Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Difference In Voter Concerns Drives The Nature of The Candidacy As Does The Increased Power of The Oval Office Versus Congress's Decline!

    Continuing emphasis by press and media on                                                                                                                       nonsense.

In my previous memo I indicated I had a theory about the changing nature of who might seek The Oval Office, due to the increasingly violent and dangerous world  as well as the increase in the power of the Presidency itself, by reason of the fact that a strong president can act unilaterally if he/she chooses to defy Congress and The Constitution, as has Obama.  Also, Congress, by the very nature of its construct, acts acts ponderously and with increased technology the demand for quick response action has grown.  Furthermore, Congress through inept leadership, has abdicated much of its authority. I submit a lion tamer and a dog trainer attract different personalities.

If my theory is correct then bland personalities are more likely to lose to those who have bigger than life personalities where voter emphasis is focused on a distinctly different set of concerns than that which bothers liberals and progressives.. Consequently, personal accomplishments may not be as important. Trump was able to fend off and defeat candidates with far more acknowledged achievements, notwithstanding the fact that he has little awareness of the demands of the office, made many freshman mistakes and was boorish and churlish in his manner as well as being narcissistic.   Conservatives seem concerned about terrorism, defense of borders, our military weakness, perception America has abdicated its leadership role, threats to Constitutional Rights, growth of government and crushing bureaucratic rules and regulations and the rise in power of Iran, China, Russia and N Korea.

Democrats had two distinctly different candidates to choose from beyond the fact of gender differences. Hillary has lusted to become president for over 30 years whereas, Bernie came to the thought/desire more recently.  Though, Hillary had greater name recognition, money and broader support, Bernie gave her a run but party structure doomed him from the git-go.

Liberals and progressives seem less interested in what concerns conservatives and focus on fairness, wealth distribution, climate change and the government's responsibility of delivering and expanding entitlements.  If I am correct, the type of candidate appealing to liberals is distinctly different than who might attract conservatives. Consequently Hillary and Bernie have appeal, notwithstanding their record of non achievements and, in the case of Hillary, her decidedly negative personal characteristics.

As for campaign style and focus,  Hillary has learned Trump and the Trump Brand are one and the same. Thus, when you attack Trump's Brand he been unable to separate himself and being a fighter he responds in ways that have proven mostly self-defeating. Therefore, Hillary will continue to make the campaign about Trump, focus on his alleged unfitness and enlist  a cast of surrogates to goad Trump into off the cuff responses.

Trump, if he can stay on message, has a golden opportunity to mine from a poor economy, a slew of foreign policy disasters Hillary was connected with and a sour mood that America is failing.
Trump is out there, more or less, alone fighting a biased press and media, those within his own party who he has turned off, Hillary's enormous funding and tested ground game as well as a president who remains popular despite his disastrous presidency by any objective standard of measurement. Trump, however, is a street fighter and has a keen sense of  the concerns of an untapped voter source who firmly believe America is no longer the nation they once knew and Hillary is totally unable to reach them with her stiff style, her  unappealing message and personality.

Considering the enormous personal baggage Hillary must lug around and her daily  responses which increases  its weight you would think any traditional candidate would be miles ahead, based on polling, but, though the race is close, Trump is not your traditional candidate and has defied all convention but has committed so many freshman errors and remains the under dog.

I believe the first debate will prove crucial and if Donald does poorly it could be tap city. On the other hand, should he hold his own his ability to slay the "pant suit lady" would be greatly enhanced.
Hillary is a master at obfuscation in response to questions and answers by not answering and does so in legaleeze language which further befogs listeners whereas, Trump responds with facts that are wrong and a manner that could be a turn off so the debates should prove interesting.

In essence we have attracted two unattractive candidates who cater to voters with different concerns which highlights the fact that we are no longer The United States.  Obama has been successful in dividing us with his brand of hope and change which proved to be more like a mirage constructed out of lies, aggressiveness that challenged orthodox interpretations of constitutionality and a vision that is totally out of kilter with what The Founders intended for America.

