Displaying posts published in

February 2017

Democrats Elect Tom Perez as Party Chairman Former Labor secretary, backed by party establishment, defeated Keith Ellison from the party’s populist wing By Reid J. Epstein and Janet Hook

ATLANTA—Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee on Saturday, giving the party an establishment leader at a moment when its grass-roots wing is insurgent.

Mr. Perez defeated Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison and four other candidates in a race that had few ideological divisions yet illuminated the same rifts in the party that drove the acrimonious 2016 presidential primary between Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Perez’s victory capped a drama-filled afternoon. The former Labor secretary fell one vote short of a majority on the first vote for chairman, with Mr. Ellison 13 votes behind. The four second-tier candidates then dropped out of the race. On the second ballot, Mr. Perez won 235 of 435 votes cast.
As Donna Brazile, the outgoing party chairwoman, announced the final results, a group of green-clad Ellison supporters in the meeting hall drowned her out with chants of “not big money, party for the people.”

Mr. Perez played down divisions within the party, proclaiming his “love for the robust discussions that occur in the Democratic Party.” He added: “We need every house call, we need to listen to people, we need to get back to basics and we need to move forward.”

To help heal the division, Mr. Perez in declaring victory immediately appointed Mr. Ellison as the party’s vice chairman. Mr. Ellison practically begged his supporters to remain in the party and back Mr. Perez.

“If you came here supporting me, wearing a green T-shirt,” he said, “I’m asking you to give everything you’ve got to support Chairman Perez.”

President Donald Trump took a shot at Mr. Perez in a tweet about the Democratic vote. “Congratulations to Thomas Perez, who has just been named Chairman of the DNC. I could not be happier for him, or for the Republican Party!”

Mr. Perez tweeted in return: “Call me Tom. And don’t get too happy. @keithellison and I, and Democrats united across the country, will be your worst nightmare.”

Vaccines and Terrorism By Eileen F. Toplansky

What better way to conquer your enemy than through the use of vaccine terrorism? Apparently the country of Denmark did not consider the ramifications of the aforementioned question because it “recently sold its state-owned vaccine manufacturing facility to a conglomerate owned by the Aljomaih Group, a Saudi family dynasty.” This Group is led by Sheikh Abdul Aziz Hamad Aljomaih who is also the largest single stockholder and chairman of Arcapita Bank, which, as an Islamic bank is comprised of Islamic scholars, who make certain that the bank’s activities will comply with sharia or Islamic law.

Since those who sit on the bank’s Sharia Board promote aggressive jihad, would it be asking too much why a Western country would leave vaccine manufacturing to an avowed enemy that publicly states that the West must be destroyed?

Some of the men who sit on the Sharia Board include Taqi Usmani who has said that

“[a]grressive Jihad is lawful even today . . . Its justification cannot be veiled.” Yussuf al-Qaradawi, who is considered the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, used to sit on Arcapita’s sharia board. His life’s work is to conquer Europe and America and establish a global caliphate. In “an October 2010 interview with Al-Jazeera, Qaradawi was asked whether Muslims should try to acquire atomic weapons ‘to terrorize their enemies.’ He replied that such an objective was permissible, saying he was ‘happy’ that Pakistan already possessed such a weapon. According to Qaradawi, the procurement of such agents of mass destruction was in compliance with Koranic verses urging Muslims ‘to terrorize thereby the enemy of God and your enemy.'”

The means for establishing a global caliphate include incremental change in any infidel’s land. First aspects of sharia law are introduced; then the loss of free speech under the guise of blasphemy laws is demanded; there is also an increase in antisemitic acts; furthermore, the status of women is denigrated, with a concomitant acceptance of polygamy. Even a cursory look at Europe shows that the jihadists’ success is astonishing as one after another European country accepts its dhimmi status under the guise of multicultural tolerance but, of course, springing from an abject fear of what the jihadists will do if they disobey.

Why Israel Should Keep Building the Settlements By Steve Postal

An oft-repeated sentiment in the international community, college campuses, and both Democratic and Republican administrations is that Israeli settlements built following the 1967 Six-Day War are inhibiting peace in the Middle East. This sentiment, however, is wrong.

Settlements have never stood in the way of peace. In fact, Israel withdrew from territory and uprooted its own people, receiving mostly war in exchange. The settlements are a red herring; those opposed to them simply do not understand that Arab violence towards Jews predates, and runs much deeper than, the settlements. Israel has every right to build settlements and they are of vital importance to the survival of the country.

