Category: Politics

Posted on

Trump The Peace Maker: Morocco Signs Full Normalization Deal With Israel

President Trump announced today that his administration achieved another historic peace deal between a Muslim majority country and Israel. The Kingdom of Morocco and Israel agreed to full normalization. In exchange the US agreed to Morocco’s claims over the Western Sahara, nearly doubling the Kingdom’s territory.

SPONSOR THIS POST

Here are Trump’s tweets about the deal:

This is why the left and the Deep State hate President Trump. The left has utopian dreams about the world and yet it is their arch-enemy, the “Orange Man” who gets the job done. The Deep State thrives from conflicts raging around the world. After all, the more conflict, the more chaos, and that means more reason that outside forces, including weapons and of course mediation is needed. Peace means that the Deep State cannot keep control – they are not relevant anymore.

The fact is, President Trump actually showing that peace, when viewed in a practical manner, was always achievable. The problem was there was simply never the real determination to just get it done.

What we learn from all of these deals, is that peace does not need to be complicated. In fact, the more simple it is, the more of a chance it will work out.

Think about it. Morocco just wanted recognition over a chunk of territory and with that they agreed to peace with Israel. At the end of the day, Israel was not the central reason a peace deal has never been achieved, but rather just part of the transactional exchange Morocco needed in order to apply sovereignty over a large piece of land it has claimed for decades.

This is how it has been with the Abraham Accords. President Trump got the parties to agree that peace is simply smart business. In today’s world, where leftists and liberals pretend to live a sort of faux righteousness, disregarding the harsh reality of the world, sometimes it takes commonsense and a bit of deal making to get a realistic peace deal done.

Posted on

A DIFFERENT TAKE ON THE EFFIE EITAM / YAD VASHEM DISPUTE

(Republished with author’s permission from the Israel Hayom news website)

A storm of criticism has erupted over the possible nomination of Israeli war hero Effie Eitam, the son of a Holocaust rescuer, to the chairmanship of Yad Vashem, Israel’s main Holocaust institution. At issue are two remarks that Eitam reportedly made concerning Arabs fourteen years ago. 

If a transcript of Eitam’s remarks is ever published, we will finally be able to see the full statements and their context. And when Eitam chooses to publicly address the matter, we will learn whether he still subscribes to those statements, which he made at a memorial service for fallen Israeli soldiers back in 2006. Eitam had a distinguished 29 year career in the IDF, which included the Operation Entebbe in 1976, and retired as a Brigadier General; he later served in the Knesset for six years.

Eitam’s critics should consider the ramifications of the “canceling” out any Israeli or Jewish figure who has ever made an offensive remark be they comments about Arabs or other ethnic or gender groups. Let’s review some of the prominent public figures who would have been shunned according to this standard:

TEDDY KOLLEK: After a group of women were violently assaulted at the Western Wall by opponents of their prayer service, Kollek, the longtime mayor of Jerusalem, accused the victims of “provoking” the attack and “using prayer as a means of protest.” (New York Jewish Week; 4-14-1989).

In a Boston Globe interview in 1992, Kollek declared: “The way of the Palestinians is the way of war and bloodshed, not peace … The Arabs say ‘We will again rule all the lands of Islam as we once did’—this is an essential Islamic concept. It is hard for me to say all this, but I have to acknowledge it.”

SHIMON PERES: At a 1981 election rally, Peres denounced Moroccan Jews in Israel as “barbarians” and “disgusting Arabs.” (The footage of the rally can be seen in the 2002 film, “Kaddim Wind – Moroccan Chronicle”)

ABBA EBAN: In a speech at the Jewish Theological Seminary, in Manhattan on February 29, 1952, Eban warned of “the danger lest the predominance of immigrants of Oriental origin force Israel to equalize its cultural level with that of the neighboring world…Our object should be to infuse them with an Occidental [Western] spirit, rather than to allow them to draw us into an unnatural Orientalism.”

AMOS OZ: One of Israel’s most celebrated novelists, and a prominent Peace Now activist, Oz said at a “Writers Talk About Peace” symposium in 1987: “The Palestinian national movement is one of the most insensitive, ugly and wicked national movements of the 20th century” and is characterized by “fanaticism, hardheartedness, and violence.” (Al Hamishmar, 5-15-87)

Among Holocaust scholars, consider these men and women whose remarks would have disqualified them from chairing Yad Vashem:

YEHUDA BAUER, the longtime senior historian at Yad Vashem, has minimized the Nazis’ persecution of gays as “a political invention” and a “red herring.” The famed historian of antisemitism, Prof. George Mosse, said in response to Bauer’s remarks: “That’s absurd. That’s like denying the Holocaust.” (New York Jewish Week, 5-22-97)