Post the 2016  Campaign, I daresay what we will learn is that we must change the way we elect our presidents and future presidents will face vast challenges which, lamentably, they may find overwhelming.  (See 1 below.)
One of the key determinants for me is who gets to select the next few Supreme Court Justices and I shudder at the thought Obama could be one of them and, if not, then the head of The U.N. (See 2 below.)
Crime pays if you are a Palestinian. (See 3 below.)
Hillary's record regarding Israel and an op ed by my courageous Arab Israeli friend regarding the campaign against Israel's  right to exist. (See 4 and 4a below.)
Finally, time for some clever humor. (See 5 below.)
1) Donald Trump, postmodern candidate

Victor Davis Hanson

By Victor Davis Hanson

Early 20th century modernism ignored classical rules of expression. But late 20th century postmodernism blew up those rules altogether.

Barack Obama was a modernist candidate. He turned out vast numbers of young and minority voters, mastered new social media, and in 2008 overturned the old-guard Democratic furniture such as Hillary Clinton.

In contrast, Donald Trump has simply destroyed normal politics. Unlike Obama with his record Wall Street fundraising of 2008 and 2012, Trump has raised almost no money. He ignores endorsements from political kingpins. Trump has organized no serious voter registration drives. His convention was bizarre, showcasing his kids instead of party bosses and special-interest groups.

How about internal polling? Trump seems to have none.Sophisticated opposition research? Zilch.

Standard talking points? Not so much.

Teleprompted speeches? Trump prefers ad-hoc stream of consciousness.

Candidates are supposed to avoid the pitfalls of press conferences as much as possible -- and prep for days when they are obligated to give them. Not Trump. He thrives on unscripted rants to the press without much worry about what he says.

Candidates dislike and fear reporters, and so seek to flatter them. Trump openly insults them and occasionally kicks them out of his press conferences.

Modern politicians generally avoid getting pulled into nasty, lose-lose fights. Trump welcomes brawls against all comers.

Hillary Clinton has taken huge quid-pro-quo contributions from rich people as she damns the influence of big money in politics. Trump cannot seem to find any big donors. He trashes crony capitalist insiders on the grounds that he used to be one himself.

Traditional politicians such as Mitt Romney were perfectly groomed and rarely appeared without tailored suits. Modernist politicians such as Obama like to be photographed on the golf links appearing young, hip and cool, wearing shades and polo shirts.

But Trump defies both traditional and nontraditional tastes by wearing loud, long ties, combing his dyed-yellow hair over a bald spot, and tanning his skin a strange orange hue.

Politicians attack each other while faking politeness. The coolest do it with nuance. Not Trump. He uses taboo words like "liar" and "crooked."

Modernist candidates voice platitudes about border enforcement. But only a postmodern one would demand that Mexico pay for a wall.

For a modern politician, a gaffe is an inadvertent truthful statement. For a postmodern Trump, the only gaffe imaginable is to stay silent.

All presidential candidates court top party officials, former presidents and defeated rivals, and seek praise from newspapers and magazines.

When Trump either does not win such approval or is ridiculed by major media and those in his own party, he pouts, saying his critics are losers without much clout anyway.

The bible for modern politicians is political correctness. They must defer to every imaginable hyphenated group and "community," employing euphemisms or self-imposed censorship while sidestepping race, class and gender land mines as much as possible.

Again, not Trump. He says what he pleases. If he blows himself up with a politically incorrect outburst, what is left simply flows back together, as if Trump were some sort of political version of the Terminator.

Trump was supposed to fade last summer. His crudity was said to guarantee that he would lose Republican primaries.
Then, pundits said Trump's vulgar style of primary campaigning would not translate well to the general election.

Now, even seasoned politicos confess there are no rules that apply to Donald Trump. He just keeps shouting that things are getting worse and no one will admit it.

We live in a politically correct age in which President Obama is unable or unwilling to mention radical Islamists as the terrorists who have killed hundreds in Europe and the United States.
No one dares suggest that the more than 300 sanctuary cities in the U.S. are a rebirth of the illiberal and neo-Confederate idea of nullification of federal law. Black Lives Matter is idealized as a civil rights group despite the chants at its protests about violence towardpolice.

Doubling the national debt to nearly $20 trillion in just eight years is regarded as no big deal.

The public is growing tired of two realities: the one they see and hear each day, and the official version that has nothing to do with their perceptions.

Trump comes along with a ball and chain and throws it right into the elite filtering screen -- and the public cheers as the fragile glass explodes.

If most politicians are going to deceive, voters apparently prefer raw and uncooked deception rather than the usual seasoned and spiced dishonesty.

