Shame on You, Harvard U.

Shame on You, Harvard U.

SHAME ON HARVARD: WOULD HARVARD ALLOW AN ANTI-GAY EVENT OR KKK EVENT ? SO WHY IS IT OK TO ATTACK THE JEWS ?

From Ronn Torossian, CEO of 5WPR

In the liberal, academia-focused world of American Universities, acceptance, tolerance and universalism are the accepted buzzwords of the day – of course unless said acceptance and tolerance comes to Jews and Israel.

In the 90’s, when I was a college student, militant black student groups hosted speakers from the Nation of Islam, and Kwame Toure (the former Stokely Carmichael), who would - without fail - say: "The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist."

As National President of the BETAR/TAGAR Youth movement, we protested, yelled and raised our voices – I hope that youth on campus are doing the same today.

Today American campuses are more hostile than ever before. In a sickening development, this week Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government will host a two-day conference called “Israel/Palestine and the One State Solution,” whose goal is to “educate ourselves and others about the possible contours of a one-state solution and the challenges that stand in the way of its realization.”

The one state solution would mean an end to the Jewish state of Israel – and naturally, this organization’s website advocates and links to BDS - a campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. Bastions of peace.

One wonders whether say Harvard would permit the KKK to host events calling for a white state, and boycotting all non-white products.

Would Harvard allow an organization which called for an end to gay rights and to boycott all homosexual owned businesses?

I am sure the world would be in an uproar. But, if it’s the Jews – well then free (hate) speech must prevail.

Naturally, following the Harvard shindig, we’ll see the eighth annual Israeli Apartheid Week at colleges, where American liberals will blast the only democracy in the Middle East. Sickening.

Responsible Jewish organizations need to target Jewish donors of Universities that allow these hateful activities. (A list at:
http://hillel.harvard.edu/alumni ).

The Jewish community must do all we can to say to our alma mater we won’t be silent if you permit Jew-hatred on campus – here’s one Public Relations Firm ready to work pro-bono at harming the interests of any University permitting anti-Semitic hatred.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11322#.T05vR3JSR0U

Media Undermines its Case Against Israe

Media Undermines its Case Against Israel

Seth Mandel

The media pressure on Israel to refrain from launching a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities continues apace. The New York Timesand Washington Post each have stories dedicated to either downplaying the Iranian threat or exaggerating the costs of attacking Iran, and both stories undermine their arguments.

First, the Times seeks to lay on the guilt with an article titled “U.S. Sees Iran Attacks as Likely if Israel Strikes.” It is a warning to Israel to consider the fact that the U.S. would also be a target of Iranian attacks if the country’s nuclear installations are bombed. But then the reporters seem to make the opposite case:

While a missile retaliation against Israel would be virtually certain, according to these assessments, Iran would also be likely to try to calibrate its response against American targets so as not to give the United States a rationale for taking military action that could permanently cripple Tehran’s nuclear program. “The Iranians have been pretty good masters of escalation control,” said Gen. James E. Cartwright, now retired, who as the top officer at Strategic Command and as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff participated in war games involving both deterrence and retaliation on potential adversaries like Iran.

The Iranian targets, General Cartwright and other American analysts believe, would include petroleum infrastructure in the Persian Gulf, and American troops in Afghanistan, where Iran has been accused of shipping explosives to local insurgent forces.

That is, Iran may possibly target American troops overseas, which it is already doing. Additionally, the U.S. recently prevented a massive Iranian terrorist operation on U.S. soil, so an attack on the homeland would not be an escalation. And Cartwright’s quote suggests an attack on Iran might have the reverse effect. As does this quote from the story:

Both American and Israeli officials who discussed current thinking on the potential ramifications of an Israeli attack believe that the last thing Iran would want is a full-scale war on its territory…. If Israel did attack, officials said, Iran would be foolhardy, even suicidal, to invite an overpowering retaliation by directly attacking United States military targets — by, for example, unleashing its missiles at American bases on the territory of Persian Gulf allies.