LUCY DAWIDOWICZ, renowned author of “The War Against the Jews,” demanded that Israel pay restitution to Arabs who fled in 1948, comparing it to German restitution to Holocaust victims. Dawidowicz never retracted her Israel-Nazis comparison, but that didn’t stop the American Jewish Committee from hiring her as its director of research, nor did it stop Yeshiva University from choosing Dawidowicz for the first named chair in Holocaust Studies in the United States. (New Leader, 1-19-1953)

HANNAH ARENDT, the renowned philosopher and author of some of the most famous studies of totalitarianism, in 1961 derided Sefardi Jews as “an Oriental mob” who “looked Arab but spoke Hebrew.” (Cited in The Forward, 4-25-14)

Surely the most startling and ironic name on this list is Yosef “Tommy” Lapid, who served as chairman of Yad Vashem from 2006 to 2008. His statements about minorities were so extreme that the Jerusalem Report dubbed him “an articulate Archie Bunker.” Lapid called Orthodox Jews “parasites,” “barbaric primitives,” and “enemies of progress.” (Tablet, 5-31-2013) He minimized spousal abuse, speculating that “some sociologist heard that his neighbor beats his wife, and are to the conclusion that in every house, there is at least one husband who beats his wife.” He complained about the prominence of Sefardi Jews in the Israeli music scene, claiming their style showed that “We didn’t conquer [the Arab town of] Tulkarm, Tulkarm conquered us.” Lapid’s statements about Arabs were so controversial that in 2006, Yad Vashem had to publicly dissociate itself from one of his remarks. (Haaretz, 1-8-2003)

Writing in Newsday on December 7, 1995, the eminent Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt pleaded for greater tolerance within the Jewish world. “Judaism is a big tent with room for vastly differing views,” she wrote. “And Jews must recognize that—within reason—no one can be read out of the Jewish community solely for his or her point of view.”

Lipstadt’s caveat, “within reason,” remains to be defined. But if it is defined in such a way as to “cancel” out anybody who has ever made an offensive remark about an ethnic or gender group, then quite a few of the best known figures in Israeli politics and the world of Holocaust studies, past and present, belong on that list alongside General Eitam.

Posted on

Blowing the Whistle in the 2020 US Election

“I drove thousands of ballots from New York to Pennsylvania.”

When I heard the above statement this week from Jesse Morgan as he testified before President Trump’s legal team investigating the alleged widespread frauds in the 2020 general elections it struck a note in my mind. It was an “a-hah! moment” for me.

I live in Queens County in New York City, about 10 minutes outside Jamaica. My zip code actually falls within Jamaica town. My apartment complex is a post-World War II red brick six story building. It was completed in 1946 and has been occupied continuously ever since. But because it’s been well-maintained it still retains its pristine shape.

SPONSOR THIS POST

Jesse Morgan is a truck driver who testified under oath that he witnessed a suspected electoral fraudulent activity in October that occurred in his line of duty. The summery of his testimony is that he transported hundreds of thousands of illegal ballots from New York to Pennsylvania. Morgan drives for a third party trucking company which serves as a subcontractor to the United States Post Office.

On hearing Morgan’s above quoted opening statement a cloud was lifted from my mind as I suddenly reconciled a bewildering incident that happened where I live a few months back. One afternoon in September or so I came down from my second floor residence to the building’s 1st floor lobby where the residents’ mail boxes are located. I was on my way out but I noticed that unusually large amount of packages had been delivered to the mailing area. On closer observation I noticed that they were voting ballots. They were wrapped in clear plastic packaging. As I left the building I was struggling to understand why so much election ballots should be delivered because in my mental assessment they were obviously several times more than the number of residents in the building. They were undoubtedly in excess of the people in the building even if they were meant for each resident, as far as I was concerned, I had planned to vote in person on election-day and never requested for any remote voting ballot. So, why would so much ballots be brought to the building, I wondered.

Without making any sense of the whole thing I went into the store to do my shopping. Then I ran other errands around the town and returned to the building a couple of hours later. As I walked by the mailing area I noticed that the ballots were gone. So, I looked around to see if they had been distributed to different residents’ doors or by the mail boxes of the residents, but no there were no traces of the ballots anywhere. They were gone. I went into my apartment and very soon forgot about the incident.

I would not think about it or make much of the issue again even when so many people, including the President Donald Trump began to talk about large scale and wide spread electoral frauds that went on during the election. Many accusing fingers pointed at mail-in ballots as making up a large percentage of the frauds. Still, I would not correlate what happened in my building a few months back with the recent rampant complaints about the electoral frauds until when I heard Jesse Morgan testify that he “drove thousands of ballots from New York to Pennsylvania.” On hearing that the puzzling pieces in my head over the past few months seemed to suddenly fall into their proper places. It was like I now know where all the ballots that were delivered in my building went to. Without knowing why it was like I had an answer to my nagging question and a convincing closure to a mystery.