Will Trump fade in August, implode in September, self-destruct in October -- or win in November?
No one knows. There are no longer rules to predict how a fed-up public will vote. And there has never been a postmodern candidate like Donald J. Trump.
2) Supreme Court Justice Barack Hussein Obama.
A no-vote is the same as a vote for Hillary Clinton.  If Hillary Clinton, arguably the most dishonest and corrupt person ever to run for President of the United States, wins, I have no doubt that a President Hillary Clinton will name President Obama to the Supreme Court for several very good reasons: he has covered her backside, no easy task that in itself, in the email server scandals and now wants payback; he claims credentials as a Constitutional lawyer; he is buying a mansion in Washington D. C. and has made no secret of his desire to stay in the capitol; and he could complete his “fundamental transformation”  of our Republic during a lifetime on the Supreme Court.  If that’s not enough to scare everyone into voting, I don’t know what will.
Even if you dislike The Donald, grit your teeth and vote for him; the alternative is simply too devastating and unimaginable ... !!!!!!



  • “[W]hoever was imprisoned for five years or more is entitled to a job in a PA [Palestinian Authority] institution. Thus, the PA gives priority in job placement to people who were involved in terrorist activity.” – Yigal Carmon, president of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), in testimony to the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs, July 6, 2016.
  • In 2016, not less than $300 million (between 7% and 10% of the budget) was allocated to prisoners, their families, and to “martyrs' families.”
  • In June, an independent report commissioned by the Britain's Department for International Development concluded that by enabling the PA to pay salaries to terrorists, British aid to the PA had made anti-Israel terror “more likely.” DFID dismissed the report.
  • Palestinian society is totally built and organized on the basis of “resistance”. It is a society where jobs, fame and money go to people who are in, or who have spent years in, Israeli jails. There, legitimacy goes to people who are considered “martyrs.”
Crime is not supposed to pay in any country, but for Palestinians in the West Bank, crime helps you become a public officer.
In this small piece of land, headed by Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority (PA), every killer of a Jewish Israeli citizen is called “martyr.” This word “martyr” means that each time a Palestinian stabs a Jew, he accomplishes an act of pious virtue. And because the killer is a good Palestinian Muslim, his family becomes eligible for regular payments from the Palestinian Authority's “martyr's fund.” This fund is used financially to compensate Palestinian prisoners and the families of “martyrs.”
After a 17-year-old Palestinian, Mohammed Tarayra, stabbed to death a sleeping 13-year-old Israeli girl, Hallel Yaffa Ariel, in her bed in the town of Kiryat Arba, the terrorist's house was decorated with Fatah and PLO flags. No doubt the family will be soon on the list of payments from the Palestinian “martyr's fund.”
According to an analysis by Bloomberg's Eli Lake:
“The origins of these payments goes back a long way. Before the Palestinian Authority was established in the 1990s through the Oslo peace process, the Palestine Liberation Organization paid the families of 'martyrs' and prisoners detained by Israel. That practice became standardized during the Second Intifadah of 2000 to 2005. The Israelis even found documents in the late Yasser Arafat's compound that showed payments to families of suicide bombers.”
The money the Palestinian killers make is not small change. Evelyn Gordon reported in Commentary:
“The PA has for years paid above-market salaries to the perpetrators of anti-Israel terror attacks. The salaries range from 2,400 to 12,000 shekels a month ($600 USD to $3,000 USD) and are paid for the duration of the perpetrator's jail sentence in Israel (people killed while committing attacks get other benefits). The lower figure is roughly equivalent to the average – not minimum – wage for people who actually hold jobs in the West Bank, and about 40 percent higher than the average wage in Gaza; figures at the higher end of the range are the kind of salaries most Palestinians can't even dream of. In short, the PA has made terror far more lucrative than productive work.”
Yigal Carmon, president and founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), submitted testimony to the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs on July 6, 2016. He gave interesting details.
First: the payments are highly structured by law.
“This financial support for prisoners is anchored in a series of laws and government decrees, chiefly Laws No. 14 and No. 19 of 2004, and Law No. 1 of 2013…” According to these laws, the PA must provide prisoners with a monthly allowance during their incarceration, and salaries or jobs upon their release. They are also entitled to exemptions from payments for education, health care, and professional training. Their years of imprisonment are calculated as years of seniority of service in PA institutions. It should be noted that whoever was imprisoned for five years or more is entitled to a job in a PA institution. Thus, the PA gives priority in job placement to people who were involved in terrorist activity.”
Technically, the PA transfers the funds through two PLO organizations:
The National Palestinian Fund, which transfers moneys for the prisoners and released prisoners (further to be disbursed by the Commission for Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs).
The Institute for Care for the Families of Martyrs, which transfers moneys for the families of martyrs.
What are the amounts?
Prisoners and families: “[T]he PA invests significant sums in underwriting the expenses of the prisoners and their families – $137.8 million according to the PA's 2016 budget (about 7% of which is for officials' salaries and operating expenses).
Families of “martyrs”: The PLO's Institute for Care for the Families of Martyrs… allocated just under $173 million for families of martyrs and the wounded within the homeland and outside it. The Institute's operating expenses comes [sic] to about $1.5 million. … The budget also states that the Institute provides allowances “without discrimination” — in other words, also from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and so on.
In 2016, not less than $300 million (between 7 and 10% of the budget) are going to be allocated to prisoners and families and to “martyrs' families.”
The United States and the European Union, which finance the Palestinian institutions year after year, deliberately close their eyes to the “martyr's fund” to which they contribute.

