University in England on Israel and a Nuclear Iran. This is a MUST WATCH.

Douglas Murray (see below for brief bio) at his best in a debate at Cambridge Douglas Kear Murray (born 16 July 1979) is a writer, journalist and commentator. He was the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion from 2007 until 2011, and is currently an associate director of the Henry Jackson Society. Murray appears regularly in the British broadcast media, commentating on issues from a conservative standpoint, and he is often critical of Islamic fundamentalism. He writes for a number of publications, including Standpoint, the Wall Street Journal and The Spectator. He is the author of Bloody Sunday: Truths, Lies and the Saville Inquiry (2011). In 2013 Bloody Sunday was awarded the Ewart-Biggs memorial prize for advancing peace and understanding. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dBzslDdQ_g&sns=em

The Kerry Plan – Can Israel Say No?

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, "Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative” "Israel Hayom”, January 31, 2014, http://bit.ly/1dSaLHX The assumption that Israel must accept the Kerry Plan as a basis for negotiations with the Palestinian Authority – lest it risk a rift with the US – should be assessed in light of the full context of US-Israel strategic cooperation, the imploding Arab Street, the unique foundations and nature of US-Israel ties, the US political system, the ineffectiveness of prior US plans and Israel's own security requirements. US-Israel strategic cooperation transcends the Palestinian issue. Thus, despite the 66-year-old disagreement, between the two Administrations, about the ways and means to resolve the Palestinian issue, strategic cooperation has catapulted to unprecedented heights. Notwithstanding Arab talk – but based on the Arab walk - the Palestinian issue does not preoccupy the attention of Arab policy-makers, does not significantly impact vital US interests, and does not play a key role in destabilizing the Middle East, as reaffirmed by the tectonic Arab Tsunami, which is unrelated to Israel or the Palestinian issue. Therefore, the Palestinian issue has been superseded by regional and global mutual threats, interests and benefits, shaping the increasingly two-way-street mutually-beneficial US-Israel agenda: the US supply of critical military systems to Israel; the Israeli battle-tested laboratory, which enhances the performance of US military systems and the US defense industries; the joint development of ballistic, space, UAV, cyber and other critical technologies; Israeli innovations upgrade the competitive edge of US high tech industries; Israel provides intelligence of Iran's nuclear threat and Islamic terrorism on the US mainland and beyond; Israel trains US elite units in countering-terrorism and urban warfare, and shares battle lessons, shaping US battle tactics; Israel's power-projection deters rogue regimes, which threaten pro-US Arab regimes such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia; etc.. Israel's role as the most consistent, capable and willing ally of the US gains in importance, as the Arab Street becomes increasingly anti-US, Islamist, unstable and unpredictably violent. While the US cuts its defense budget and withdraws its military from the Middle East, Russia and China deepen their presence in the region and West Europe is preoccupied with domestic challenges. The disagreement over the Palestinian issue is, also, superseded by shared US-Israel Judeo-Christian values, which have strongly influenced US morality, legal and political systems. This dates back to the early Pilgrims in the 17th century, the Liberty Bell's inscription from Leviticus, the Founding Fathers, the Biblically-driven Anti-Slavery Movement and the current statues of Moses in the US House of Representatives and the US Supreme Court. American constituents – which are the axis of the Federal system – through most of the Congress – a co-equal, co-determining branch of government on external and domestic matters – have established a unique bottom-up, systematic, positive attitude towards the Jewish state. They disassociate themselves from the Executive's moral equivalence towards Israel – the role model of counter terrorism and unconditional alliance with the US – as opposed to the Palestinian leadership – a role model of international terrorism and an ally of Nazi Germany, the Communist Bloc, Khomeini, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. In 1948, the charismatic US Secretary of State, George Marshall pressured Israel to accept his plan of a UN Mandate for Palestine as a substitute for independence. Marshall considered the Jewish state a liability and the Arabs an asset. He assumed that Israel would join the Communist Bloc and would be unable to defend itself against the invading Arabs, thus triggering a second Jewish Holocaust in less than ten years. Prime Minister Ben Gurion refused to negotiate Marshall's proposal. When threatened by UN Security Council sanctions, which dictated a withdrawal from the "occupied Negev,” Ben Gurion stated: "What Israel has won on the battlefield, it is determined not to yield at the [UN Security] Council table.” Ben Gurion's principle-driven defiance and steadfastness produced short-term pressure, but long-term strategic respect, transforming Israel into the most reliable, stable, capable, democratic and unconditional ally of the US in the Middle East and beyond. In 1957, President Eisenhower pressured Israel to evacuate the Sinai Peninsula. Senate and House leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, threatened Eisenhower with legislative paralysis, and convinced Eisenhower to reduce his pressure. However, Israel pulled the rug from under their feet by accepting the Eisenhower plan. In December, 1969 and June, 1970, Secretary of State, William Rogers, introduced the Rogers Plan, calling for Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines, providing for a return of Arab refugees to Israel and shared Israel-Jordan rule in Jerusalem. Prime Minister Golda Meir rejected the plan, initializing the construction of three large new neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem, home of over 100,00 persons. Rogers tolerated Egypt's advancing surface-to-air missiles in violation of commitments, which facilitated the deterioration to the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In 1977, President Carter pressured Israel to participate in an international conference, highlighting the Palestinian issue and a full Israeli withdrawal. Prime Minister Begin dismissed the idea and initiated the dialogue with Egyptian President Sadat, which led to a peace accord. In September, 1982, President Reagan announced his plan, calling for full Israeli withdrawal and an immediate settlement freeze. Prime Minister Begin rejected the plan, expanded settlements, and laid the foundation for the November, 1983 upgrade of US-Israel strategic cooperation. Accepting the Kerry Plan would revert Israel to the pre-1967 9-15 mile sliver along the Mediterranean, dominated by the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria, which would be controlled by the Palestinian Authority, a systematic violator of agreements, perpetuator of hate education and generator of terror. The irreplaceability of Judea and Samaria mountain ridges for Israel's national security has been reinforced by the Arab Tsunami. It has made the Middle East – the most conflict-ridden region in the world - more violently intolerant, unpredictable, unreliable, unstable and treacherous. Accepting the Kerry Plan requires the subordination of long-term vision and security to short-term convenience, and the subjugation of realism to wishful-thinking, thus jeopardizing the very survival of the Jewish State, transforming Israel from a unique asset to a burden. Rejecting the Kerry Plan, might create short-term tension, but no long-term rift. On a rainy day, the US prefers a defiant, rather than a submissive, ally.