Then I started paying close attention to the testimonies of other people with similar experiences like those of Jesse Morgan and even to those of others talking about Dominion voting machines. Some of them claim that the Dominion machines were conceived to fraudulently affect the outcome of the United States elections.

Additionally, some of the whistleblowers have claimed that many U. S. electoral ballots were fraudulently printed abroad in China. But going by what I witnessed in my apartment building, I have continued to wonder if it were possible that many of those alleged illegal ballots included also some of the several thousands of ballots mopped up from the probable systemically-designed excess ballot deliveries to various cities apartment buildings across the United States.

Since the past four weeks some people have been heard calling for the President to concede defeat in the 2020 elections. From the look of things it appears that it is the so-called media-projected winner of the election that should, out of decency, concede defeat to the President. This conclusion is not hard to come by considering the very apparent wide spread colossal incidents of frauds and election riggings which in virtually all the cases were rigged in the favor of the President’s opponent. However, I believe that all calls for concessions in the election are premature, speculative and, even reckless. The election board is yet to announce the official results of the 2020 election. Constitutionally, it is not the responsibility of the media houses to declare the United States election results ahead of the electoral board charged with that responsibility.

Again, the shrill calls and unusually loud and urgent demand by the media for President Trump to quickly and prematurely concede defeat is very suspect. This unusually urgent call from the mainstream media has prompted many people to question the genuineness of their intention. Some people have tried to understand the urgency of the call and they have asked if it was designed to fraudulently intimidate and pressure the President into making rash and unconsidered decisions.

This unnecessary urgent call for concession has made some people to think that it might not be unconnected with the fact that some guilty individuals and groups are anxious to divert the public’s attention from the widely reported election frauds and rigging. An Igbo adage says that when an evil is left unchecked in a society for an unusually long period it will become the society’s tradition. And that is the danger in hurriedly sweeping under the carpet and covering up such obvious dishonest and fraudulent practices. If they are not sincerely dealt with at their first appearance then they will become an accepted social practice. Therefore, for the sake of saving the United States of America the reported frauds and rigging in this U. S. election must not be condoned. The guilty must not be left unpunished, or the practice will become an American tradition.     

SPONSOR THIS POST

    

Posted on

BIDEN TEAM’S BLIND SPOT ON TERROR

President-elect Joe Biden’s first major foreign policy appointments are being hailed as centrists and experts. None of them are known as radicals, ideologues or Israel-bashers. News outlets have made much of the fact that the stepson of a Holocaust survivor is one of the key appointments.

But a closer look at their backgrounds and associations raises disturbing questions about their views on Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Secretary of State designate Antony Blinken, National Intelligence director designate Avril Haines, and UN Ambassador designate Linda Thomas-Greenfield have an interesting professional association in common: they are among the cadre of leaders of a little-known advocacy group in Washington, D.C. called Foreign Policy for America, which has a very disturbing perspective on Israel.

Foreign Policy for America (FPA), established in 2016, has two leadership bodies, both of which are quite small, indicating that their members are not just window dressing or names on a letterhead. The Board of Directors has just twelve members, one of whom is J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami. It also has an Advisory Board, with just twenty members. Blinken, Haines, and Thomas-Greenfield are among them. Ben-Ami’s J Street is also based in D.C. and is a Jewish pressure group that, judging by its actions, seems to have been created specifically, and almost exclusively, to lobby for an independent Palestinian state. The FPA’s executive director, Andrew Albertson, also has a long record of supporting J Street and he can be seen on YouTube as far back as 2011 heaping praise on the group.

Blinken and Ben-Ami are both alumni of the Clinton Administration. A fact that Blinken pointed out when he addressed the J Street annual conference in March 2012. In his speech Blinken showered compliments on J Street for having “emerged as an influential and constructive voice.”

FPA says on its website that its purpose is to “oppose xenophobia and military-first foreign policy.” It lists the twenty issues that are the group’s top concerns. One is the “Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” That section of the website consists of a seven-paragraph summary of the causes and history of the conflict, with two large pull-out quotes from J Street publications and link to the J Street website, followed by tips on how to press Congress to be more sympathetic to the Palestinian Arabs.

This is on FPA’s “Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” issue page. Besides J Street the only other organization FPA suggests its readers review material of, in order to “Learn More,” is an extremist Israeli organization called B’Tselem. In 2018, the Simon Wiesenthal Center labeled B’Tselem a “campaigner against its own country.”