PA Minister of Prisoners' Affairs Issa Karake, speaking at a rally in November 2013, defends the use of EU aid money to pay “salaries” to imprisoned terrorists, saying “The Europeans want their money that comes to us to remain clean — not to go to families of those they claim to be terrorists. [They] need to renounce this occupation mentality.” (Image source: Palestinian Media Watch)
But things might begin to change. Warning signs are in the air.
1) The recent Report of the Middle East Quartet (European Union, United States, Russia and the UN) does not talk money but “incitement to terror” — which is exactly the same thing.
“Continuing violence, terrorist attacks against civilians, and incitement to violence are greatly exacerbating mistrust and are fundamentally incompatible with a peaceful resolution.”
The Quartet added:
“Palestinians who commit terrorist attacks are often glorified publicly as “heroic martyrs.” Many widely circulated images depict individuals committing terrorist acts with slogans encouraging violence.”
This Quartet report is not a pro-Israel banner: It criticized harshly settlement policy, even in Jerusalem, and accuses the Israelis of denying the Palestinian economy any possibility for development. The one, however, who was really angry after the Quartet report was not Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Quartet report apparently infuriated Mahmoud Abbas because, for the first time in many years, the settlement policy of the Israeli government was not pointed to as the main and unique obstacle to peace.
As Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat claimed, the Quartet allegedly sought “to equalize the responsibilities between a people under occupation and a foreign military occupier.” To “equalize responsibilities” is for the Palestinians exactly the problem. They do not want to make any gesture, move or even a smile for peace. In a Middle East torn by a multiethnic war between Arabs against non-Arabs, Muslims against non-Muslims and Shiites against Sunnis, who could imagine that these Sunni Arab Palestinian people can claim suddenly and publicly: “Hey, Israel my friend, we are ready to make peace with you Jews and recognize Israel as a Jewish state.” Unthinkable (from an Islamic point view, of course).
2) International pressure is on the move. On May 4, 2016, for example, Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) reported that “In a meeting with [PA President] Mahmoud Abbas, Norway's Foreign Minister Børge Brende stressed that the current support program for prisoners should be abolished.”
On May 22, 2016, PMW also reported from the official PA daily, Al Hayat al Jadidah:
“Director of PLO Commission of Prisoners' Affairs: Israel and a number of Western countries [are] trying to revoke the prisoners' financial rights on the pretext that they engaged in 'terror'….”
3) The Israeli government that, for a long time, was not paying attention to the issue, has changed its stand on the “martyr's fund” problem. According to Bloomberg, “On Friday, Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, announced that he would begin withholding part of the tax revenue that Israel sends to the Palestinian Authority — equal to the amount paid to 'martyrs.'”
4) Frank Lowenstein, the U.S. special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, told Bloomberg that “the U.S. has recently started withholding funding” for the same reason. “We have robustly complied with legislation passed in 2014 that requires us to deduct from development assistance to the Palestinian Authority for Palestinian payments to individuals imprisoned for acts of terrorism,” he said.
5) U.S. Senator Dan Coats (R.Indiana) told the Jerusalem Post on June 29, that “the Senate is acting to shut a loophole that allows Palestinian leadership to use US aid dollars to provide monthly stipends to people convicted by Israel of murder or terrorism.” The State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill should be voted on next year.
The amount of development assistance that has been already withheld is classified.
Currently, the difficulty is for American and Israeli officials to press European governments to adopt an equivalent position on this delicate issue. It will not be easy. At the end of June 2016, the European Parliament gave a standing ovation to Mahmoud Abbas in Brussels — the same Mahmoud Abbas who began his speech in Brussels by saying:
“We are against incitement. But, just a week ago, a week, a group of rabbis in Israel announced, in a clear announcement, demanding their government, to poison, to poison, the water of the Palestinians… Is this not incitement? Is this not clear incitement, to the mass murder of the Palestinian people?”
All the MEPs in Brussels jumped on their feet to acclaim and applaud this pure anti-Semitic lie. The day after, Abbas was forced to retract it; he admitted there was no factual basis for such a statement.
Britain could help to break the European adoration of the “good Palestinian” who “wants peace” — by subsidizing terror attacks — contrary to the “bad Israeli” who is said to “steal land,” by defending it when it is attacked.
In June, an independent report commissioned by the Department for International Development (DFID, a British governmental body dedicated to fight poverty) concluded that by enabling the PA to pay salaries to terrorists, British aid to the PA had made anti-Israel terror “more likely.” DFID dismissed the report, but the uproar in Parliament was huge.
It is not impossible to convince the EU — even France which has been conducting hostile diplomatic actions against Israel just to seduce the powerful French community of Muslim voters — to stop incentivizing terror attacks. As U.S. Senator Coats said, “Some things are simply too immoral to be tolerated.”
So the question is: can the PA stop paying the “martyrs” and make peace with Israel? The answer is NO.
The linkage between paying “martyrs” and making peace is central. Palestinian society is totally built and organized on the basis of “resistance.” It is a society where jobs, fame and money go to people who are in, or who have spent years in, Israeli jails. There, legitimacy goes to people who are considered “martyrs.” The failure of reforms introduced by former PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and his inevitable dismissal were due to his lack of “expertise” in terror matters. Gatestone's Khaled Abu Toameh wrote last year:
The reason most Palestinians did not vote for Fayyad is because he had not played any role in the 'revolution' against Israel. In this culture, it is more important if one graduates from an Israeli prison than from the University of Texas in Austin. Fayyad did not participate in any armed attack on Jews and never supported the armed struggle against Israel. Nor did he send his son to throw stones or firebombs at Israelis. That is the real reason why people like Fayyad lack popular support.
Bloomberg's Eli Lake wrote the same thing differently:
“One problem is that the payments to terrorists' families are exceedingly popular these days” writes Bloomberg. “Ziad Asali, the president and founder of the American Task Force on Palestine, told me that in recent years the media and politicians have elevated these payments to something “sacred in Palestinian politics.” Asali said the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, and others are too weak to stop it. “This is where we find ourselves now. The vast majority understand there has to be an end to violence; it's not serving the Palestinians in any way,” Asali said. “But I think nobody really has the stature and clout to confront these issues publicly.”
But foreign donors have to understand something important: they have to cut foreign money for “martyrs,” but this does not in itself bring peace. It would just replace a certain type of violence with another type of violence: open revolts against Abbas, who would be considered a traitor; violence against the corrupt Palestinian Authority system; new Palestinian terrorism financed by hostile countries like Iran and perhaps some others.
Even if a minority of Palestinians think that the terror reward money is a dead end, the shortage of this same money opens the door to another dead end.
In this 21st century, with no “good guy,” no model to follow in the Middle East, Muslims need the war on Israel.
We have not finished with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Yves Mamou, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde.
JV Staff

