RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/04/Rabbi-Arnold-Wolf-Socialist-Anti-Israel-Rabbi-Taught-Obama-Knows-More-About-Judaism

THE LATE UNLAMENTED WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING WAS ALSO CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE RADICAL INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES AND A FOUNDING MEMBER OF BREIRA. PLEASE ALSO READ RAEL JEAN ISAACS COLUMN FROM 1977 “THE RABBIS OF BREIRA”…

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2012/03/08/rael-jean-and-erich-isaac-the-rabbis-of-breira-please-see-note/

The Vetting: Rabbi Arnold J. Wolf, the Socialist, anti-Israel Rabbi Who Taught Obama What He ‘Knows’ About Judaism

Last Tuesday, Israel’s Haaretz newspaper reported that President Barack Obama told a group of visiting Jewish leaders that he “probably knows about Judaism more than any other president, because he read about it.” While that is certainly untrue, Obama continued, suggesting that he should not be questioned about his commitment to the Jewish state because “all his friends in Chicago were Jewish.”

That might very well be true. The question is which Jews? Meet Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf.

Author Peter Beinhart, an Obama admirer and critic of Israel whose wife works as Special Assistant and Associate Counsel to the President, and who recently declared Obama to be “the first Jewish president,” discusses Obama’s immersion in Rabbi Wolf’s Jewish radical fringe in his book The Crisis of Zionism:

But Obama was not embedded in the Jewish world; he was embedded in one specific Jewish world — a world of Jews who in the 1960s had opposed segregation and the Vietnam War and after 1967 applied the same liberal democratic principles when it came to Israel. Woven into the life stories of many of the Jews who most influenced the young Barack Obama was a bitter estrangement from the see-no-evil Zionism of the American Jewish establishment. In Chicago, those Jews constituted a geographic and moral community, a community that bred in Obama a specific, and subversive, vision of American Jewish identity and of the Jewish state. And at the heart of it all was Arnold Jacob Wolf.

Link: http://blogs.jpost.com/content/dershowitz-wants-israel-gamble

THANKS TO: http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com/

I hope I understood correctly what Professor Alan Dershowitz intended in his latest attempt to assist Israel gain peace which was published in the Wall Street Journal. Entitled “A Settlement Freeze Can Advance Israeli-Palestinian Peace”, he suggests that “the time is ripe for [Israel’s new coalition] government to make a bold peace offer to the Palestinian Authority.”

But what he considers bold could be considered by others as perhaps, well, naive and even irrational. And not clever at all. He writes there that since the “Palestinian Authority refuses to negotiate unless Israel accepts a ‘freeze’ on settlement building” and, since “Israel accepted a 10-month freeze in 2009, but the Palestinian Authority didn’t come to the bargaining table” and when it “demanded that the freeze be extended indefinitely” and “Israel refused”, well, “they walked away from the table…[and] there is every reason to believe that they would continue such game-playing if the Israeli government imposed a similar freeze now…”.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4238327,00.html “Oom Shmoom.” Ask any Israeli politician, university lecturer, or taxi driver on their opinion of the United Nations, and odds are – that’s the response you’ll get. The pejorative term is Hebrew slang for “United Nothing,” and has come to epitomize the Israeli mentality towards the UN ever since it was coined by David […]

Erick Stakelbeck & Guests Discuss the ‘Unholy Alliance’ on GBTV
by Tiffany Gabbay
Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov and author David Brog shed light on why leftists bond with jihadists.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/06/erick-stakelbeck-guests-discuss-the-%E2%80%98unholy-alliance%E2%80%99-on-gbtv-1/
The Devil We Don’t Know in Syria — on The Glazov Gang
by Jamie Glazov
The sparks fly on Frontpage’s television debate show.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/06/the-devil-we-dont-know-in-syria-on-the-glazov-gang/

http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/tk-5jun12.pdf

JUSTUS WEINER “OUTED” EDWARD SAID’S LIES ABOUT HAVING BEEN BORN IN JERUSALEM, DISCLOSING THAT SAID WAS, IN FACT, BORN IN EGYPT….THE EVIDENCE QUOTED SAID HIMSELF AND COULD NOT BE DENIED….SAID IS STILL THE MUSE OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AND THE MIDDLE EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION (MESA NOSTRA) BUT THE LIE DID MUCH TO DEBUNK HIM…..RSK

Nils Melzer, Legal Advisor for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), defines targeted killing (TK) as “the use of lethal force attributable to a subject of international law with the intent, premeditation, and deliberation to kill individually selected persons who are not in the physical custody of those targeting them.”
TKs have been subjected to significant scrutiny by several human rights groups in a manner that has created an atmosphere in which different countries’ TK policies are subject to different standards of evaluation and critique. Any such differentiation can have no basis and must be evaluated uniformly and consistently.