So in fact, an attack on Iran might encourage the Iranians to stand down for fear of inviting more attacks on their soil. The Washington Post story, on the other hand, tries to portray Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the boy who cried wolf. He’s been warning the world of an Iranian nuclear threat for 16 years now, the article notes. Most of the story is armchair psychoanalysis that is almost entirely irrelevant, now that we know Iran has indeed been working toward a nuclear weapon all these years. The article also spends some time ridiculing the notion that Netanyahu, for some strange reason, believes that as prime minister of Israel his job entails the protection and safety of the Jewish people.

But the last two paragraphs of the story are where the action is. Here’s the first:

Aluf Benn, editor-in-chief of the liberal daily Haaretz, who covered Netanyahu for years as the newspaper’s diplomatic correspondent, said the prime minister had succeeded in shifting the diplomatic conversation, after the Obama administration had been focused previously on peace efforts with the Palestinians. Then, Netanyahu’s rhetoric on Iran was seen as an effort to divert attention from Israeli settlement building in the West Bank, which was loudly opposed by Washington.

Leave aside the fact that Netanyahu’s concentration on Iran “was seen as an effort to divert attention from Israeli settlement building” only by extreme partisans on the left who obsess about Jews adding rooms to their homes in West Bank towns that will be part of Israel in any peace agreement anyway. Also leave aside the fact that anyone who thinks that clearly doesn’t take the Iranian threat seriously, and is thus not paying much attention to reality. The claim itself is disputed by the entire article leading up to it. If Netanyahu has been obsessing about the Iranian threat for 16 years, then it long preceded President Obama’s bizarre decision to pick a fight with Netanyahu about settlements.

And here’s the final paragraph:

“He did a very good job of changing the world’s priorities,” Benn said, “and he achieved that by saber-rattling vis-à-vis Iran. The problem is that you can reach a point when the political price of not going to war becomes too much to bear. If the Iranian nuclear program is a Holocaust, then the question becomes: What did you do, Mr. Netanyahu, to prevent it? You have to deliver.”

Here’s a riddle for you: When, in a democracy, does the political price of not doing something become too much to bear? Answer: When the public overwhelmingly supports that action. The ongoing attempt to paint Netanyahu as the leader of some kind of military junta is exactly the sort of thing you expect to hear from a Haaretz editor, but it’s not something that will earn the Washington Post or its reporter much credibility.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/29/media-undermines-case-against-israel/

Obama’s Monday Meeting with Netanyahu

Rick Richman
In 2009, after his first White House meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu, Barack Obama told the press he hoped to begin a “serious process of engagement” with Iran within months, and would give Iran “what I believe will be a persuasive argument, that there should be a different course to be taken.” Iran turned out to be uninterested in his argument, much less a serious process of engagement.

On Monday, Obama hopes to make a persuasive argument to continue a course that has now failed for more than three years – a “two track” process of engagement (which has yet to occur) and sanctions (which bite but do not deter). Sanctions failed in North Korea (which produced nuclear weapons notwithstanding), Cuba (where they are going on 50 years), and Iraq (where Saddam profited from them). They may benefit China (who will use them to get better terms from Iran for oil purchases) and Russia (who will benefit, as the largest oil producer in the world, from higher oil prices). They will likely not stop Iran.

Diplomacy is unlikely to succeed without the “triple track” process recommended by theBipartisan Policy Center earlier this month, which adds a third track to the first two: “credible, visible preparations for military action on the part of the United States or Israel.” But not only has the Obama administration failed to adopt a third track; it has gone out of its way to reject it. It says all options are on the table, but has studiously avoided any commitment to actually use the ultimate one. It publicly lectures Israel against using it itself.