Hillary openly and without shame paid a visit to the Palestinian area to attend a speech given by Mrs. Suha Arafat during which the terrorist's wife accused the Israelis of poisoning Palestinian women and children.
Having the word, “Jewish” as part of our masthead carries with it a deep sense of responsibility. It is there for a purpose. And as such we do all in our power to honestly educate, show support for and stand beside the Jewish community and Israel. Sadly, in this current upside down world a huge percentage of the media, electronic and print, are overtly and transparently biased, supporting the Progressive Left and their new entrenched partners, the world of radical Islam. This fact terrifies us as well as it should both the American Christian and Jewish population. It is estimated that the power of the press has a huge effect on how people think and vote. We'll guess that at least 3 percent of our nation's vote can be traced to the sometimes, censored and frequently misleading news articles that are polluted by the editorializing media.
An open news conference during which reporters ask questions of candidates is kryptonite to Ms. Clinton. She avoids such openness with nary a word of complaint from the minions of the press. The format of facing multiple reporters, some hostile, with whom she can't plan the questions thrown at her is not totally comfortable for Mrs. Clinton. A reason perhaps why she hasn't held one for nearly 300 days running. Therefore, what we know about this Democrat contender for the White House has to come from her actions, behavior, relationships and statements over the years. Let's focus in on her factual Jewish/Israel history that is never brought to light in the mainstream media.
Way back in 1982 as president of the far left leaning NYC based New World Foundation, she supported the Yasser Arafat led Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) with $15,000. This was a time when the PLO was clearly committed to the extinction of Israel and excelled at terrorism against Israel and the slaughter of its citizens.
During a trip to Israel at a time when her New York senatorial campaign was targeted at ensnaring the Jewish vote she openly and without shame paid a visit to the Palestinian area to attend a speech given by Mrs. Suha Arafat during which the terrorist's wife accused the Israelis of poisoning Palestinian women and children with the “daily use of toxic gases.” Images of Hillary embracing and kissing Suha after she made the charges are strangely never mentioned by the New York Times' columnists nor pictured on any PBS documentary.
After jumping from her senate seat to become the Secretary of State and no longer needing NY Jewish voters' support, she joined Obama's ferocious campaign to force Israel to comply with Palestinian demands for the cessation of building homes for newly arrived Jewish refugees and to accept any and all suicidal plans for a two state solution. Her 45 minute telephone call in which she mercilessly bashed Prime Minister Netanyahu for his “stubborness” in standing up for Israel's security is legend but never discussed by Chris Matthews.
Back in 2012, after the brutal Gaza-Israel war, in a highly controversial move, Secretary of State Clinton approved a $147 million economic support package to Gaza. And who controlled and still rules in that area? Hamas! This despite her earlier statement to the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee in April, 2009: “We will not deal with nor in any way fund a Palestinian government that includes Hamas unless and until Hamas has renounced violence, recognized Israel and agreed to follow the previous obligations of the Palestinian Authority.” Perhaps Tuesdays are her expiration days for Mondays' statements.
During her primary campaign she figuratively slapped Netanyahu in the face by boycotting his address to a joint session of congress. Was she counting on Jews to forget or disregard this blatant act of arrogance against the democratically elected PM of Israel? Apparently she feels the Jewish vote is locked up in the Democrat voting machines. And justs how many Israel supporting Democrats are aware of her very close relationship with Huma Abedin who together with her whole family are deeply entrenched with the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Another in her close knit group of dangerous intimate advisors are father and son, Sid and Max Blumenthal, both with credentials that send shivers up Israel supporters' spines. Once entrenched in the White House Hillary will call on them for Middle East advice and strategy. Not a pleasant thought for us to dwell on. And neither one for George Stephanopolous to mull over in his columns or on the tube at ABC.
We got a glimpse of the Democrat Party's lack of patriotism during the opening two days of the convention with the total lack of American flags in the mammoth Philadelphia hall. Rather, we were mortified by the scenes of Palestinian flags proudly taking the place of the Stars and Stripes. Combined with the videos of stomping and burning of Israeli flags by demonstrators, we view the prospects of a Hillary win in November with furrowed brows. Don't let that happen! And we at the Jewish Voice will continue to keep you informed.as to the dangers to our country and Israel of a Democrat win in November.