This study looks closely at the work of both Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International (AI), with respect to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and several Western armies (the U.S., the U.K., the Netherlands, Canada and Australia) that have implemented TK policies since November 2000.

It examines HRW’s three-part test to assess legality of a particular TK and reveals significant differences in the treatment of IDF TKs as compared with TKs by Western countries. Amnesty International’s work also unjustifiably condemns Israeli TK policy, while at the same time practically excusing the Western TK policy that has resulted in far more civilian fatalities.

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/showdown-brews-between-obama-congress-over/87849/

A showdown is brewing in Washington over how the number of Palestinian Arab refugees is being counted, and it could be explosive. This is because numerical accuracy would undermine claims by the Palestinians that before long, if their demands are not granted, Jews will become a demographic minority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

Arithmetical distortions by the Palestinian Arabs have mesmerized the United Nations, the State Department, NGOs whose identities derive from the Palestinian determination to be permanent victims, and Israeli politicians who eagerly incorporate Palestinian misinformation into their critique of Jewish settlements.

Upon completion of the first Palestinian census 15 years ago, the head of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics conceded that it was “a civil intifada,” a demographic weapon against Israel that specifically targeted Jewish settlers. Last December the Bureau fired its guns once again, reporting that 2.6 million Palestinian Arabs inhabit Judea and Samaria, the biblical homeland of the Jewish people where more than 300,000 Israelis now live.

These inflated Palestinian numbers have been sharply challenged by Israeli demographer Yoram Ettinger, who labels them “demographic misrepresentations.” According to his data the PCBS has inflated the number of West Bank Arabs (actually 1.6 million) by 66%. Its estimate includes more than 400,000 overseas residents (a violation of international demographic standards), a “double count” of 240,000 Jerusalem Arabs, and under-reported Palestinian emigration.

Mr. Ettinger’s calculations indicate that Jews now make up 17% of the total population of the West Bank (while Arabs make up 20% of the Israeli population.) Between the Jordan and Mediterranean, two-thirds of the population is Jewish. Since 1995 Arab birth rates have stabilized while annual Jewish births have risen significantly. “There is a demographic problem,” Mr. Ettinger concedes, “but there is no demographic machete at the throat of the Jewish state.”

The flip–side of Palestinian demographic distortion is the persistent claim that 5 million homeless “refugees,” scattered throughout the world, enjoy the right of return to their lost homeland (Israel). The United Nations Relief and Works Agency was established in 1948 to provide support for the 750,000 Palestinians (some 30,000 of whom are still living) who lost their homes during Israel’s war of independence in 1948 and either chose to leave or were forced out. It has fed Palestinian grievances by deciding that all 5 million descendants of the original refugees are also eligible for support, now amounting to $1.23 billion annually.

The State Department has long been complicit in this charade. Senator Kirk, a Republican of Illinois, recently inserted in the State Department funding bill an amendment to require the department to provide Congress with the number of Palestinians physically displaced from their homes in 1948, and the number of their descendants administered by UNRWA.

In a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides responded that Kirk’s “proposed amendment would be viewed around the world as the United States acting to prejudge and determine the outcome of this sensitive issue.” The last thing the State Department seems to want is for a decision about American aid to Palestinians, now $400 million annually, to be based on documented evidence of refugee status. This could be embarassing, especially when the Palestinian Authority spends more than $5 million monthly in American funding for the salaries it pays to 5,500 convicted and alleged terrorists imprisoned in Israel

The Kirk amendment has been approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee. But even if Congress ratifies it (unlikely) and President Obama does not veto it (unimaginable), final funding decisions will still rest with the UN.

Human rights organizations compete to provide aid to Palestinians living under Israeli “occupation.” The New Israel Fund, B’tselem, Peace Now, and the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, among an array of like-minded groups, would have many fewer causes to pursue – and to sustain their own organizations – if Palestinians were removed from their roster of victims. As Seth Frantzman wrote in the Jerusalem Post, “the occupation is their raison d’etre and without it they cannot exist.” CONTINUE READING AT SITE

http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2012/6/6/main-feature/1/the-six-day-war-day-two/e

This week, Jewish Ideas Daily commemorates the forty-fifth anniversary of the Six-Day War with a day-by-day synopsis, for which we are indebted to Michael Oren’s comprehensive Six Days of War. Below, the third of a seven-part series. Read parts I and II.