It has been clear for a long time – well before Benjamin Netanyahu became prime minister – that Israel will not stand by as Iran becomes capable of producing sufficient material for a nuclear weapon, much less actually construct one. In Statecraft, his book published in 2007, the year before he became one of Obama’s principal foreign policy advisers, Dennis Ross wrote as follows:

As one leading Israeli defense official said to me, “We think the Iranians intend to use nuclear weapons against us, and we won’t wait for that to happen.” The Israeli impulse toward preemption is likely to be on a hair trigger should its leaders come to believe that Iran is on the verge of producing fissile material by itself. That, alone, argues for preventing Iran’s acquisition of such a capability. [Emphasis added]

The current argument by U.S. intelligence officials that there is no “hard” evidence Iran has made a “final” decision to build a bomb is beside the point. Israel focuses on capability, and its red line is set before Iran actually starts building a bomb. It is unlikely to allow Iran to complete an underground facility that can produce fissile material unobserved and effectively safe from attack, any more than it allowed Iraq and Syria to finish their facilities.

In Monday’s meeting, Netanyahu will likely seek to have the U.S.  add the third track and set a deadline for force — as the last best chance for diplomacy to succeed and the assurance that, if it does not, the final option on the table to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran will in fact be taken.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/29/obama-meeting-with-netanyahu/

Sabbath Observing Texas High School Does More for Faith Than Tebow

Jonathan S. Tobin
The role of faith in the public square has become an issue in the presidential campaign recently, but no candidate has done more to advance the cause of freedom of religion in this country than a Houston-area Jewish school. The Robert M. Beren Academy had won a chance to play in the state’s parochial school basketball championships semi-finals this weekend. But since their game is scheduled for Friday night during the observance of the Sabbath, the team will not compete.While the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools is facing some justified criticism for its refusal to make any accommodation for the Jewish team, the honor the school will win for standing up for their principles far exceeds any glory they might have gotten by playing the game.

The Anti-Defamation League has weighed in on the controversy and asked the organizers of the championships to bend a little and find a way to reconfigure their schedule to allow the Beren Academy their chance. The group’s position is the same rules should apply to all schools, but Beren’s win in the state quarterfinals was made possible because their opponent, Our Lady of the Hills, which is a Catholic school, were willing to move the starting time up last Friday to the afternoon before the Sabbath started. But because the private and parochial school group is a voluntary rather than a state-run outfit, the Jewish school cannot legally demand a reasonable accommodation. The association’s decision seems hard-hearted. But if they choose not to budge, it must be acknowledged that sometimes there is a price to be paid for loyalty to faith and principle. That’s disappointing for the kids at Beren, but it’s also something for them to be proud of.

In his book The Gift of Rest, Senator Joseph Lieberman spoke of the beauty of Sabbath observance. But he also demonstrated that his insistence on not working or conducting business as usual for the 25 hours that stretch from sundown on Friday to the appearance of the first star on Saturday has won him the respect of the non-Jewish majority in his state and the nation. There are times when being faithful to one’s principles will necessitate sacrifice, and it’s a shame the kids at Beren are learning that this week. Yet, in refusing to bend to the dictates of the majority, they have done more to honor the cause of faith than the histrionics of football star Tim Tebow. No matter who wins the state basketball championship in Texas this year, the Beren team is the true champion.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/29/sabbath-observing-texas-high-school-basketball-tebow/

Terror attacks in Israel during the 2nd Intifada since 2000

    Terror attacks in Israel during the 2nd Intifada 

                                since 2000

Presentation about terrorism in Israel and the daily reality we suffered during the second Intifada. Dedicated with love and respect to all Israel's terror victims. 
The song you hear is Requiem for a Dream. It just seemed to fit to the feeling of this video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TnxOggdPWXg

            Allen West Schools on Palestinian Statehood

Rep. Allen West (R-FL) takes the left to school on Palestinian statehood.

Most Arabs in this city want to live under Israeli rule, says Jerusalem mayor

Nir Barkat: ‘They don’t want Jerusalem divided’

By DAVID HOROVITZ

Most of Jerusalem’s Arab residents want to live under Israeli rule and do not want to see the city split between Israeli and Palestinian control, according to Mayor Nir Barkat.

“The vast majority of the Arabs in Jerusalem prefer to be on the Israeli side. They don’t want the city divided,” Barkat said.

Barkat, who was speaking to an audience of English-speaking Jerusalemites at the city’s Great Synagogue earlier this month, said he based his assessment on the findings of surveys reported by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The Washington Institute does independent polls of the Arab residents of East Jerusalem, and you see a very nice growth in (levels of) satisfaction,” he said. “The last poll was done last September. Compared to November 2010, general satisfaction (among Arabs) with the quality of life in Jerusalem grew from 44% to 56%.”

Barkat was speaking before a recent upsurge in tension in the city, which saw several clashes at the Temple Mount and on the northern edge of the city, with a Palestinian shot dead in the Al-Ram neighborhood after he threw a firecracker at Israeli troops during a demonstration last weekend.

The mayor said he could not predict whether there would be a major resurgence of violence – particularly if the Palestinian Authority revived its efforts to achieve international support for a unilateral declaration of statehood. “Whatever can happen from the other side, I don’t know,” he said. “We should prepare, God forbid, for any kind of thing.”

Nonetheless, he said, his strategy was to “improve the quality of life for the residents of Jerusalem, improve their feeling in the city, make sure that they have a lot to lose. As long as that (improving) trend continues, the rationale for any kind of violence within the residents of Jerusalem is not going up, it’s going down.”

Barkat said he was working hard to make up for a shortage of 1,000 classrooms in the east of the city. “Today we have 300 classrooms in different phases of being built (in East Jerusalem) and approved and funded by the government and the municipality. It took some time – because you have to allocate the land…”

He was also building roads: “All in all over the next five years we’ll probably be investing over a half billion shekels just in building roads in East Jerusalem.”

On housing in the east of the city, Barkat said there were “over 10,000 apartments that are not registered and over 20,000 with building infractions.” Rather than taking legal action in tens of thousands of cases, or ignoring the entire issue, he had decided “to press the restart button, and start rezoning neighborhood after neighborhood.” The goal was both to create less friction, “and for the benefit of being sovereign and taking responsibility.”

Neglecting the eastern part of the city, prior to his election as mayor, Barkat said, had “damaged the unity of the city in the eyes of the world. When we claim that the city is united but we don’t demonstrate that we know how to deal with all the residents, it hurts us.” Now, there was a growing local Arab community council leadership, and that leadership knew it had “an address” for its needs in City Hall.

Dissatisfaction with municipal services (in East Jerusalem) went down to 16% from 35%, Barkat added, again citing the Washington Institute’s comparative surveys. “You see that (the residents) acknowledge and understand that we care for them.”

Summarizing the latest survey’s findings in a briefing paper last September, the Washington Institute’s David Pollack wrote that nearly half of east Jerusalem Palestinians “would prefer to become citizens of Israel rather than of a new Palestinian state… Only one-quarter (23 percent) of the city’s nearly 300,000 Palestinian residents said they would “definitely” prefer Palestinian citizenship… Remarkably, 42 percent said they would actually move to a different neighborhood if necessary in order to remain under Israeli rather than Palestinian authority.

The latest survey, noted Pollack at the time, was conducted by Dr. Nabil Kukali of the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, in partnership with Princeton-based Pechter Middle East Polls. “Every one of east Jerusalem’s 19 Palestinian neighborhoods was sampled in exact proportion to its share of the total population, and the face-to-face interviews were conducted privately by local Palestinians in respondents’ homes.”

A majority of the East Jerusalem participants were now satisfied with their standard of living, Pollack added, “up from 44 percent in November. And just 43 percent now say they are dissatisfied on the issue of obtaining building permits — down greatly from around 70 percent in the previous survey. Similarly, only 16 percent now report dissatisfaction with Jerusalem municipal officials, a significant improvement compared to 35 percent in November.”

On the issue of violence, the survey found that “21 percent say a new intifada in Jerusalem is very likely if peace negotiations with Israel collapse entirely; an additional 36 percent say this is somewhat likely.”

Noted Pollack: “Surprisingly, these figures are actually down slightly from November 2010. More ominously, however, two-thirds predict that some groups would continue the ‘armed struggle’ against Israel even if the two sides reached a peace agreement.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/most-arabs-in-this-city-want-to-live-under-israeli-rule-says-jerusalem-mayor/