles. His Arab opponents label him a “traitor,” a “divider of the Arab society” and a persecutor of Palestinians. The Israeli media refer to him affectionately as “the unorthodox priest who stands with the Jews.”

To Western believers, he is a Christian brother, sharing experiences forged from everyday life in the country where their belief was born. And for those who look to him for spiritual guidance, he is abouna, Arabic for father.

But who is this Greek Orthodox priest from Nazareth who ruffles feathers, wins hearts, speaks truth about Israel to the international Church, inspires the young of his flock to serve their country and stands for a people forging an identity?

POLITICS Comments turned off

Hold Donald Trump’s voters accountable, too: They are embracing a demagogue with eyes wide open

Posted By on April 11th, 2016

Even before he entered the political arena, it was evident to most anyone with eyes that Donald Trump was a moral disgrace.

Philandering, misogyny, fraud, bankruptcy and tackiness were almost synonyms for his name. To all that, as a candidate for the presidency, Trump has added serial lying, racism, religious bigotry, slander and the outright encouragement of violence, with threats of more violence should he be deprived of the delegates needed to clinch his party’s nomination.

Yet many people with eyes — millions of them, in fact — have cast their votes for this creature from the cesspool. What are we to make of these fellow Americans?

CLINTON DISLIKED BY 55% OF AMERICANS, BUT TRUMP HATE ‘YUGER’

For obvious reasons, they are being treated by Trump’s rivals with tender solicitude. Trump’s followers remain important players in the ongoing battle for votes in the Republican primaries that remain. And whoever ends up as the Republican nominee will need them to show up at the polls in November to defeat Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

What is harder to excuse is the fact that more than a few conservative commentators, including many who revile Trump himself, have addressed his supporters with sympathy. The conservative columnist and Cruz supporter David Limbaugh has appealed to Trump’s followers as “patriots,” telling them, “I understand and share your frustration” as he implores them not to vote for their candidate of choice.

Part of the problem

To Peggy Noonan, Trump’s supporters are “are earnest and full of concern for America”; they are the “unprotected,” full of “legitimate anger” at the “protected” class that misgoverns them.

Going one step further is the commentator Dennis Saffran, writing in the American Spectator, who hastens to defend Trump’s supporters from their critics, calling them victims of “blatant class bigotry.”