In the Sinai, Israeli aircraft commanded the skies and the IDF advanced along roads littered with Egyptian tanks. Some were in flames, illuminating the darkness; others were simply immobilized by malfunctions in their Soviet-made engines, which had failed in desert conditions. On June 6th, 1967, by 8:00 a.m. Tel Aviv time, Israeli forces had entered el-Arish. It initially seemed desolate, but the Israelis were soon under fire from every window. Israel’s leadership, not expecting the war to move so quickly, had not considered what do to beyond el-Arish. The IDF’s challenge became keeping up with the retreating Egyptian forces.

Meanwhile, Gaza had been severed from Sinai. Though Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had predicted that this move would cripple the Strip, fighting was heavy; Gaza would ultimately account for nearly half of all the war’s Israeli casualties. Still, Dayan’s prediction was correct: Gaza was taken by mid-morning.

Yet, even as Egyptian anti-aircraft gun barrels melted from the continuous, unsuccessful efforts against Israeli planes, more than half of Egypt’s forces were intact. Some important detachments had yet to see action. Pilots remained available. Forty-eight Algerian aircraft were en route, along with volunteers from Morocco, Tunisia, and Sudan. Expressions of support poured in from Arab sympathizers. By contrast, Israel’s forces were exhausted from over 24 hours of non-stop combat and were low on fuel and ammunition.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303918204577444223973899782.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

Roosevelt’s address stands as a testament to how much our nation has changed since that evening in the late spring of 1944.

Franklin Roosevelt is not remembered for his religious dogma. Yet 68 years ago on the night of June 6, as tens of thousands of American and Allied forces were flung into a caldron of fire in Western Europe, the president and commander in chief sought to calm an anxious nation as he spoke to his people. It was a presidential address that stands out as a testament to how much our nation has changed since that evening in the late spring of 1944.

Beginning around midnight the night before, elements of the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions had landed behind enemy lines in France. They were followed seven hours later by massive landings on beaches in Normandy code-named Sword, Juneau, Gold, Omaha and Utah.Americans began hearing special reports in the middle of the night and they continued to follow events closely throughout the day. At lunch counters and in offices and factories, people clustered around their radios. So it was both natural and necessary that the president say something.

Yet instead of giving a news account—something Americans had already heard from network radio news and read in their evening papers—Franklin Roosevelt chose a different course. He led the nation in prayer.

“Almighty God,” Roosevelt began, “Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.”Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.”

Enlarge Image
kozak
Close

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203604577398541135969380.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

As austerity bites into European living standards, sparking revolt at the polls, “growth” has become the politician’s mantra. But to be competitive, European countries require a secure, plentiful and competitively priced energy supply. Unless Europe radically rethinks its obsession with carbon-dioxide emissions and the anti-fossil fuel energy policies that flow from it, growth is likely to remain elusive.

European Union law mandates that the 27 member countries on average cut their C02 emissions 20% by 2020, compared to 1990 levels. The goal after that is to cut emissions by between 80% and 95% by 2050. In May 2010, a study by the European Commission’s energy department estimated the 20% cut would cost 48 billion euros ($66.3 billion) a year. The Commission’s draft Energy Roadmap for 2050 is frank: “There is a trade-off between climate change policies and competitiveness.”

There is indeed. The consultancy Verso Economics has calculated the opportunity cost of the United Kingdom’s subsidy system for renewables to be 10,000 jobs between 2009 and 2010 alone. A report by the Energy Intensive Users Group (which represents energy-intensive British businesses) and the Trades Union Congress cited steel making, ceramics, paper, cement and lime manufacture, aluminum and basic inorganic chemicals as industries facing up to 141% in additional energy costs by 2020 as a result of C02 emissions-reduction schemes. EIUG Director Jeremy Nicholson notes that “the current policies do seem to be angled towards creating a market for overseas competitors.”

Emissions-free solar and wind energy, on which the U.K. plans increasingly to rely, are expensive. The government estimates that a planned offshore wind farm project ringing the coast will cost £140 billion, or £5,600 ($8,972) for every household in the country. Conventional energy could provide the same amount of energy at 5% of the cost.

The U.K.’s Department of Energy and Climate Change commissioned a report (led by Prof. John Hills of the London School of Economics) to examine the issue of “fuel poverty,” defined as when fuel bills take up more than 10% of household income. It found four million of England’s 21.5 million households fall in this category and the number could rise to 9.2 million by 2016, equivalent to 43% of all homes in England. One of the key factors are green taxes and levies expected to add up to £200 ($306) to bills by 2020.