By Khaled Abu Toameh, 
  • For many Arabs and Muslims, the conflict with Israel is not about a withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines. These opponents have no intention of recognizing Israel's right to exist, even if it allows for the creation of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.
  • A leading cleric, Dr. Ali Daghi, Secretary-General of the International Muslim Scholars, wrote: “There is a consensus among Muslims, in the past and present, that if an Islamic land is occupied, then its inhabitants must declare jihad until it is liberated from the occupiers.”
  • “Anyone who calls for peace with the Zionists should be brought to trial for high treason. Normalization is treason.” — Ramzi Al-Harbi, Saudi writer.
  • Let us be clear: these are not fringe voices. This is mainstream Arab and Islamic society. What bothers them is not the “normalization” with the “Zionist entity,” but the fact that Israel exists. For the masses, jihad against Israel is the solution, not another peace initiative endorsed by unelected Arab dictatorships.
Arabs and Muslims are up in arms over a controversial visit to Israel by a retired Saudi general, Dr. Anwar Eshki, who is being accused of promoting “normalization with the Jews and the Zionist entity.” If “normalization” with Israel is being denounced as a major crime and sin, one can only imagine what “peace” with Israelis would be considered in the Arab and Islamic countries.
General Eshki and a delegation of Saudi academics and businessmen met with Israeli Foreign Ministry Director-General Dore Gold, the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), Maj.-Gen. Yoav Moderchai and several Knesset members from the opposition. The Saudi delegation also travelled to Ramallah, where its members met with Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian officials.