The Jews Are Indigenous to Judea and Samaria

First, the very idea that Jews should not build in Judea and Samaria (known to many as the West Bank) runs counter to the history of the last three millennia. As the indigenous people, Jews had sovereignty and pseudo-sovereignty in these lands from 1010 BCE to 617 CE (a mere twenty years before the Arab occupation of Jerusalem in 637 CE). After the Jews lost political power in Judea and Samaria, they continued to reside there until the modern period, with interludes when occupying powers forbade them from living in places like Hebron and Jerusalem. In fact, during Israel’s War of Independence (1947-1949), approximately 10,000 Jews were kicked out of or killed in Jewish communities in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

The Settlements Don’t Prohibit a Peace Deal

The settlements in Judea and Samaria are not prohibiting a peace deal. The Arabs were offered and rejected sovereignty in Judea and Samaria before the settlements (Peel Commission (1937) and U.N. Partition Plan (1947)), when there were very few settlements (the Khartoum Resolution (1967) and the Allon Plan (1967-1968)), and when there were many settlements (Camp David (2000), Taba (2001), and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer to President Mahmoud Abbas (2008)). Regardless of the presence, absence, and number of settlements, the Arabs either rejected or left unanswered peace offers in all of these instances.

Israeli Withdrawals Have Brought War, Not Peace

An Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria would likely not bring peace, because previous withdrawals have brought war. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, only to see Hizb’allah instigate war in 2006, as well as massively arm itself. Israel’s withdrawal from parts of Gaza and Judea and Samaria during the Oslo Accords in the 1990s was met with the Second Intifada (2000-2005). In exchange for Israel’s full civilian and military withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, Hamas gave Israel at least three wars. Since 2005, Hamas massively armed itself, and other terrorist groups have set up shop in Gaza as well. Lastly, while the benefits of Israel’s peace with Egypt should not be understated, there are now jihadi groups in Sinai targeting Israel, despite Israel completely withdrawing its civilian population from there in the 1980s.

The Main Reason for the Lack of Peace is Arab Incitement and Violence

Arab incitement and violence against Israel, Zionism, and Jews long predates 1967 and the settlements and is the primary reason why peace is elusive. Multiple pogroms against Jews in the Arab world go at least as far back as the Damascus Affair of 1840. By the eve of the Six-Day War in 1967, most of the exodus of the 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands from 1948 through 1970 was complete, largely as a response to Arab violence and state persecution.

Violence directed towards Jews in the former British Mandate and later Israel also pre-date 1967 and the settlements. These include the Nebi Musa Riots (1920), the Jaffa Riots (1921), the Western Wall Riot and Hebron Massacre (1929), and the Arab Revolt (1936-1939) including the Tiberias Massacre (1938). Arab attacks from Jordan, Syria, and Egypt against Israel continued following Israel’s War of Independence (1947-1949), especially from 1952-1967.

How Israel Became a High-Tech Military Superpower By Janet Levy

How did a country smaller than El Salvador with a population of eight million and few natural resources become a military superpower within a few decades?

In The Weapon Wizards: How Israel Became a High-Tech Military Superpower (St. Martin’s Press, 2017), authors Yaakov Katz and Amir Bohbot explain this remarkable phenomenon. Calling on their experience as Israel Defense Forces (IDF) veterans and seasoned national security analysts, they present an intriguing and engrossing account of Israel’s defensecapabilities development. From a country lacking bullets and aircraft, Israel transformed itself into one of the most effective militaries in the world and the sixth-largest arms exporter globally. Today, Western powers, including the U.S., France, the UK, Russia and China, all come to Israel to learn and establish joint ventures.

The Jewish State has several characteristics and realities that have contributed to its military prowess and technological leadership, the authors explain. From inception on, Israel has been surrounded by enemies intent on its destruction. The country was built by Jewish refugees forced from Arab countries that their families had inhabited since before the birth of Christ, and by Holocaust survivors, many smuggled past the British into the Jewish homeland. Defense of the ancient homeland was, from the beginning, a survival mission with little room for error and miscalculation. Creativity sprang from the adversity of a relentless enemy close at hand.

Constantly on the front lines of conflict, Israel was forced to break new ground and pursue unproven technologies that other countries may not have considered. The authors say this explains why Israel, among the world’s nations, invests the highest percentage of gross domestic product on research and development: 4.5% with 30% of the total for military projects. Additionally, Israel’s entrepreneurial spirit and ability to innovate is demonstrated by the fact that the tiny country has the third-largest number of companies, behind the U.S. and China, listed on the NASDAQ exchange.

Further, Katz and Bohot explain, going it alone has been a necessity for Israel. Added to problematic regional politics with hostile, oil-rich Arab neighbors is the inability to consistently depend on support from reluctant allies dependent on Gulf oil. The fledgling state responded with inventiveness and innovation to develop its weapons and defense capabilities in this hostile environment.