Clooney's "Monuments Men" & the Holocaust--the Untold Story

TABLET - January 29, 2014 ‘The Monuments Men’ Shows How America Saved Paintings While Letting Jews Die Audiences may not feel quite so good about the new George Clooney film once they learn the full story behind WWII art rescue efforts By Rafael Medoff|January 29, 2014 The story behind the creation of the “monuments men” team, depicted in George Clooney’s new feature film by the same name, begins in the spring of 1943, after the Allies had confirmed that Hitler was carrying out what they called “his oft-repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe”—while looting priceless works of art from their victims. Jewish leaders and members of Congress asked Allied leaders to take steps to aid the refugees. Roosevelt Administration officials replied that they could not divert military resources for nonmilitary purposes; the only way to rescue the Jews, they claimed, was to win the war. But to head off growing calls for rescue, the U.S. and British governments announced they would hold a conference in Bermuda to discuss the refugee problem. The talks had been “shunted off to an inaccessible corner so that the world would not be able to listen in,” American Zionist leader Abba Hillel Silver charged. Assembling the American delegation to Bermuda proved to be no simple task. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first two choices to chair the U.S. delegation, veteran diplomat Myron Taylor and Yale President Charles Seymour, turned him down. So did Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts, who said “the business of the court is in such shape” that he could not spare the time for the refugee conference. FDR expressed disappointment that Roberts would not be able to enjoy the lush beauty of the island, “especially at the time of the Easter lillies!” In any event, the president joshed, “You can tell the Chief Justice that while I yield this time, I will issue a subpoena for you the very next time you are needed!” And as it turned out, that next time was coming soon. The conference was doomed before it started—because, as Synagogue Council of America President Dr. Israel Goldstein pointed out, its real purpose was “not to rescue victims of Nazi terror, but rescue our State Department and the British foreign office from possible embarrassment.” The American delegates (led by last-minute choice Harold W. Dodds, president of Princeton University) arrived with strict instructions: no focus on Jews as the primary victims of the Nazis; no increase in the number of refugees admitted to the United States, even though immigration quotas were not even close to full; and no use of American ships to transport refugees—not even troop supply ships that were returning from Europe empty. The conferees also rejected the idea of food shipments to starving European Jews. That would violate the Allied blockade of Axis Europe, and no exceptions could be made, they declared. (Just a year earlier, however, the Allied leaders had yielded to public pressure and made an exception for the starving population of Nazi-occupied Greece.) Closing off the last remaining options, the British delegates at Bermuda refused to discuss opening Palestine to refugees and scotched the idea of negotiating with the Nazis for the release of Jews. The release of large numbers of Jews “would be relieving Hitler of an obligation to take care of these useless people,” one British official asserted. When the Bermuda conference ended, the two governments kept the proceedings secret rather than acknowledge how little had been accomplished. But the meager results were obvious. As Congressman Andrew Somers (D-NY) put it in a radio broadcast, Bermuda proved that “the Jews have not only faced the unbelievable cruelty of the distorted minds bent upon annihilating them, but they have to face the betrayal of those whom they called ‘friends’.” It was becoming painfully obvious that when it came to saving European Jews, nobody had much interest. When it came to saving European paintings, however, the response was very different. Which is where the story behind Clooney’s The Monuments Men came in. *** Shortly after the Bermuda meetings ended, the New York Times published an editorial titled “Europe’s Imperiled Art.” The newspaper, which showed little interest in the fate of Europe’s imperiled Jews, urged strong government action to rescue “cultural treasures” from the battle zones. The White House agreed: Here was something that did merit the diversion of American military resources. In June 1943, the Roosevelt Administration announced the establishment of a U.S. government commission “for the protection and salvage of artistic and historic monuments in Europe.” Finding a chairman for the new rescue agency was not too difficult: FDR turned to Justice Roberts, who may not have had time for the task of rescuing Jews but quickly found the time to chair a commission to rescue paintings and statues. The Roberts Commission set to work planning the mission that was to be carried out by the team that would come to be known as the Monuments Men. Some refugee advocates openly questioned the administration’s priorities. In full-page advertisements in the New York Times and elsewhere, the activists known as the Bergson Group said the establishment of the monuments group was “commendable. … It shows the deep concern of the [Allies] toward the problems of culture and civilization. But should [they] not at least show equal concern for an old and ancient people who gave to the world the fundamentals of its Christian civilization, the Magna Carta of Justice—the Bible—and to every generation some of its most outstanding thinkers, writers, scholars and artists? A governmental agency with the task of … saving the Jewish people of Europe is the least the [Allies] can do.” In the autumn of 1943, the Bergson Group’s allies in Congress introduced a resolution urging the president to create a commission to rescue Jews. At a hearing on the resolution, New York City Mayor Fiorello La Guardia pointed to the creation of the monuments commission: “This very important problem … is not like the destruction of buildings or monuments, as terrible as that may be, because, after all, they may be rebuilt or even reproduced; but when a life is snuffed out, it is gone; it is gone forever.” The Roosevelt Administration dispatched Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long to Capitol Hill to testify against Bergson’s rescue resolution. Long declared that the United States was deeply concerned about the Jewish refugees, but after all, “you cannot send a regiment in there to pull people out.” Paintings presented no such difficulties, apparently. Historians have noted that the work of the Monuments Men was not the only instance in which the Roosevelt Administration diverted military resources, or altered military plans, because of nonmilitary considerations. A U.S. Air Force plan to bomb the Japanese city of Kyoto was blocked by Secretary of War Henry Stimson because of the city’s artistic treasures. Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy intervened to divert U.S. bombers from striking the German city of Rothenburg because he feared for the safety of its famous medieval architecture: That was the same McCloy who rebuffed requests to bomb Auschwitz, on the grounds that such air strikes would require “diverting” planes from battle zones. In fact, throughout mid- and late 1944, U.S. bombers—including one piloted by future U.S. Sen. George McGovern—repeatedly struck German oil factories adjacent to Auschwitz, some of them less than five miles from the gas chambers. No doubt part of the problem was human psychology. When tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands, then millions of people are murdered, they become a kind of faceless blur, a numbing statistic in the public’s mind. By contrast, the specific images of famous Rembrandt or Picasso paintings were personally familiar to many Americans—and that familiarity engendered the sympathy needed to bring about intervention. Perhaps there is also something to be learned from the mass outpouring of sympathy for endangered animals. In a biting essay at the peak of the Darfur genocide, New York Timescolumnist Nicholas Kristof complained that Americans would care more about Darfur if the victims were puppies. He recalled that the public contributed $45,000 to rescue a terrier stranded on a burned-out oil tanker in the Pacific in 2002. And the eviction of a red-tailed hawk from its nest atop a Manhattan apartment building in 2004 sparked an international outcry, with actress Mary Tyler Moore and others rising up in passionate defense of the bird’s rights. “A single homeless hawk aroused more indignation than 2 million homeless Sudanese,” Kristof commented. During the 1940s, some refugee advocates noted the same phenomenon. Meeting with a U.S. senator in 1943, Rabbi Meyer Berlin (namesake of the future Bar-Ilan University) remarked: “If horses were being slaughtered as are the Jews of Poland, there would by now be a loud demand for organized action against such cruelty to animals. Somehow, when it concerns Jews, everybody remains silent, including the intellectuals and humanitarians of free and enlightened America.” Two years later, in a sad fulfillment of Rabbi Berlin’s dire prediction, U.S. Gen. George Patton diverted U.S. troops to rescue 150 prized Lipizzaner dancing horses, which were caught between Allied and Axis forces along the German-Czech border. None of this detracts from what the Monuments Men accomplished, of course. Their rescue of precious artwork and other historical treasures is deserving of praise. “The story of the Monuments Men is one that has to be told,” Texas Congresswoman Kay Granger said recently, explaining her proposal to give the surviving Monuments Men a Congressional Gold Medal. But it’s also story that has to be told within its historical context: the failure of the Roosevelt Administration to accord the rescue of human beings the same level of concern it accorded the rescue of cultural treasures. As an outspoken advocate of international intervention against the genocide in Darfur, George Clooney should understand this equation better than most people: He even got himself arrested two years ago by chaining himself to the front of the Sudanese embassy in Washington. Now imagine for a moment that the U.S. had sent military personnel into Darfur to rescue ancient African cultural heirlooms while refusing to lift a finger to aid victims of mass murder. Would Clooney make a movie about that rescue effort? Or would he be among the first to bemoan the U.S. government’s misplaced priorities? The contrast between America’s rescue of paintings from the Nazis and the American refusal to rescue Jews from the Nazis deserves the same consideration. *** Rafael Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, in Washington, D.C. His latest book is FDR and the Holocaust: A Breach of Faith. http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/160918/monuments-men

ADL: U.S. refusal to release Pollard borders on anti-Semitism

Abraham Foxman says issue of jailed Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard has become vendetta against entire American-Jewish community. By The Associated Press and Haaretz | Jan. 28, 2014 | 2:59 PM Anti-Defamation League Chairman Abraham Foxman says the way the United States is treating convicted Jewish-American spy Jonathan Pollard verges on anti-Semitism. Pollard, was a civilian intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy when he gave thousands of classified documents to Israel. Pollard was arrested in 1985 and sentenced to life in prison. Israeli governments and high-ranking former U.S. officials have called for his release. Foxman says there is no reason why Pollard remains incarcerated when spies convicted of far more serious crimes have walked free. He told Israel's Army Radio on Tuesday that the only explanation is someone is trying to teach the American-Jewish community a lesson in loyalty, and "that to me is on the verge of anti-Semitism." In a statement released by the ADL, Foxman said the Pollard issue threatens the entire American-Jewish community. "If it were only a vendetta against one individual, it would be bad enough. But it has now become one against the American-Jewish community. In effect, the continuing imprisonment of this person long after he should have been paroled on humanitarian grounds can only be read as an effort to intimidate American Jews. And, it is an intimidation that can only be based on an anti-Semitic stereotype about the Jewish community, one that we have seen confirmed in our public opinion polls over the years - the belief that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their own country, the United States."

Sex, Politics, Scarlett Johansson, and the Middle East

January 27, 2014 By Michael Curtis Ever since the torrid romance between Anthony and Cleopatra in 41 B.C. sex and politics have been intertwined in Middle East affairs. A less romantic link has now appeared in the relationship between the actress Scarlett Johansson voted this year, for the second time, by Esquire Magazine as "the sexiest woman alive," and Oxfam, the international organization concerned with issues of global poverty and injustice. Oxfam has received much praise for what it has accomplished in fulfilling its started mission to provide international aid. That acclaim might well be reconsidered now that Oxfam has become a bigoted endorser of the Palestinian narrative of victimhood and of the call for boycott of Israeli settlements, and for its mean-spirited behavior toward Scarlett Johansson. The actress has been an ambassador for Oxfam for eight years but in 2014 has made a deal with and endorsed SodaStream, the Israeli company producing sodas and other carbonated drinks in its 25 factories around the world. It troubles Oxfam that one of those factories is in the Israel settlement town of Ma'ale Adumim, now a city of 40,000. Oxfam has made known its "concerns" about Ms. Johansson and views her endorsement of SodaStream as conflicting with her relation with its organization. However, its statement on the issue is hypocritical as well as inaccurate. First, it said it respects the "independence of our ambassadors." The statement is not true. Already in 2009 it ended its relationship with another of its ambassadors, the actress Kristin Davis, one of the stars of Sex and the City, because she had endorsed the Ahava cosmetics line which is manufactured by Dead Sea Cosmetics in Mitzpe Shalem, a settlement and kibbutz about one mile from the Dead Sea. It is clear that Oxfam's concept of "independence" does not apply to anyone who acts in a manner favorable to the State of Israel, since it is a hollow and specious pretense to separate the State from settlements. On the other hand, it disingenuously welcomes the "independence" of another of its ambassadors, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, the relentless critic of Israel and strong advocate of the argument that Israel is an apartheid state. Oxfam echoes the Palestinian call for a campaign of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights. Oxfam believes that: "...businesses that operate in settlements further the ongoing poverty and denial of rights that we work to support. Oxfam is opposed to all trade from Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law." Scarlett Johansson is not a political activist of any kind, but her position on this issue is very much more rational and valid than is that of Oxfam, especially regarding questions of poverty and "rights." Supporting a two state solution, she believes that SodaStream in Ma'ale Adumim is building a bridge between Israel and Palestinians by employing the latter who receive equal pay, equal benefits, and equal rights. She is eminently sensible and diplomatic in her general assertion that progress is made when communities join together and work alongside each other. In this particular case, SodaStream is both reducing the poverty of Palestinians and also ensuring equal rights. The Palestinians eagerly proclaim the increase in the number of business companies and people who are supporting a boycott or divestment from Israel. The charade is that those activities are limited to action concerning the settlements. Yet this is deceitful because the boycott is not simply aimed at products made in the settlements, but also to related economic activities stemming from the State of Israel, such as provision of services, transport infrastructure, delivery of equipment, provision of security services, andinvestment in settlement factories. The question remains, why are individuals and organizations like Oxfam and others so obsessed with and unfriendly or hostile towards Israel? It is wholly appropriate to identify and critically discuss problems that Palestinians experience in the West Bank, such as checkpoints they must cross, or the lack of water resources, or the Israel presence in Area C , the largest and the only contiguous area of the West Bank, as well as the settlements themselves. But Oxfam and the others upholding the argument that the settlements are illegal or illegitimate, or that Israeli actions are in violation of international law and human rights, are wrong on the main issues. They are wrong for two reasons. The first, ignored by all the critics of Israel, is the fact that the settlements are not illegal according to international law because they are not on land taken from a prior legitimate sovereign state. No such state existed after the Ottoman Empire came to an end after World War I, and no legal determination has yet been made about the disputed territories. The second point is that the resolution not only of the issue of settlements, but also of the whole Arab-Israeli conflict, must and will come from negotiations between the parties. Oxfam and others should remember the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995 between Israel and the PLO at which the Palestinian Authority was created. The two sides agreed that all outstanding issues, including settlements and borders, were to be solved by negotiations, not by unilateral decisions. The PA was to prevent terrorist attacks against Israel. No mention was made by the Accords of boycott as the way to a solution. Israel has declared it is prepared to negotiate those issues and that they should not be prejudged. Even Oxfam might admit that the armistice lines of 1949 (the so called Green Line) are not the borders of Israel, and that other territories are disputed. As for Scarlett Johansson, Oxfam should join the chorus calling for her to get an Oscar this year. Michael Curtis is author of Jews, Antisemitism, and the Middle East.

Al Jazeera Arabic admits France, Israel better

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE3K49fEGv0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

ISRAEL'S STUNNING INVENTIONS- ALSO FOR HER ENEMIES

This is unbelievable, unimaginable . wonderful! To view this and to see what the Israeli's have accomplished in medicine, Please click the link! http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/IsraelSeries/medicine.html A bionic eye for those with macular degeneration. A Smart phone for the blind. A camera capsule to view your colon instead of a colonoscopy. Insulin pump for Type 1 etc. ... and so much more. Your Truth Provider, Yuval. www.truthprovider.com ynz@netvision.net.il

Obama, Clintons Accused in EGYPT of Aiding Terrorists, WND, 01/24/2014 (72 Comments so far)

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/obama-clintons-accused-in-egypt-of-aiding-terrorists NEW YORK – Two new, classifed documents leaked by Egyptian security implicate President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton in the aiding and abetting of terrorists. The documents have been entered as evidence in the criminal trials of former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi and other top Muslim Brotherhood leaders, scheduled to begin next month in Cairo. NEW YORK – Two new, classifed documents leaked by Egyptian security implicate President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton in the aiding and abetting of terrorists. The documents have been entered as evidence in the criminal trials of former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi and other top Muslim Brotherhood leaders, scheduled to begin next month in Cairo. Obtained by Arabic-speaking former Palestinian Liberation Organization-member Walid Shoebat and posted Thursday on his website, the two leaked documents provide evidence Egyptian security forces have monitored the movements and activities of Obama’s half-brother, Malik Obama, and his Islamic Dawa Organization, or IDO. The security forces also have kept an eye on the dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood of Essam El-Haddad, the father of Gehad El-Haddad, a senior adviser to the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States and a former employee of the William J. Clinton Foundation. Malik Obama’s alleged terrorist ties Shoebat referenced the publication of the leaked documents in Arabic by the Al-Masry Network in Egypt as evidence Malik Obama’s organization is the main sponsor of the effort to Islamize the Nuba area, Aswan and Luxor. “The Aswan region is a territory in southeastern Egypt that borders northern Sudan, which includes a long stretch of the Nile River,” Shoebat wrote. “During the Mohammed Morsi regime, both Egypt and Sudan (under Omar al-Bashir) would have presented an opportunity to work toward the slow erasure of the border between the two nations. Such negotiations in Aswan would have predictably caused Egypt’s Security Forces great concern.” Shoebat noted the Al-Masry report indicated that Malik Obama’s role with the Sudanese branch of IDO is much more significant than previously thought. According to Shoebat’s translation from the original Arabic, the article says in part: “Authorities within Egypt’s security apparatus have warned over the past two and a half years of the movements of the Islamic Dawa Organization (IDO), based in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, headed by businessman Kenyan owner Aboonju Obama (Malik), the elder brother of U.S. President Barack Obama, according to security authorities who are privy to the details of the investigation. One official said the organization and its president, a close friend of the President of Sudan Omar al-Bashir, support the Muslim Brotherhood with money, as well as the international organization of the group.” Shoebat further notes the Al-Masry report suggested that Malik has headed not only the Kenyan branch of IDO but the Khartoum-based organization that is “overseen by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.” Malik Obama’s role allegedly includes assisting and regulating the global Muslim Brotherhood agenda. In November, WND reported Egyptian lawyers had filed criminal terrorist charges in the International Criminal Court against President Obama in addition to the criminal terrorism charges previously filed in Egyptian courts against Malik Obama. WND reported in August that Tehani al-Gebali, the vice president of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, gave a speech and participated in an interview broadcast on Egyptian television, identifying Malik Obama as “a major architect” managing investments for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. On Sept. 7, 2011, two years before the IRS targeting of conservative groups became a national scandal, WND reported the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a 501(c)3 tax-exempt raising operated by Malik Obama in Kenya, appears to have received IRS approval one-month from the application submitted in May 2011. The IRS determination letter dated June 11, 2011, granted a highly irregular retroactive tax-exempt approval only after the group came under fire for operating as a 501(c)3 foundation since 2008 without ever having applied to the IRS for a tax determination. “Malik Obama’s prominent role as Executive Director of the IDO, at minimum, implicates his brother in a serious conflict of interest matter relative to national security,” Shoebat said. “That Malik was given illegal tax-exempt status by Lois Lerner may implicate his brother, President Barack Obama, as an accessory to terror funding, which is why Lerner should be granted immunity for her testimony,” he said. “So far, members of Congress who sit on such committees have shown no desire to do this.” Problems in Egypt for Hillary and Bill In September 2013, Gehad el-Haddad, openly known to be a senior Muslim Brotherhood official who had worked for five years at the William J. Clinton Foundation, was arrested in Cairo and charged with inciting violence. Until the arrest, el-Haddad was one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s top communications officials in Egypt as well as a top adviser to Morsi. Gehad el-Haddad In December, Shoebat documented that el-Haddad’s father, Essam el-Haddad, was also in custody in Egypt for his close association with the Muslim Brotherhood while serving as an aide to Morsi. Both father and son are now in Al-Agrab, a high-security prison in Egypt, with their assets seized by Egyptian government, while they await trial on espionage charges. The charges include working with Clinton while she was secretary of state to coordinate between the Morsi government and the Obama administration, allegedly in the interest of inciting violence in Egypt to solidify political control for key Muslim Brotherhood leaders active in Egypt as terrorist operatives. “Further evidence that Gehad el-Haddad is not just an innocent victim of circumstance has to do with the family he married into,” Shoebat noted. “His wife is the daughter of Dr. Mahmoud Abu Zeid, who is a leader within the Muslim Brotherhood Guidance Bureau. Gehad is also the nephew of Mohammed Ibrahim, who is a member of the leadership within the Guidance Bureau. This all adds up to mean that the longtime Bill Clinton employee is one of the primary players within the Muslim Brotherhood regime.” Shoebat has further reported that in August, when U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns went to Cairo with U.S. Sens. John McCain and Lindsay Graham, it was Gehad who helped Burns arrange a secret 90-minute meeting with then-imprisoned Khairat el-Shater, a top-ranking Muslim Brotherhood member who had served as a deputy to the Morsi government. “Without reading too much between the lines, that ‘major espionage involving foreign countries’ most likely includes the Obama administration when Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State,” Shoebat concludedbtained by Arabic-speaking former Palestinian Liberation Organization-member Walid Shoebat and posted Thursday on his website, the two leaked documents provide evidence Egyptian security forces have monitored the movements and activities of Obama’s half-brother, Malik Obama, and his Islamic Dawa Organization, or IDO. The security forces also have kept an eye on the dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood of Essam El-Haddad, the father of Gehad El-Haddad, a senior adviser to the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States and a former employee of the William J. Clinton Foundation. Malik Obama’s alleged terrorist ties Shoebat referenced the publication of the leaked documents in Arabic by the Al-Masry Network in Egypt as evidence Malik Obama’s organization is the main sponsor of the effort to Islamize the Nuba area, Aswan and Luxor. “The Aswan region is a territory in southeastern Egypt that borders northern Sudan, which includes a long stretch of the Nile River,” Shoebat wrote. “During the Mohammed Morsi regime, both Egypt and Sudan (under Omar al-Bashir) would have presented an opportunity to work toward the slow erasure of the border between the two nations. Such negotiations in Aswan would have predictably caused Egypt’s Security Forces great concern.” Shoebat noted the Al-Masry report indicated that Malik Obama’s role with the Sudanese branch of IDO is much more significant than previously thought. According to Shoebat’s translation from the original Arabic, the article says in part: “Authorities within Egypt’s security apparatus have warned over the past two and a half years of the movements of the Islamic Dawa Organization (IDO), based in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, headed by businessman Kenyan owner Aboonju Obama (Malik), the elder brother of U.S. President Barack Obama, according to security authorities who are privy to the details of the investigation. One official said the organization and its president, a close friend of the President of Sudan Omar al-Bashir, support the Muslim Brotherhood with money, as well as the international organization of the group.” Shoebat further notes the Al-Masry report suggested that Malik has headed not only the Kenyan branch of IDO but the Khartoum-based organization that is “overseen by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.” Malik Obama’s role allegedly includes assisting and regulating the global Muslim Brotherhood agenda. In November, WND reported Egyptian lawyers had filed criminal terrorist charges in the International Criminal Court against President Obama in addition to the criminal terrorism charges previously filed in Egyptian courts against Malik Obama. WND reported in August that Tehani al-Gebali, the vice president of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, gave a speech and participated in an interview broadcast on Egyptian television, identifying Malik Obama as “a major architect” managing investments for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. On Sept. 7, 2011, two years before the IRS targeting of conservative groups became a national scandal, WND reported the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a 501(c)3 tax-exempt raising operated by Malik Obama in Kenya, appears to have received IRS approval one-month from the application submitted in May 2011. The IRS determination letter dated June 11, 2011, granted a highly irregular retroactive tax-exempt approval only after the group came under fire for operating as a 501(c)3 foundation since 2008 without ever having applied to the IRS for a tax determination. “Malik Obama’s prominent role as Executive Director of the IDO, at minimum, implicates his brother in a serious conflict of interest matter relative to national security,” Shoebat said. “That Malik was given illegal tax-exempt status by Lois Lerner may implicate his brother, President Barack Obama, as an accessory to terror funding, which is why Lerner should be granted immunity for her testimony,” he said. “So far, members of Congress who sit on such committees have shown no desire to do this.” Problems in Egypt for Hillary and Bill In September 2013, Gehad el-Haddad, openly known to be a senior Muslim Brotherhood official who had worked for five years at the William J. Clinton Foundation, was arrested in Cairo and charged with inciting violence. Until the arrest, el-Haddad was one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s top communications officials in Egypt as well as a top adviser to Morsi. Gehad el-Haddad In December, Shoebat documented that el-Haddad’s father, Essam el-Haddad, was also in custody in Egypt for his close association with the Muslim Brotherhood while serving as an aide to Morsi. Both father and son are now in Al-Agrab, a high-security prison in Egypt, with their assets seized by Egyptian government, while they await trial on espionage charges. The charges include working with Clinton while she was secretary of state to coordinate between the Morsi government and the Obama administration, allegedly in the interest of inciting violence in Egypt to solidify political control for key Muslim Brotherhood leaders active in Egypt as terrorist operatives. “Further evidence that Gehad el-Haddad is not just an innocent victim of circumstance has to do with the family he married into,” Shoebat noted. “His wife is the daughter of Dr. Mahmoud Abu Zeid, who is a leader within the Muslim Brotherhood Guidance Bureau. Gehad is also the nephew of Mohammed Ibrahim, who is a member of the leadership within the Guidance Bureau. This all adds up to mean that the longtime Bill Clinton employee is one of the primary players within the Muslim Brotherhood regime.” Shoebat has further reported that in August, when U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns went to Cairo with U.S. Sens. John McCain and Lindsay Graham, it was Gehad who helped Burns arrange a secret 90-minute meeting with then-imprisoned Khairat el-Shater, a top-ranking Muslim Brotherhood member who had served as a deputy to the Morsi government. “Without reading too much between the lines, that ‘major espionage involving foreign countries’ most likely includes the Obama administration when Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State,” Shoebat concluded

Secretary Kerry, It's Not the Demography!

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, "Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative” "Israel Hayom,” January 24, 2014, http://bit.ly/1d29EW0 Is Secretary of State, John Kerry correct, or incorrect, when exhorting "the demographic time bomb” to scare Israel into a retreat from geography (Judea and Samaria), in order to, supposedly, secure demography? According to Kerry, "There is an existential threat to Israel…. I am referring to the demographic dynamic that makes it impossible for Israel to preserve its future as a democratic, Jewish state without resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a two-state solution.” Are Jews doomed to become a minority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and the pre-1967 Israel? According to the 2013 CIA World Factbook, Judea and Samaria Arabs experienced a dramatic decline in fertility rate (the average number of births per woman): from five births in 2000 to 2.91 in 2013. On the other hand, in 2014, Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics documents a 3.04 Jewish fertility rate and 3.42 when both Jewish spouses are Israeli-born. "A new Palestinian generation opts for fewer children” is the title of an article by Rasha Abou Jalal, a Gaza journalist: "While Islam calls for believers to bear many children and prohibits the use of birth control, new Palestinian generations are defying tradition and leaning toward limiting the number of children they have…. The new generation takes into consideration various economic and cultural factors before deciding to have children. The idea of limiting childbearing has, therefore, garnered more supporters than before…. The more Palestinians become aware and rational, the less they will procreate, as they pursue a level of education and knowledge that suits them and increases their chances of having a better life…. The Westernization of Muslim demographic trends, from Iran (1.8 births per woman), through Saudi Arabia (2.3), Syria and Egypt (2.9) and North Africa (1.8) has also characterized Muslim women in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and pre-1967 Israel. The unprecedented decline in Muslim fertility has been driven by modernity: accelerated women's rights, urbanization, education, career mentality and family planning (72% of 15-49 year old married Palestinian women prefer to avoid pregnancy). Thus, contemporary young Muslim women are reluctant to get married at the age of fifteen and start reproducing at the age of sixteen. They tend to postpone marriage until after the age of 20 and prefer limited reproduction. On the other hand, in 2014, the Israeli Jewish fertility rate (three births per woman and trending upwards) is higher than in any Arab country, other than Yemen, Iraq and Jordan. Jewish demography has been enhanced by a high level of optimism, patriotism, communal responsibility and attachment to roots among religious and secular, hawks and doves, conservative and liberal Israelis, bolstered by economic progress. While the annual number of Arab births – west of the Jordan River – has stabilized since 1995, the annual number of Jewish births has surged from 80,000 in 1995 to about 132,000 in 2013 – a 65% increase! This dramatic leap occurred despite declining fertility among ultra-orthodox Jews, but due to the substantial rise of secular Jewish fertility. In 1995 there were 2.3 Jewish births per one Arab birth in Israel; in 2014 – 3.3 births. In 1995, the number of Jewish births constituted 69% of total Israeli births; in 2014 – 77% and rising. In 2014, there is a robust 66% Jewish majority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel - compared with a 9% and 39% in 1900 and 1947 - benefitting from a tailwind of fertility and net-immigration. This contrasts with declining Arab fertility and annual Arab net-emigration (in 2014, 20,000 from Judea and Samaria). In 2014, Israel's Jewish population has reached 6.5 million people, next to 1.7 million Israeli Arabs and 1.7 million Judean and Samarian Arabs – one million less than the number claimed by the Palestinian Authority. The misrepresentation was conceived in the late 1990s, in response to the arrival of one million Soviet Jews to Israel. It consists of overseas residents, overseas births, by double-counting Jerusalem Arabs as Israeli Arabs (by Israel) and West Bankers (by the Palestinian Authority), etc.. According to a March 17, 2006 Gallup Poll survey, preferred family size has a strong bearing on actual fertility rates: Israeli Jews aspired to 3.7 births per woman, while Palestinians aspired to 4.7 births. Although, 2014 indicates compatibility with Jewish preference, Palestinian fertility is decreasing much faster than expected by Gallup. All doomsday demographic projections have failed due to their reliance on past demographic data, underestimating Jewish fertility, overestimating Arab fertility and discarding the feasibility of significant waves of Aliyah (Jewish immigration). Since 1898 and 1944, the demographic establishment has issued multiple projections on the ostensible inevitability of an Arab majority in the Land of Israel, attempting to scare Zionist leaders into inaction and retreat. In 1967, Prime Minister Eshkol was urged to evacuate Judea and Samaria, lest there be an Arab majority by 1987. On July 6, 1987, Prof. Arnon Sofer contended that an Arab majority was expected by 2000. Together with Prof. Sergio DellaPergolla, they dismissed any prospect of Jewish immigration from the USSR. In fact, one million Jews arrived! A pro-active Aliyah policy could produce 500,000 Olim in the next ten years, catapulting the Jewish majority in Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel to 80% by 2035. The demography of doom distorts reality, instills pessimism, subordinates long-term strategic vision to baseless fatalism, rationalizes a policy of submission to pressure and self-destructive retreat, intensifies global pressure and radicalizes Arab demands, thus promoting violence and undermining peace. Will Secretary Kerry embrace demographic reality, which highlights a robust Jewish demographic tailwind and not an Arab demographic time bomb?!