Retired Saudi general Anwar Eshki (center, in striped tie) and members of his delegation, meeting with Knesset members and others during a visit to Israel, on July 22, 2016. (Image source: Twitter)
The anger engendered by the unprecedented visit by the Saudi delegation to Israel shows that many Arabs and Muslims continue to believe that Israel has no right to exist despite the optimism voiced over the so-called Arab Peace Initiative of 2002.
Several Arab and Muslim leaders insist that, according to this initiative, an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital would lead to the creation of “normal relations” between their countries and Israel.
However, the outrage the Saudi delegation's visit to Israel has triggered throughout the Arab and Islamic countries points to one conclusion: that for many Arabs and Muslims, the conflict with Israel is not about a withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines. Nor is the conflict about Palestinian rights and “normal relations” between Israel and the Arab and Islamic countries.
Those opposed to the visit are expressing their feelings under the banner of “Anti-Normalization” with Israel. The existence of Israel on “Muslim-owned” land, however, is the real problem. These opponents have no intention of recognizing Israel's right to exist, even if it withdraws to the pre-1967 lines and allows for the creation of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. This, of course, stands in sharp contrast with the spirit of the Arab Peace Initiative, which many in the Western world mistakenly believe would put an end to the Israeli-Arab conflict.
The first to express outrage over the visit were thousands of Saudis, including top Islamic clerics, who took to social media to express their poison and hatred for Israel and Jews. Many reminded their listeners of fatwas (Islamic religious decrees) banning any form of “normalization” with Israel and Jews, who are referred to as “infidels and polytheists.” The fatwas also forbid Muslims from giving up any part of “Muslim-owned” land to non-Muslims.
In Islam, if land has ever been under Muslim control, like southern Spain, el-Andalus, it must belong to Muslims to be as an endowment, or waqf, held in trust for Allah, in perpetuity. As the entire Middle East was under the control of the Muslim Ottoman Empire from 1259-1924, many Arabs and Muslims believe that the entire area belongs only to Islam, regardless of who may have lived there before.
Jews, who have lived continuously in Biblical Canaan and Judea for three thousand years, might well wonder how they can be accused of “occupying” their own land.
One of the leading clerics, Dr. Ali Daghi, Secretary-General of the International Muslim Scholars, wrote: “There is a consensus among Muslims, in the past and present, that if an Islamic land is occupied, then its inhabitants must declare jihad until it is liberated from the occupiers.”
Clearly the two-state solution is not the goal of this cleric and his friends. Nor are they interested in “Palestinian rights.” Rather Dr. Daghi is concerned about the “right” of Muslims to all the land, including those parts on which Israel exists today.
Another senior Saudi religious leader, Adel Al-Kalbani, the former imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, joined the “anti-normalization” campaign by declaring: “When we were young, they used to call them the Zionist enemy. For sixty years, this enemy has not changed. But we have changed!” The “change” he is talking about relates to those few Arabs and Muslims who are willing to recognize Israel's right to exist.
Saudi sheikh Esam Al-Zamel said, “The hatred for Israel and the Zionist enemy is inscribed in the hearts of our generation. We must inscribe these values and principles in the hearts of our children.”
Another Saudi citizen, Sultan Al-Jumeri, said, “Normalization and extending a hand to the Zionist entity must remain a disgrace and sin that will chase the perpetrators to their last day. This is a betrayal of the history, the land and the martyrs.”
Fahd Al-Shumri, also of Saudi Arabia, remarked, “Normalization means recognition of “Israel.” This will lead to another phase: relinquishing the Al-Aqsa Mosque and recognizing the Jews' right to the land of Palestine.”
For his part, Hassan Al-Mutairi, a Saudi preacher, wondered, “Is there any Muslim who supports normalization with the Zionists? The stone and tree will remain witness to our enmity to the Jews.”
He is referring to a hadith (the words and actions of Mohammed), which is also a part of the Hamas Charter, that states:
“Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Jews will hide behind the rocks and the trees, but the rocks and the trees will say: Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him — except for the gharqad tree, which is one of the trees of the Jews.”
Some Saudi and Arab writers described the visit by the Saudi delegation as a “stab in the back” against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS) against Israel. They urged the Saudi government to take immediate punitive measures against the former general and his delegation members, in order to deter others from committing such a “big crime” against Arabs and Muslims.
“Israel will remain our number one enemy in spite of the Zionists,” remarked Saudi writer Amal Zahid. Ramzi Al-Harbi, another writer from Saudi Arabia, commented, “Anyone who calls for peace with the Zionists should be brought to trial for high treason. Normalization is treason.”
Many Palestinians also joined the bandwagon by adding their incendiary and hateful remarks against the Saudis who visited Israel.
“We salute every Saudi who rejects normalization with the occupation,” said Palestinian political analyst Ibrahim Al-Madhoun.
Not surprisingly, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian groups also issued statements strongly condemning the visit of the Saudi delegation to Israel and calling for a ban on such trips. These groups even went as far as condemning a number of Palestinian Authority officials, such as Jibril Rajoub, for participating in the meetings between the Saudi delegation and Israeli officials.
The Palestinian “Resistance Committees,” a coalition of various Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip, denounced the visit as a “crime against Palestine and its people.” The groups described the visit as “shameful” and warned against attempts by some Arabs and Muslims to “accept the existence of the Zionist terrorist entity on the land of Palestine.”
The widespread campaign against the visit of the Saudi delegation to Israel is the direct result of decades of anti-Israel indoctrination in the Arab and Islamic countries, including the Palestinians. At the core of this campaign is the denial of Israel's right to exist and a denial of any Jewish link to “Muslim-owned” land.
Let us be clear: these are not fringe voices. This is mainstream Arab and Islamic society. The Palestinians, too, have long been part of this campaign, promoting their own “anti-normalization” drive to prevent anyone from meeting with Israelis.
By allowing (and sometimes endorsing) such campaigns, the Palestinian Authority is shooting itself in the head. Each time a PA official, including President Mahmoud Abbas, meets with Israelis, a large group of Palestinian “anti-normalization” activists react by denouncing the encounters and calling for a total boycott of Israel.
The anti-Israel BDS movement provides an inspiration to these haters. As far as the enemies of Israel are concerned, the campaign should not be only about boycotts, divestment and sanctions. As the fury over the visit to Israel clearly shows, what bothers them is not the “normalization” with the “Zionist entity,” but the fact that Israel exists.
The world can continue talking about the Arab Peace Initiative for as long as it wants. The facts on the ground show that the Arab and Muslim masses continue to see Israel as an alien body that was forcibly planted on “Muslim-owned” land. For the masses, jihad against Israel is the solution, not another peace initiative endorsed by unelected Arab dictatorships.
Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.
5) A Jewish woman goes to see her Rabbi and asks, "Yankele and Yosele are
both in love with me, who will be the lucky one?"
The wise old Rabbi answers, "Yankele will marry you. Yosele will be the lucky one.