In the FPA’s version of history, the conflict began “in 1947, in the aftermath of the Second World War.”  No mention of the Palestinian Arab pogroms of 1920, 1921, 1929, and 1936-1939. Of course not; mentioning that there was massive Palestinian Arab terrorism before Israel even existed would remind people that the Palestinian Arabs oppose Israel’s very existence.

FPA then briefly summarizes the various Arab-Israeli wars, without indicating that the Arabs were the aggressors. Wars just suddenly erupt for no apparent reason.

This “history” soon reaches the 1993 Oslo Accords. Guess why they haven’t produced peace? “The peace process has become complicated by growing settlements in the West Bank, continued Israeli military presence in the West Bank, and a blockade on Gaza,” according to FPA.

No suicide bombers. No machine-gunning of attendees at Passover seders. No lynchings by terrorists waving their bloody hands. No rockets fired into kindergartens. None of that affected the Oslo process. No, the word “terrorism” literally does not appear in the FPA’s entire history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This is the distorted view of the world to which the incoming secretary of state, National Intelligence director, and UN Ambassador have contributed their names.

That’s not all. Intelligence director-to-be-Haines and three other members of the FPA Advisory Board—Robert Malley, Ned Price, and Donald Steinberg—signed the public letter earlier this year urging the Democratic Party to adopt more pro-Palestinian language in its platform.

Among other things, they recommended that the party adopt a full-throated moral equivalency, by expressing “opposition to violence, terrorism, and incitement from all sides.” Just like FPA, the signers of the letter were incapable of uttering the term “Palestinian terrorism.”

Not surprisingly, that letter is featured on the J Street website.

More broadly, FPA seems to be deeply uncomfortable with the war on terror. The website’s “Use of Military Force” section—another one of its twenty areas of focus—consists of a long attack on previous presidents for aggressively pursuing terrorists around the world.

FPA complains that anti-terror actions in “Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan” have been “extraordinarily costly,” that is, too costly. They want to pass legislation to limit presidential authority in the war against terror, so they can reverse policies such as “detentions in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and training operations in (the) Philippines.”

That’s the worldview that the Biden foreign policy team is coming from: ignoring terrorism in Israel and trying to tie the hands of those who are fighting terrorism around the world.

There are, of course, additional reasons for concern about the team of the incoming administration. For example, the newly-announced Deputy Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs is Reema Dodin, a Palestinian-American activist, who has publicly justified Palestinian Arab suicide bombings as “the last resort of a desperate people.”

And according to NBC News, the top candidate for White House Press Secretary is Karine Jean-Pierre, who has accused Israel of “war crimes,” called AIPAC “severely racist,” and praised Democratic candidates who boycotted last year’s AIPAC conference.

J Street’s Jeremy Ben-Ami is delighted that so many of his FPA colleagues will have major positions in the Biden administration. They are “exactly the type of leadership this country deserves,” he tweeted. Many Israelis, and many friends of Israel around the world, are probably not yet convinced.

Posted on

Twitter Tries To Silence Sydney Powell

Twitter has been all in on the Deep State’s return to full control of the USA by continuously blocking important information as well as suspending key Twitter accounts.

The most egregious, was Twitter’s blocking of the Hunter Biden story just before the election. Now, Twitter is at it again. They actually suspended the account of President Trump’s attorney Sydney Powell. Of course, they did this as she smashed through 1 million followers. This many followers would normally not be problem for Twitter, but Powell is alledging that she has evidence of serious widespread elections fraud by way of software manipulation.

Twitter could have allowed her to continue posting, especially since she has yet to bring any evidence (although I wouldn’t doubt that she has it), but they didn’t. Why not? Because Jack Dorsey and his company are in a sense just hatchet men for the Democratic Party.

They are now scared that their virtual regime filled with thought police and censors may actually lose against President Trump – so instead of allowing freedom of speech they are busy trying to stamp out the truth. The problem with what Twitter is doing is that it is not being honest.

By censoring real information they don’t stop this information from reaching the important legal deciders who will in fact make the decisions that may lead to a second Trump term. The only people that will be surprised by a decision that will lead to another Trump term will be those that don’t dig deeper than their Twitter feed.

But this is the world now. Twitter and the other tech giants are now fully coopted by the Deep State and the Democratic Party. In the hope that all of this will just go away if they can silence it, the tech giants are betting wrong. No one who really cares trusts them or the MSM. In fact the overreach in silencing means that there may be something to hide or they wouldn’t try to hide it.

Sydney Powell is not to be taken lightly. True, she has not brought evidence to the media, but that is not what she needs to do. While Twitter is busy trying to silence her, the evidence she has is more than likely being readied for what really matters – the courts.