If a married Jewish man is walking alone in a park and expresses an opinion without anybody hearing him, is he still wrong?

My father says, "Marry a girl who has the same belief as the family.
" I said, "Dad, why would I marry a girl who thinks I'm a schmuck?"

Jewish Marriage advice:
"Don't marry a beautiful person. They may leave you. Of course, an ugly person may leave you too, But who cares?"

The Italian says, "I'm tired and thirsty. I must have wine.
"The Frenchman says, "I'm tired and thirsty. I must have cognac.
"The Russian says, "I'm tired and thirsty. I must have vodka.
"The German says, "I'm tired and thirsty. I must have beer.
"The Mexican says, "I'm tired and thirsty. I must have tequila.
"The Jew says, "I'm tired and thirsty. I must have diabetes."

Jewish proverb: "A Jewish wife will forgive and forget, but she'll never forget what she forgave.

A Jewish congregation in suburban Toronto honors its Rabbi for 25 years of service by sending him to Hawaii for a week, all expenses paid.
 When he walks into his hotel room, he finds a beautiful nude woman lying on the bed. She greets the Rabbi with, "Hi, Rabbi, I'm a little something extra that the President of the shul arranged for you."

The Rabbi is incensed. He picks up the phone, calls the President of the shul and shouts, "Greenblatt, what were you thinking? Where is your respect? I am the moral leader of our religious community! I am very angry with you and you have not heard the end of this."

Hearing this, the naked woman gets up and starts to get dressed. TheRabbi turns to her and asks, "Where are you going? I'm not angry with you.”

No comments: