46.9 F
New York
Thursday, March 28, 2024
Home Blog Page 2476

SCOTUS Rules in Favor of AMEX in Merchant Credit Card Case

0
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of American Express Monday in a lawsuit over rules it imposes on merchants who accept its cards.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of American Express Monday in a lawsuit over rules it imposes on merchants who accept its cards.

Under their contracts, merchants who accept American Express generally can’t encourage customers to use other credit cards, The Seattle Times reports. American Express prevents merchants who accept its card from offering customers discounts or other incentives to use other cards or expressing a preference for other cards, even as the other credit cards charge a smaller fee. The federal government and a group of states sued over American Express’ so-called anti-steering provisions, arguing that they violate federal law, The Seattle Times reports.

The Supreme Court said the company has traditionally charged higher fees to merchants than competitors because its clientele are wealthy. The higher merchant fees are in place so its cardholders get better rewards.

On Monday the court ruled 5-4 in favor of American Express, allowing it to continue to bar merchants from steering customers to cards with lower fees.

“In this case, we must decide whether Amex’s anti-steering provisions violate federal antitrust law. We conclude they do not,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in an opinion for himself and his conservative colleagues. Thomas said “Amex’s business model has spurred robust interbrand competition and increased the quality and quantity of credit-card transactions.”

American Express cheered the ruling in a brief statement after it was announced.

“The Supreme Court’s decision is a major victory for consumers and for American Express. It will help to promote competition and innovation in the payments industry,” the statement said.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who used to teach antitrust law at Harvard University, wrote a dissenting opinion for himself and three liberal colleagues, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Breyer, who took the unusual step of reading a summary of his dissent from the bench, said the court’s decision was “contrary to basic principles of antitrust law.”

The retail industry also expressed displeasure with the ruling. “Today’s ruling is a blow to competition and transparency in the credit card market,” National Retail Federation general counsel Stephanie Martz said in a statement. “The American Express rules in question have amounted to a gag order on retailers’ ability to educate their customers on how high swipe fees drive up the price of merchandise.”

In 2010, the Obama administration and more than a dozen states sued American Express along with Visa and MasterCard, which had similar anti-steering rules. While Visa and MasterCard agreed to change their practices, American Express decided to go to trial. The company accounts for about a quarter of the credit card market in the United States as measured by transaction volume and has about 50 million cards in circulation in the United States, The Seattle Times reports.

By: James Rybach

Social Media Photo App Instagram Worth $100 Billion

0

As social media explodes, many people can’t even wrap their heads around the newest ways to share life with friends and family. It’s easy to get caught in the whirlwind of innovation and apps and miss the fact that some of these social media outlets are worth quite a lot of money, even if it’s a mystery to many how they work and why people would spend hours upon hours on these platforms.

Those artsy photos on social media may be worth a lot more than people would think. Instagram is now worth $100 billion.

The social network, which Facebook purchased in 2012 for a then-stunning $1 billion, has increased its value 100-fold, according to Bloomberg estimates.

Instagram last week revealed that it had surpassed the 1 billion user mark for the first time and will likely see its revenue top $10 billion in 2019, according to Bloomberg Intelligence.

The photo/video-sharing site has become the top social network among teen users and is on track to surpass 2 billion users by 2023.

The new valuation comes less than a week after Instagram announced IGTV, a platform that will allow high-profile users to post videos of up to an hour long, The New York Post reports. Instagram posts were limited to one minute.

One advantage for Instagram is its popularity with younger people. Earlier this month, a survey showed that more U.S. teens are using Instagram, YouTube, or Snapchat over Facebook.

A Pew Research Center survey found that 51 percent of U.S. teens, ages 13 to 17, say they use Facebook, which is a decline from the last survey of teen social media use in 2014 to 2015.

Back then, 71 percent of teens reported being regular Facebook users. In 2018, YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat are used by sizable majorities of this age group over Facebook, PYMNTS reported. Instagram is a photo and video-sharing social networking service that was created by Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger. When it launched in October 2010 exclusively on iOS, the creators never could have dreamed it would become as valuable and ubiquitous as it is now.

In addition, last month, Instagram unveiled new features that will help users contact companies and enlist them for goods and services. The tools will also enhance companies’ visibility on Instagram. Instagram said 200 million active Instagrammers visit a business profile each day, and more than 150 million have a conversation with businesses on a monthly basis, the company said.

Shares of Facebook, led by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, fell 2.7 percent, to $196.35, The New York Post reports.

By: Ilya Boruch

People Erring Away from Saving Money, Even in Healthy Economy

0

Recent signs of an economy on the upswing has consumers more willing to spend than to save money. Even with economic indicators like rising wages and falling unemployment, almost a quarter of Americans said they still have no emergency savings, according to an annual Bankrate.com report released Wednesday.

The study found that people were more likely to at least have some amount of money available in a bank account in a sign that people who were really struggling are doing at least a little better. The amount of people with no money readily available in either a checking, savings or money market account fell to a seven-year low of 23 percent, a decline from 24 percent last year, the study found. The poll was conducted in June by research firm SSRS, using a national sample of 1,006 people.

“People are not making headway in savings, largely in part because they don’t prioritize saving,” said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com.

The percentage of Americans who at least have some savings but not enough to cover three months’ worth of expenses increased by 2 percent from last year’s 20 percent, the report said. The percentage of people who could cover expenses for three to five months increased to 18 percent, from 17 percent last year. There are still only 29 percent of Americans who have enough emergency savings to cover at least six months’ of expenses, down from 31 percent in 2017. Financial advice dictates that people have at least enough savings to cover six months of expenses.

“Despite the enormous wealth gains we have seen in the stock market and in the housing market, that wealth is very unevenly distributed,” said Torsten Slok, chief international economist at Deutsche Bank AG in New York. He said that the disparity is overriding any gains made in the job sector.

The median family simply has fewer resources, Slok said, citing a 2017 report he authored on U.S. income and wealth inequality. About a third of American families have no wealth or negative wealth, not counting the value of their home. “It’s obviously not good from a vulnerability perspective,” he said.

Despite the lack of people who have an adequate amount of savings stored, most Americans don’t seem to be worried about their financial situation. Sixty-two percent say they are somewhat or very comfortable with their emergency savings. About one in five Americans with no emergency savings at all said they felt comfortable as well.

McBride finds the thinking illogical. “In some cases, it’s just denial,” he said. He continued that “they’ve never been out of work, had a big medical expense or experienced a significant event that threatened their emergency savings.”

Lower-income households are more likely to have no emergency savings, but 27 percent of the lowest-income households have accumulated enough savings to cover at least three months’ expenses, suggesting that savings is not a function of income, Bloomberg reports. About a quarter of the highest-income households either have no emergency savings or just enough to cover fewer than three months’ expenses.

The Northeast has the highest percentage of Americans who claim to have enough saved to cover six months of bills. The South has the lowest percentage.

By: Katt Deibart

Mandelblit Denounces Proposal for Political Appointments of Legal Advisors

0
Attorney General of Israel Avichai Mandelblit at Elyakim Rubinstein's resignation from the position of Deputy President of the Israeli Supreme Court. Jun 13, 2017. Photo by Noam Moshkovich/Pool

Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit blasted a proposal to change the way government ministries choose their legal advisors, telling the Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee Monday that a proposal tabled by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked would emasculate the legal advisors’ ability to effectively do their jobs.

The proposal would require government ministries to choose from a list of approved lawyers to head their legal departments, and to obtain the approval of the attorney general for the appointment. The list of acceptable candidates will be chosen by a search committee headed by the director general of the relevant ministry, replacing the current system of publishing public tenders for the positions in order to ensure professionals appointments.

But Mandelblit said the bill was a threat to the rule of law.

“In the State of Israel public service is professional and does not express its personal views,” Mandelblit said. “I came here to uphold the rule of law. (The proposed bill) is a threat to the rule of law in the country…(it) could enormously damage the role of legal advisers as gatekeepers.”

Shaked countered that she expects legal advisers to represent their minister’s political outlook.

“We need to trust the political leaders,” said Shaked. “We are not criminals. When a minister is replaced the legal advisor should reflect the policies of the new minister.”

The Chairman of the Law and Justice Committee, Shaked fellow Jewish Home MK Nissan Slomiansky, said the current situation makes it difficult for ministers to execute the policies they were voted into power to carry out. “We must find a better balance ministers to govern without harming the independence of legal advisors and their role as gatekeepers.

Several government watchdog NGOs, including the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, as well as a range of leading jurists including former Supreme Court presidents Meir Shamgar, Aharon Barak and Dorit Beinisch; former Attorney General Yitzhak Zamir; and former Supreme Court justices Edna Arbel and Gabriel Bach came out strongly against the bill.

“This is another attempt to run over the gatekeepers, as part of a series of bills designed to promote the idea of ‘governance,’ which in fact is aimed at creating an autocratic leadership while harming the independence of supervisory bodies representing the public interest,” the Movement for Quality Government said.

Zamir told the Law and Justice Committee that the proposal poses a “great danger” for the State of Israel.”

“The proposal contradicts a basic principle of the public system: Conflict of interest. It is unacceptable that the audited party will appoint the auditor,” Zamir said. “The law may create a situation in which the public will suspect the legal advisor because of his appointment by the minister. For the sake of the State of Israel as a state of law, do not advance this proposal.”

By: TPS Staff

Rivlin to Prince William: ‘Send Abbas Message of Peace’

0

Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, met with President Reuven Rivlin and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Monday, following a visit to the Yad Vashem national Holocaust memorial earlier on the first day of his royal visit to Israel.

President Rivlin told the Prince to “send a message of peace” to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, whom he is set to meet in Ramallah on Wednesday.

“I know that you’re going to meet President Abbas,” said Rivlin, “I would like you to send him a message of peace. Tell him it is about time, it is about time that we have to find together the way to build confidence. To build confidence as a first step to an understanding that we have to bring an end to the tragedy between us that has been going on for 120 years.”

“There’s only one God, and we are letting everyone worship God according to his belief. All of the other problems have to be solved first of all with the understanding of both sides that we’re not doomed to live together, our destiny is to live together. We are destined to live together,” Rivlin continued.

Prince William, making the first-ever official visit to Israel by a member of the British royal family, avoided political statements, saying that he looked forward to but rather said he looks forward to “absorbing and understanding the different issues, the different cultures, the different religions, culminating in a visit, which will be very symbolic and very interesting for me, in the Old City on Thursday which I am very much looking forward to seeing.”

Rivlin, who was born in Jerusalem in 1939 under the British Mandate, told the Prince that he was born as a British subject and walked to school every day on a street named after a British king.

“Your Royal Highness, I was born as a British subject, Rivlin said. “I walked to school every day down King George Street, but also past King David Street. We were here 100 years even before the Balfour Declaration, a declaration which helped the People of Israel, the Jewish people from all around the world bring to reality the idea and the belief that the Jewish people have to return to their homeland,” Rivlin said.

“This land knows about history and you’re writing a new page of [that] history,” he added.

Before his meeting with the President, Prince William held a short meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara at the Prime Minister’s Residence in Jerusalem. During the meeting, the Prime Minister and his wife, together with the Prince, met with descendants of Haimaki and Rachel Cohen, who were saved during the Holocaust by Princess Alice, Prince William’s great-grandmother. Haimaki Cohen was a Jew and former member of the Greek parliament from Tricala in northern Greece.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and his wife gave the Duke of Cambridge a replica of a Righteous Among the Nations Certificate for Princess Alice, who was granted the title in 1993.

Earlier in the day, Prince William visited the Yad Vashem national Holocaust memorial, which he said had left him “profoundly moved.”

“I had a very moving tour around Yad Vashem this morning which really taught me quite a lot more than I thought I knew about the true horrors of what happened to the Jews during the war,” he said.

By: Yona Schnitzer
(TPS)

Livni Seeks New Role as Head of Opposition; Herzog Supports Her

0

MK Tzipi Livni, who’s Hatnua faction of the Zionist Union party holds just five Knesset seats, said Monday that she intends to replace outgoing MK Yitzhak (Bougie) Herzog as leader of the parliamentary opposition the latter assumes the role of Jewish Agency chairman at the beginning of August.

Speaking at the first Zionist Union party meeting at the Knesset since Herzog was chosen to become head of the Jewish Agency, Livni said “the job of head of the opposition is a critical one for the continued partnership of the Zionist Union, which is comprised of the Labor Party and Hatnua.”

Earlier in the day, Herzog told the Israel Broadcast Corporation (Kan) that he would recommend Livni to replace him as leader of the parliamentary opposition, despite reservations by Avi Gabbay, who is the chairman of the Labor Party but is not a member of the Knesset.

In 2015 Herzog, then the chairman of the Labor Party, agreed to join forces with Livni’s Hatnua faction to create the Zionist Union party. He told the Hebrew-language Israel Broadcast Corporation (Kan) Monday that the deal to join forces included an agreement to bequeath the role of opposition leader to Livni, who served as foreign minister from 2006-09 and justice minister from 2013-14, in the event that Herzog did not complete his term.

“I was voted out (of the party leadership) – deposed, if you like, however you want to put it. The Zionist Union has two terrific leaders, Avi Gabbay and Tzipi Livni. I’m currently the head of the opposition but I’m not the head of our political camp.

While throwing his support behind Livni to replace him as opposition leader, Herzog said that Labor Party Chairman Avi Gabbay was correct to think carefully if and how the future partnership between the Labor Party and Hatnua will progress. “Naturally, he wants to think about the future of the partnership between the parties and to make sure that this is not just a platform for Hatnua.

“I’ve got till the end of July until I resign from the Knesset. By that time, I am sure we will find the right conditions (to solve this issue),” he said.

Herzog also told the national broadcaster that he would put improving relations between Israel and Diaspora Jewish communities and streamlining the process of accepting conversions performed outside Israel as a central focus of his tenure at the head of the Jewish Agency, quoting the Biblical story of Ruth the Moabite to illustrate Judaism’s welcoming attitude towards converts.

However, Herzog – the grandson of Israel’s first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Isaac Halevi Herzog – misquoted the relevant verse, omitting Ruth’s pledge that “your God will be my God,” and replacing it with the words “your homeland will be my homeland,” which does not appear in the original text. It was not clear if the change was intentional or not.

Despite the misquote, however, non-Orthodox leaders praised Herzog’s election and welcomed the Agency’s stab at Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who the non-Orthodox leaders say has consistently refused to address their concerns out of political expediency to maintain government peace with his ultra-Orthodox coalition partners.

By: TPS Staff

Israel to Rethink UNESCO Exit; Group Delays Decisions on ‘Palestinian’ Heritage Sites

0
The World Heritage Committee session of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) postponed a decision to list the Old City of Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Old City of Jerusalem and the Old City walls on its list of endangered world heritage sites, and to list the Old City of Hebron as a “Palestinian” world heritage site.

The World Heritage Committee session of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) postponed a decision to list the Old City of Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Old City of Jerusalem and the Old City walls on its list of endangered world heritage sites, and to list the Old City of Hebron as a “Palestinian” world heritage site.

Last week Israel’s ambassador to UNESCO Carmel Shama-HaCohen said Jerusalem could reconsider the decision to exit UNESCO depending on the outcomes of the World Heritage Committee session, currently meeting in Manama, Bahrain.

Last December Israel notified the UN culture watchdog that it would leave the organization because of a systemic anti-Israel biased, but last week Israel’s ambassador to UNESCO Carmel Shama-HaCohen said Jerusalem could reconsider the decision depending on the outcomes of the World Heritage Committee session, currently meeting in Manama, Bahrain.

“We must not ignore the new spirit that is blowing from UNESCO… This is a dramatic change in which the most active international organization against Israel has become the quietest arena, even though this is the only organization in which the Palestinians are recognized as a state for all intents and purposes,” said in a statement.

Reports last week that Israel would participate at the session in Bahrain evoked strong public scrutiny as the two countries do not have formal diplomatic relations although the two sides are believed to have maintained secret contacts in recent years. Israel and Bahrain both fear Iran’s growing influence in the region, and in May Bahraini Foreign Minister Khalida Khalifa accused Iran of attacking Israel from its proxy in Syria, adding that Israel has the right to self-defense.

In December an official delegation from the Gulf nation traveled to Israel to spread a message of peace and tolerance from the Bahraini people and King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa.

By: Mara Vigevani
(TPS)

J’slm Rabbinic Org to Offer Kosher, Non-Rabbinate Weddings

0

Hashgacha Pratit, a Jerusalem-based private rabbinic organization, announced Tuesday that the group would offer halachic (Jewish law) weddings to Israeli couples that are either ineligible or who choose not to register their marriages via the chief rabbinate.

The decision is the latest in a string of decisions by Orthodox groups to challenge the haredi-dominated rabbinate on two central issues of religion and state – kosher food oversight, and now marriage. Earlier this year, the better-known Tzohar organization launched a private oversight certificate, taking care to abide by the High Court of Justice’s ruling that the word “kosher” can only be used by the chief rabbinate. Hashgacha Pratit, which had maintained a non-rabbinate oversight apparatus in Jerusalem for several years prior to Tzohar’s launch, folded immediately into the new group.

With regard to marriage, Tzohar, headed by Shoham Municipal Rabbi David Stav, also offers “user friendly” services to non-observant Israelis, and increasingly to national religious couples, who feel alienated by the chief rabbinate. Yonatan Peleg, a spokesman for Hashgacha Pratit, said the new body will not challenge Tzohar’s market but rather enters the playing field to compliment the offerings available.

“I have nothing but praise for Tzohar and their marriage department,” Peleg told TPS in a phone interview. “But they are providing marriage preparation services and conducting weddings inside the Rabbinate framework. We are offering halachic weddings, with Orthodox rabbis and traditional wedding preparations to couples who meet all the halachic criteria to have a Jewish wedding but are either ineligible or unwilling to get married via the Rabbinate.”

In a statement announcing the new body, Hashgacha Pratit said it would take care to observe both Jewish religious law (halacha) and Israeli civil law, which grants a monopoly on Jewish marriage to the chief rabbinate and provides criminal penalties for breaking the law.

At the same time, however, Yonatan Peleg said there is a large number of Israelis who are halachically Jewish but prevented from getting married via the rabbinate. Peleg added that this number is likely to grow even further in the coming years as growing numbers of Israelis vote with their feet to avoid the rabbinate.

“In the past two years, the number of couples getting married via the rabbinate has fallen by eight percent,” he said. “That’s not a statistical blip.”

Predictably, women’s groups and civil rights organizations praised the new body, with Hashgacha Pratit founder Rabbi Aharon Leibovitch saying that problems with the rabbinate’s marriage apparatus have been growing for years.

“We have been witness to the growing, hurtful discrimination on the part of the rabbinic establishment with respect to new immigrants, converts, women and secular Israelis. This has nothing to do with Jewish law, and the time has come to present people with an alternative to obtain an halachic marriage,” Leibovitch said.

By: Andrew Friedman
(TPS)

Human Rights at the UN? Think Again!!

0
12/20/10 Columbia, SC: Gov. Nikki Haley official portrait. Photos by Renee Ittner-McManus/rimphotography.com

The headquarters for what one might easily misidentify as the The Barnum and Bailey Circus sits on First Avenue and 42nd Street in NYC. There are no dancing elephants nor high wire artists in these UN buildings but they harbor instead many clowns and sleight of hand artists. One such group of far too many congruent ones is the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). Established in 2006, then President GW Bush refused to join it but in 2009 one of the first actions of President Obama was to contaminate this nation by jumping into this group. Last week, President Trump announced we are out. Good move.

NY Democratic Congressman, Eliot Engel came out in support of the HRC with these words: “By withdrawing from the council, we lose our leverage and allow the council’s bad actors to follow their worst impulses unchecked.”

Our UN representative, Nikki Haley called the 47 member council, “a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias.” Trump long has been critical of the HRC, which he has accused of showing a bias against Israel. Haley last year slammed the body for its, “relentless, pathological campaign” against Israel. And that’s the major reason we took a hike. This group has been anti-Israel from day one. Israel has been hit with a total of 78 condemnations outstripping the 55 for all the other nations in the world, combined.

The HRC has even named Israel as the world’s worst human rights abuser. And leave it to our own NYC Democrat Congressman, Eliot Engel, who is now a major Jewish supporter of the Iran Deal, to come out in support of the HRC with these words: “By withdrawing from the council, we lose our leverage and allow the council’s bad actors to follow their worst impulses unchecked.” Excuse us, Mr. Engel, but what good did our membership in this group have since we don’t have a veto power and are only one of 47 equal members? And Eliot, would you want to rub shoulders with the reps from such nations as Venezuela, Pakistan, the Republic of Congo, Burundi, Cuba, China and Qatar and do what, chat with them in a friendly manner? Were we to remain in the HRC that would have further legitimized that evil group.

Since President Trump’s inauguration a little over one and one half years ago, he has shown great strength and determination to keep his pre-election promises. He has withdrawn from the Paris Accords, UNESCO, the Iran Deal and has moved our Embassy to Jerusalem. And although the likes of wimpy Jews such as Engel, Schumer,

Debbie Schultz and Ted Deutch may weep at his accomplishments, we Israel loving Jews together with Christian Zionists salute President Trump for his fearless moves to make the World Great Again.

Merkel’s War Against Trump

1

Instability and wars initiated by Germany were the bane of the 20th Century for Europe and the world. Tens of millions died and countless others suffered in WWI and WWII. The United States had to send its valued youth across the seas twice to fight, die and be maimed to bring peace to that continent, twice. And without our support post WWII we would have surely seen the enslavement of Europe by Soviet Russia. Not good for us! And now another problem seems to be incubating specifically in Deutchland, the land of beer and schnitzel, with its leader Angela Merkel picking fights with President Trump.

And she began this “war” before the 2016 U.S. election with these words about Hillary: “I value her long political experience, her commitment for women’s rights, family issues, and health care. I value her strategic thinking and that she is a strong supporter of the transatlantic partnership. Whenever I had the chance to work together with Hillary Clinton, it was a great pleasure. “ Well, Hillary lost and Merkel, stoked the flames of discord with Trump by telling one of her beer hall crowds that the days when Europe could completely count on others were “over” to an extent.

We have to know that we must fight for our future on our own, for our destiny as Europeans.” And this was just after Trump criticized major NATO allies and refused to endorse a global climate change accord which would have harmed his nation. Throw in his telling the G-7 crowd that he supports tariffs on European steel imports and thinks that Europe’s handling of its immigration crisis is “crazy.” Bold moves and we agree.

He was elected by Americans to Make America Great Again, not to once again shore up the lunatic Europeans who have taken in millions of Muslim “refugees” who have gone on to rape, pillage and destroy once Christian Europe. Strange, how well Trump understands the problem their immigration policy is creating. “The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!”

Not only that but Trump understands and is repelled by the deep loathing the citizenry of that continent have for Israel. He stands with the Jewish State. He moved our embassy to Jerusalem spotlighting Europe’s disdain for Israel. He cares not what foreigners think of him. He owes his allegiance only to America and its firm allies. So Angela Merkel, Emannuel Macron and the other wimpy “major” world leaders have a choice: stand by America and win its support both moral and military, or fight your own battles…..and for a change, try to win.

Letters to the Editor

0

Are American Jews in Peril?

Dear Editor:

We American Jews are in peril. Over 70% of us voted to turn our backs on Israel and domestic Jewry. Over 70% of us voted twice in favor of Barack Obama, whom we all knew was an overt Jew hater who sat in the church pew of just about the most outrageous Jew hater in the country for over 20 years. Obama had as his Jew hating buddies, Rev. Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and Valerie Jarrett, to name just a few. And Jewish voters knew nothing of this? Nonsense.

In fact, as a result of their dropping any concern for their ancestral beliefs and especially for their new support for the enemies of Judaism they should no longer be referred to as Jews but rather be referred to as members of a new religious group: Believers in Liberalism. They should be publicly repudiated for further describing themselves as “Jews.” If we remain silent and ignore the hatred of these Believers in Liberalism, we are doomed as a group.

Sincerely

Alan Bulwarky

 

Mourns the Death of Baseball Player

Dear Editor:

I’m still wiping away the tears, but I’m trying my best to channel one of the only lessons we can learn from a story as terrible as “Town Mourns Tragic Death of Former NJ Baseball Star and His Father.” You really do have to live your best life because it can all go away in an absolute instant. Spend time with family, or at least make sure to call a few times a week. Losing a family member prematurely must be about the worst feeling in the world. I would think having regrets would only worsen that unimaginable pain. It’s natural for us to get annoyed and angry at each other, and that’s perfectly fine. That’s part of living life. But you have to really stop and think about the bigger picture. Is it really worth it to feel such anger at a brother or sister over something that will seem so trivial a week from now? G-d forbid something happens to a family member, but having your last memory with that loved one be feelings of anger over something stupid would probably haunt me forever.

It’s so touching to see the outpouring from the community of Old Bridge to show such love, kindness, and support for this family in need. If anything can come close to close family, it’s friends and neighbors. While this tragedy of a young and promising young man and his dad break my heart, the support they continue to receive gives me hope and makes my heart hurt a little less.

Sincerely,

Patsy Degnan

 

Do We Need Another Apple Store?

Dear Editor:

Don’t we already have enough Apple stores? Just when I’m finally ready to check out the new location, a brand new store opens, and then I realize that the new location I originally wanted to go to was actually like the third-most brand new store anyway. The redundancy is too much! It’s an embarrassment of riches.

Now with all of that said, I couldn’t help but chuckle when I read your article in the June 22 issue that was called “Azrieli Group Negotiating to Open First Apple Store in Israel.” Who am I kidding? I’m so thrilled when I read that news! Even though I want to roll my eyes sometimes when I see yet another Apple store in the Big Apple, I know for sure that my heart will warm and fill with joy when I make the journey back to the Promised Land and pass by a slice of American capitalism. But how about we keep it at one store, Israel? Okay, maybe two or three.

Sincerely,

Regina Magarov

 

Wants Sports Betting in NY

Dear Editor:

I’ve been following all the coverage of sports betting now being legal and where it is being offered. When I read your June 15 article, “NJ Gov Murphy Signs Sports Betting Bill into Law After Supreme Court Ruling,” my excitement quickly turned to that of annoyance with New York State’s complete inaction on expanding sports betting in the state. Besides being a fun activity, sports betting will bring the state some extra cash.

I’m not the biggest fan of gambling. It can get out of hand quickly, and we know people become addicted. It just makes no sense anymore though to keep something that is so widespread illegal. The black market is huge, with people still handing over stashes of cash in concealed bags to each other in the middle of a city sidewalk so shady online operations based overseas can stay afloat. The Supreme Court ruling will go a long way towards making these images a thing of the past, but states like New York need to get their acts together.

Sincerely,

Max Parsons

 

The City’s Poor & Vulnerable Suffer

Dear Editor:

I am appalled after reading your article from June 15 titled “City to Pay $1B to Fix NYCHA Nightmare; Feds Charge Cover-Up.” How could people be so cruel and vile to not only see the conditions in which our city’s poorest and most vulnerable are living but then make a concerted effort to do nothing about it? And worse than that is the fact that the cover-up efforts probably required more thought and energy than just doing things right in the first place! It really makes you think. Who else can’t we trust with basic yet crucial tasks?

It’s encouraging to at least see the judge suggest the possibility of individuals being charged, but it’s still outrageous that NYCHA won’t be charged and that the perpetrators aren’t being put on trial at this very moment. Why are they allowed to get away with this gross malfeasance and lack of humanity? Most of us wouldn’t have that luxury nor would we want it. Helping each other out makes the world go ‘round and repairs it.

Sincerely,

Samantha Yates

 

Trump Plays By His Own Rules

Dear Editor:

Your May 18 article, “Trump, Michael Cohen Were Told of Abuse Charges vs Schneiderman in 2013,” is a reminder that the president plays by different rules and lacks any sort of compassion.

While Donald Trump or his fixer, Michael Cohen, may not have been able to come right out and say what they knew about the disgraced former New York State attorney general, they never seemed to do anything to combat the issue. After the news came out about Schneiderman’s patterns of abuse, the president gloated rather than showing even the slightest concern for Schneiderman’s victims or victims of abuse at large. I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised about a man who stands credibly accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault in some cases by 16 women and admitted to repeteadly grabbing women below the belt because “when you’re a star, they let you do it.” We deserve better. Victims of abuse most certainly do.

Sincerely,

Henry Robert Capalini

 

The Peril of Politicized Anti-Semitism

0
Last week, Trump approved UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s determination that the US should withdraw from the institutionally antisemitic UN Human Rights Council

Jewish Democrats’ libels against Trump mask a dire problem in their ranks

Google search of the terms “Trump Nazi,” brings up 70,900,000 results.

There are a number of distressing aspects to this state of affairs.

First and foremost, it is pure libel to call President Donald Trump a Nazi.

His daughter Ivanka is Jewish. His daughter-in-law is Jewish. Half his grandchildren are Jewish and his non-Jewish ex-daughter-in-law is half Jewish.

How many Nazis have Hanukka celebrations in their homes starring their Jewish grandchildren?

Trump kept the promise none if his predecessors kept and moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, although that would have sufficed to prove his friendship.

Beyond his Jewish immediate family, Trump has shown extraordinary friendship to the Jewish state. It isn’t simply that Trump kept the promise none if his predecessors kept and moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, although that would have sufficed to prove his friendship.

Trump shows his friendship and respect for Israel every single day.

Last week he agreed to sell Israel mid-air refueling planes. His predecessor, Barack Obama, refused to sell Israel the aircraft in order to protect Iran’s nuclear sites from Israeli air strikes. Trump agreed to sell them to enable such Israeli strikes in the event they become necessary.

This week, Trump approved UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s determination that the US should withdraw from the institutionally antisemitic UN Human Rights Council. The Obama administration joined the council claiming it would use its membership to influence the council for the better and proceeded to legitimize council’s anti-Jewish witch hunt for eight years.

The people of Israel recognize Trump’s friendship. Nearly 80% of Israelis view him as a friend.

So what explains the 70,900,000 results to the “Trump Nazi” Google search?

One answer came this week with the media outcry over the US government policy of separating illegal immigrant minors from their illegal immigrant parents.

The policy is cruel. Indeed, recognizing its cruelty, Trump signed an executive order banning the practice.

But the policy isn’t new. This was the Obama administration’s policy following a court order prohibiting children from joining their parents in detention.

Rather than soberly acknowledge that law enforcement, including immigration law is often a cruel business and recognize that to remain a state of laws sometimes authorities undertake difficult and harsh actions, the anti-Trump media ignored reality and went straight for the kill. David Remnick, Frank Bruni and countless others didn’t care that the Obama administration separated children from their parents, placed them in cages and wrapped them in aluminum foil.

As far as they are concerned, the continuation of the same cruel policy under Trump is proof that Trump is a Nazi.

Gen. Michael Hayden, the former director of the NSA and the CIA posted a photo of the entrance to Auschwitz on his Twitter feed with a caption “Other governments have separated mothers and children.”

As much as Hayden and his comrades hate Trump, by claiming that enforcing laws of Congress is Nazi behavior, they are demonizing the US and engaging in rank antisemitism. Mexican children separated from their parents because they broke properly constituted laws of a liberal republic are not the moral equivalent of the million Jewish children murdered by the Nazis for the “crime” of breathing while Jewish. Congress is not the Reichstag. And the Rio Grande is not Auschwitz.

Hayden and his comrades are not idiots. So why are they making these unhinged, libelous claims?

The answer is that their actions are part of a wider move by Democrats to politicize antisemitism.

Much has been made of the fact that support for Israel is becoming a partisan issue. Whereas Republicans are almost unanimous in support for the US alliance with Israel, support among Democrats is flagging and becoming a minority view on the rapidly growing far Left.

What has gone largely unmentioned is that antisemitism is also becoming a partisan issue. As their party becomes more hostile to Israel, Democrats are increasingly highlighting the neo-Nazi elements at the fringe of the Republican Party as a means of implicating the entire Republican Party – led by Trump – as antisemitic and dangerous.

At the same time, even as leading members of the Democratic Party like Keith Ellison and luminaries like Linda Sarsour openly espouse anti-Jewish sentiments and propagate antisemitic conspiracy theories, Democrats ignore, whitewash, deny and minimize the significance of the swelling chorus of antisemitism within their ranks.

Compare the responses of Democrats and Republicans to the appearance of antisemites on their ballots.

In the current election cycle, three white supremacists have sought office as Republican candidates. Arthur Jones, a 70-year-old white supremacist Nazi, running for Congress in Illinois’s 3rd Congressional district ran a stealth campaign for the safe Democratic seat. He quietly collected the requisite signatures to file his papers with the state election commission, blindsiding the GOP, which had not planned to field a candidate to run against incumbent Dan Lipinski who has won the last seven elections by a 70-30 margin.

In response to Jones’s maneuver, the state and national GOP condemned and disavowed him in the harshest terms. The state party announced it would field an independent candidate to run in the general election against Jones and Lipinski.

Then there is Patrick Little. Little, another Nazi, ran in California’s open primary for Senate as a Republican. Ten other Republicans also ran. In one poll, which included Little and one other Republican candidate only, he was the top ranked Republican candidate in the open Senate race against Democratic incumbent Diane Feinstein.

Rather than acknowledge the poll’s statistical insignificance, the Forward, Newsweek and Yahoo news ran stories about Little and the poll claiming that it proved that empowered by Trump, Nazis are taking over the Republican Party. The fact that the California GOP forcibly removed Little from their state convention was barely reported in the national media.

Paul Nehlen, a Democratic candidate for Congress in House Speaker Paul Ryan’s district was supported by many conservatives until last December when it came out that he is a white supremacist. As soon as his positions – which he had deliberately hidden – were revealed, every major and minor conservative media outlet and politician condemned him.

But that hasn’t stopped CNN from waging a campaign against Virginia Republican Senate nominee Corey Stewart for having endorsed Nehlen a month before his positions were publicized. Stewart unconditionally condemned Nehlen once his anti-Jewish bigotry was exposed.

In the Democratic tent itself, things are a bit different.

Rising stars in the Democratic Party, including Rep. Ellison and Women’s March leaders Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour along with the Congressional Black Caucus embrace Louis Farrakhan, and defend his notorious, virulent hatred of Jews. They demonize Israel and its Jewish supporters.

Far from being attacked or otherwise denounced for their actions, these Democrats are advanced and promoted. Ellison is the vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Mallory and Sarsour, Maxine Waters and other members of the CBC are feted by party leaders including Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Democratic Jews have to date refused to mobilize to oppose them in any significant way. Indeed, in some cases they support antisemites.

Take the Jewish community of Charlottesville, Virginia’s reaction to the Congressional candidacy of Democrat Leslie Cockburn. Cockburn is the co-author, with her husband, Andrew Cockburn, of the 1991 book, Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the US-Israeli Covert Relationship.

The New York Times review of the book said, “Their book, supposedly a history of the secret ties between Israel and the United States, is largely dedicated to Israel-bashing for its own sake. Its first message is that win or lose, smart or dumb, right or wrong, suave or boorish, Israelis are a menace. The second is that the Israeli-American connection is somewhere behind just about everything that ails us.”

Rather than excoriate Cockburn for her history of propagating antisemitic conspiracy theories, the Washington Jewish Week wrote an empathetic article about her quest to have an open exchange with the Jewish community in her district. One member of the Jewish community who was prominently cited as an authority on her outreach to the community, noted approvingly that in a meeting with Jewish constituents Cockburn “pointed out that her views on Israel align with J Street.”

New York Times reporter and author Jonathan Weisman epitomizes the Democrats’ simultaneous promotion of leftist antisemitism and castigation of the Republicans as the new Nazi party. During the 2015 battle over the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, Weisman, who is Jewish, co-authored an article singling out by name the Jewish members of Congress who opposed the deal. In other words, he engaged in antisemitism to demonize Jewish opponents of the Obama administration’s anti-Israel policy of empowering Iran.

In 2017 Weisman wrote a widely cited book, (((Semitism))): Being Jewish in America in the Age of Trump.

Weisman’s basic argument in his book is that Trump’s populism empowers far-Right antisemites and so threatens the Jewish community in the US.

It isn’t that antisemitism on the far Right is nothing to be concerned about it. To the contrary. There is great reason to be concerned, even alarmed by the Jew-hating rhetoric emanating from the far Right. To their credit, cognizant of the danger, Republican leaders, including Trump have consistently condemned and marginalized these voices and actors in their party.

There is also reason to be concerned with left-wing antisemitism, including when it takes the form of a New York Times journalist singling out for rebuke Jewish members of Congress who oppose an anti-Israel policy. Left-wing antisemitism should be should be fought without prejudice even when it is being propagated by minority groups. Farrakhan should not get a pass, nor should his African-American supporters.

Because the US has a two-party system, marginal forces always seek to use the machinery of the large parties to advance their positions and causes. As a consequence, it is not surprising that antisemites on the Right seek to penetrate the GOP. And it isn’t surprising that their leftist counterparts are seeking to take over the Democratic Party. But again, while the state and national Republican Party condemns and disowns antisemites, the Democrats woo them for their votes and political support and elect them to office. And as they do these things, they libel the Republican Party and Trump accusing them of Nazi sympathies and goals.

It is hard to see a happy end to the story. By attacking Trump, the most pro-Jewish president in living memory, as a Nazi, while ignoring the dangers of the growing power and numbers of antisemites in their own party, Jewish Democrats are doing themselves no favors. So long as Jewish Democrats go along with the rise of antisemitic forces in their party on the one hand, and assault the Republicans as Nazis on the other, the situation will only get more dangerous for them and for the Jewish community in the US as a whole.

By: Caroline Glick
(Front Page Mag)

 

What the Controversy Over Illegal Immigrant Families is Really About

0
Young people attempting to illegally cross the US southern border

The Democrat “resistance” has managed to break its own record for hysterical and hypocritical invective. Literalizing the clichéd punch line of a thousand gags––“Will no one think of the children!!!” ––the Dems are hyperventilating about the illegal alien parents and their children being separated upon detention, as the law requires. Once again, we see how much “conspicuous compassion,” as Alan Bloom called it, has become a weapon of politics, one that damages our security and interests.

Americans calling for secure borders

In this case, the disconnect between fact and spin is more glaring than usual. No matter that ICE and Homeland Security are working within the constraints of court rulings and the law that Congress passed and can change any time. No matter that often it’s impossible to certify that the detained adults are the actual parents, or that human traffickers aren’t using this dodge to enter the country with their prey. No matter that the alternative is to turn these poorly vetted illegal aliens loose (as Obama did, as a form of de facto amnesty), merely on their word that they will show up for a hearing. No matter that across the country, Child Protective Services are “ripping children from their parents’ arms,” as are the children of those arrested on suspicion of a crime. Do we set a criminal suspect free on his own recognizance just because he’s accompanied by his kid?

No matter. Fact, common sense, and law must cede to politics, which these days comprises a deep, pathological hatred of Donald Trump, the Emmanuel Goldstein of the Democrats’ 24/7 “Two Minutes Hate.” “Compassion” is just another weapon of that hate.

Compassion, however, has a long history of being trivialized in Western culture. It followed the idealizing of “sensitivity” that began in the late 18th century. Novels like Laurence Sterne’s A Sentimental Journey and Henry Mackenzie’s The Man of Feeling, whose hero bursts into tears every ten pages, marked the point when showy displays of “feelings” like compassion, often called “luxurious” at the time, became a virtue-signaling status symbol. This is the fad that Jane Austen satirized in her 1811 novel Sense and Sensibility. As many other critics at the time pointed out, compassion was the justifying virtue that masked what often was nothing more than emotional solipsism for those whose concern for others seldom led to action that improved their lot.

Immigrant children are brought to the US by their parents to gain entry to the country

By the mid-19th century even a master of sentimentalism like Charles Dickens could recognize that such public displays of compassion for the poor or native peoples abroad were a self-indulgence. In Bleak House, he created Mrs. Jellyby, the archetype of today’s purveyors of virtue-signaling compassion, who bleed for distant suffering but neglect that in their own backyard. As Mrs. Jellyby strives to settle impoverished Londoners among heathen Africans they will convert to Christianity, her shabby household and neglected children continue to fall into ruin.

Dickens called this “telescopic philanthropy,” a phenomenon we’re seeing today with the ostentatious compassion for illegal alien children on the part of those who shrug off the daily excesses in their own country, such as those of the Child Protective Services, which often violate the Fourth Amendment.

Popularized more widely in the 19th century by the mass circulation of illustrated magazines and serialized novels, conspicuous compassion permeated American culture, as did “telescopic philanthropy.” In Tom Sawyer, Mark Twain satirized the “committee of sappy women” who are petitioning the governor to pardon the murderous Injun Joe: “If he had been Satan himself there would have been plenty of weaklings ready to scribble their names to a pardon petition, and drip a tear on it from their permanent leaky water-works.”

President Donald Trump speaks about immigration alongside family members affected by crime committed by undocumented immigrants

So too today, with those beating their breasts over sloppily vetted illegal aliens who endanger their children by bringing them across the border or sending them off with “coyotes.” They can’t seem to summon similar compassion for the victims of the criminals allowed into the country and kept here despite serial felonies. And remember the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth over the terrorist murderers held in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib? And how about the “Palestinians” who use their own children as shields behind which to launch lethal attacks on Israelis? When do we hear the same lamentations over innocent Israeli children and families murdered by homicide-bombers, scud missiles, and knife-wielding terrorists?

Then there is today’s favorite venue for politicized conspicuous compassion––the postcolonial Third World. Our morbid fascination with the misery and suffering there serves both our need to signal our superior virtue, and the leftist melodrama of the Western colonial and imperialist oppression allegedly responsible for that suffering.

This combination of conspicuous compassion and ostentatious self-loathing is the essence of Third-Worldism, that idealization of the non-Western “other” combined with self-flagellation over the original sins of imperialism and colonialism. French philosopher Pascal Bruckner wrote a brilliant analysis of this cultural neurosis in Tears of the White Man. Bruckner describes how Third-World suffering has become a lucrative commodity for the modern media, who provide the images that we consume in order to enjoy cost-free pathos and smug superiority about our righteous compassion. In this way, we compensate for our “certain essential evil,” as Bruckner calls the West’s original sin, “that must be atoned for.”

By the mid-19th century even a master of sentimentalism like Charles Dickens could recognize that such public displays of compassion for the poor or native peoples abroad were a self-indulgence.

Which is to say, conspicuous compassion is about political power, since this neurosis empowers the foreign policy favored by globalists and leftists alike –– foreign aid and “development” even if they’re not in our national interest and don’t help to protect our security. Domestically, for decades, including during George W. Bush’s bout of “compassionate conservatism,” the progressives have slandered conservatives as heartless and ruthless racists, bigots, and xenophobes who fear the dark-skinned “other” and seek to “roll back the clock” to the time when their “white male hetero-normative privilege” was unchallenged.

That caricature reinforces as well progressives’ self-image as more enlightened and tolerant, more caring about the suffering victims of conservatism’s crimes. Both caricatures serve political theater by giving us a melodrama in which good and evil, white hats and black hats, are easily recognizable without having to think too much about, say, the long track-record of progressivism’s failures, both at home and abroad, to improve the lives of those they have so much compassion for.

But politics based on sentimental emotions and cheap compassion obscures the tragic realities of the choices a nation has to make. Modern Mrs. Jellybys like Samantha Power, Obama’s U.N. ambassador and architect of the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, have nothing practical to say about how to achieve their utopian projects without a massive intervention of lethal force. U.N. resolutions, heart-rending photographs, celebrity global pan-handling, disappearing red lines, and lofty speeches didn’t bring the boon of education to girls in Afghanistan. The U.S. military did by killing and driving away the bad guys. They liberated more girls in Afghanistan than all the feminist books and seminars and protests combined.

In Tom Sawyer, Mark Twain satirized the “committee of sappy women” who are petitioning the governor to pardon the murderous Injun Joe: “If he had been Satan himself there would have been plenty of weaklings ready to scribble their names to a pardon petition, and drip a tear on it from their permanent leaky water-works.”

But the role of our government is not to be the world’s social worker going about searching for monsters to destroy. The 800,000 murdered in Rwanda comprised families and children too, but we did nothing to stop the slaughter. Instead, we pretended that the feckless U.N.’s Orwellian “peace-keepers,” who watched the disaster happen in real time, absolved us of our “responsibility to protect.” Rather than indulge such hypocrisy, we should be honest and let the world know that we act in the service of our own citizen’s security and interests. If humanitarian assistance or policies are compatible with those purposes, then we should do what we can.

Moreover, we do not have a moral obligation to be the world’s refuge and take in everybody if doing so harms our security and interests. And since we can’t take in every refugee whether political or economic, any decision to admit people will necessarily be political, which again means that our country’s interests are the paramount criterion. In the end, we are not obligated to correct the misery and suffering of nations who bear the responsibility for their own people’s problems. We can’t let the whole world use us as Mexico does, as a safety valve for lessening their citizens’ discontent caused by their country’s political and economic corruption and dysfunctions; and as a source of foreign currency––$26 billion in just nine months last year–– in the form of remittances sent home by their citizens.

Finally, it is the fundamental right of every sovereign nation to protect its borders and to decide by what criteria they will admit immigrants. Whatever we decide is a political issue to be settled by the people through their representatives in Congress. Calls for amnesty or de facto open borders––which is what the recent outcry over separating illegal aliens from their children is really about––should be adjudicated by political debate on the facts, consequences, and costs, not by emotional appeals, sentimental rhetoric, and conspicuous compassion.

French philosopher Pascal Bruckner wrote a brilliant analysis of this cultural neurosis in Tears of the White Man. Bruckner describes how Third-World suffering has become a lucrative commodity for the modern media, who provide the images that we consume in order to enjoy cost-free pathos and smug superiority about our righteous compassion

Unfortunately, the hypocritical telescopic philanthropy of the Dems, few of whom live with the wages of our broken immigration system, has been seconded by too many Republicans intimidated by their rhetoric. The Bush clan, which spent Obama’s two terms in silence as The One “fundamentally transformed” America, have squandered much of the good will they once enjoyed by piling on Donald Trump with ridiculous comparisons to the internment of Japanese citizens during the World War II, and with bathetic exaggerations of the conditions in which the children are kept. So too a lot of Republicans who should know better, but with an eye on the November midterms, are scrambling to defuse the bad publicity caused by the dishonest media coverage, rather than championing facts and principles and refuting the Dems’ duplicitous narrative.

But ceding the argument to the Dems, rather than putting their feet to the fire by forcing them to vote in Congress, is handing them a win. That’s why Trump’s executive order on Wednesday ending the practice instead of forcing Congress to do its job, is disappointing. And even if that’s what polls tell us the people want, laws or policy based on specious emotion and lurid optics, rather than on Constitutional principles and national interest, usually turn out to be disastrous. Our national interests are more important than people’s need to display their conspicuous compassion.

By: Bruce Thornton
(Front Page Mag)

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

340 Olim to Land in Israel in IFCJ Airlift; Jewish Agency Fails in Inspiring Aliyah

1
Family from Ukraine makes aliyah to Israel under the auspices of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews

Three hundred and forty new immigrants (olim) on 17 different flights from eight countries will arrive at Ben-Gurion Airport throughout this week, thanks to the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFCJ).

Monday, June 25, will prove to be the busiest day, as 237 olim from Brazil, Colombia, France, Uzbekistan, Argentina and Ukraine arrive at the airport, with 219 of them coming from Ukraine. Some of these olim are escaping battle zones in the ongoing Russian-Ukraine conflict, while others are fleeing economic distress.

With all of their possessions in tow, many older people from distressed countries are making Aliyah

Supported by hundreds of thousands of evangelical Christians, IFCJ is playing an increasingly major role in bringing new immigrants to Israel. While IFCJ has helped bring hundreds of thousands of olim in partnership with the Jewish Agency and Nefesh B’Nefesh, the organization it helped start, IFCJ began independently bringing olim in late 2014. Since then, IFCJ has brought nearly 13,000 new immigrants to Israel from 26 countries where Jews are facing rising anti-Semitism, threatened by terrorism or suffering economic crises.

“The flights of olim that landed this week and especially those arriving this morning from the Ukraine represents a special hope, since they include 69 children under the age of 10 — literally the future of the Jewish state,” said IFCJ’s Founder and President, Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein. “I am proud and excited to see these olim starting a new chapter in their lives here in their Jewish homeland, and I wish them much success.”

In fact IFCJ works extensively to ensure all immigrants it brings enjoy a successful absorption into Israeli life. Once the olim arrive in Israel, IFCJ provides grants for appliances, furniture, housing and employment assistance, in addition to the standard government grants olim receive. “We do everything we can to ensure that all of our olim will begin successful new lives in Israel,” Eckstein said.

This week’s new arrives are expected to be absorbed in 35 cities across the country, with most — 40 — settling in Haifa, followed by Netanya (34), Ashdod (29) and Bat Yam (26) . The youngest newcomer, who landed this morning, is a one-year-old baby girl, and the oldest is an 82-year-old woman, both from the Ukraine. In addition, 11 dogs and 6 cats, who will also now begin their lives in Israel, have joined the olim. Nearly a third of this week’s new immigrants — 101 people–are children under the age of 18.

Mykhailo Semenenko, 40, came on aliyah this morning with his wife and daughter. “I worked in the construction sector and there are almost no job offers in the field,” he said. “My wife is a nurse and luckily she managed to continue working steadily recently, but her salary has been cut in half since the outbreak of the crisis in the east” of Ukraine.

Young families and children are among those making aliyah to Israel

Yulia Foshchii, 31, also landed this morning, with her husband and two children. Yulia and her family have also experienced difficult economic problems. “Prices have all risen significantly; even basic products have gone up a lot. Our day-to-day life was a constant struggle.”

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews was founded in 1983 to promote better understanding and cooperation between Christians and Jews, and build broad support for Israel. Today it is one of the leading forces helping Israel and Jews in need worldwide – and is the largest channel of Christian support for Israel. Led by its founder and president, Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, IFCJ has been working to bring Jews to Israel, and has invested more than $200 million over the years, helping to bring hundred and thousands of olim to Israel.

Since its inception close to 90 years ago, the Jewish Agency’s main priorities were to populate Israel with Jews from around the globe. Once the leading advocate for aliyah of all Jews, for the last 20 years or more, it appears that other organizations such as the IFCJ and Nefesh B’Nefesh have taken up the gauntlet and filled a painful void.

With the establishment of the state of Israel in May 1948, the Jewish Agency relinquished many of its functions to the new government, but retained responsibility for immigration, land settlement, youth work, and relations with world Jewry. This was confirmed by the World Zionist Organization-Jewish Agency (Status) Law adopted by the Knesset on November 24, 1952. On July 26, 1954 a formal covenant was signed between the government and the World Zionist Organization-Jewish Agency, recognizing the latter as the representative of world Jewry with regard to the above functions.

Speaking to the Jewish Voice in November of 2014, Rabbi Eckstein said, “We were cognizant of the fact that the focus of the Jewish Agency had shifted over the years. Rather than spend their resources on aliyah, the Jewish Agency focused on ways of strengthening Jewish identity and values in the diaspora. They focused on federation requests for youth aliyah from North America and other places that are not considered distressed countries. We took note of the fact that they had only one shaliach in Ukraine and they were just not offering services to help with aliyah.”

The claims made by Rabbi Eckstein in 2014 not only raise questions about the Jewish Agency’s priorities but precisely where there money is going and precisely how it is being spent. In a written response to inquiries made by the Jewish Voice, Avi Mayer, the Jewish Agency spokesman in Israel said, “The Jewish Agency’s Aliyah, Absorption, and Rescue budget for 2015 is $62.67 million, increased from 2014.” According to information received by the Jewish Voice, it was reported that the annual operating budget of the Jewish Agency is close to $400 million.

Mr. Mayer insisted that “aliyah encouragement and facilitation has been at the very core of The Jewish Agency’s activities since the organization’s establishment 85 years ago, and it remains so today.” In terms of success rates, he says that 2014 saw “record Aliyah, with immigration from around the world nearing 25,000—a five-year high—and for the first time in Israel’s history, the number of immigrants from Western countries has surpassed the number of those coming from the rest of the world.”

The facts, however, do not reflect the success rate of aliyah that the Jewish Agency continuously defends.

Observers of the division between the two organizations have speculated that one of the reasons that the Jewish Agency is livid about the fact that the IFCJ is going to branch out on its own and conduct aliyah procedures is that Rabbi Eckstein has solicited the help of several Jewish Agency staffers. At the helm of the new IFCJ aliyah operation is Eli Cohen, the former head of the aliyah and absorption department at the Jewish Agency and Jeff Kaye, the former Jewish Agency coordinator for financial resource development.

A detailed explanation of exactly why the government of Israel felt a compelling need to initiate a program such as Nefesh B’Nefesh is not readily available, but an unnamed government official intimated that the Jewish Agency was just not capable of doing the job it once had in terms of increasing aliyah numbers, especially from North America.

Edited by: JV Staff

Crisis Averted: Gushing Over Israel’s Governmental Water Bailout

0

Beyond staking its claim as one of the most innovative countries in the world, Israel has made significant contributions in the realm of environmental conservation and protection. Most notably, Israel has taken the lead in water conservation solutions. From drip irrigation to desalination plants, Israel has made waves in a largely stagnant field of research and innovation, solving water crises around the globe.

But while California, Kenya, and North India have Israel to thank for their life-saving and economy-bolstering water technology, Israel still struggles with its own water security, and the situation is quickly deteriorating.

Since Israel’s establishment, policy makers have understood that the region’s desert climate and dry seasons would make water conservation crucial to the country’s survival. Since then, innovative technologies and policies have been addressing the issue. With nearly 90% of wastewater being recycled in Israel, the highest percentage across the globe, and nearly 80% of drinking water coming from desalination of sea water, Israel’s crisis should have presumably been averted years ago.

However, with all its efforts and advances, Israel neglected one major area of concern: conservation of its natural water resources.

Natural water flow in springs and rivers is decreasing rapidly nationwide. After climate change and years of drought, Lake Kineret is at its lowest. Famous for its wealth of water, the Dan and the Banias Streams that are the sources of the upper Jordan River, located in the Upper Golan between the Hula Valley and Mount Hermon, are at an unprecedented low, with their natural spring-water flow decreasing by almost half. In fact, Northern Israel is experiencing one of the worst droughts in 100 years, leaving the country’s natural water resources with a deficit of 2.5 billion cubic liters of water.

Despite these frighteningly low levels of natural water, most of the water used for agriculture in the Golan Heights, Galilee and Jordan Valley regions is still pumped directly from local springs, rivers and ground water. As such, there is little water left to flow in nature, thus causing further damage to the already dwindling streams and wetlands.

This summer, agriculture will utilize over 70% of the upper Jordan River’s natural water flow, an extraordinarily high percentage. Furthermore, natural spring-water is still being used as a resource for drinking, agriculture, industry, and tourism in the upper Kinneret Basin, creating a demand greater than the rate of natural regeneration.

For years, the Society for the Protection of Nature (SPNI) has worked tirelessly to convince the government to take the necessary steps to save our natural water resources and to rehabilitate natural water flow in our springs and rivers. Thankfully, the government has finally heard our pleas and begun to address the issue by approving a water restoration plan for seven streams.

On Sunday, June 10, Israel’s Cabinet unanimously approved a plan presented by Minister of Energy Dr. Yuval Steinitz, with the support of Minister of Finance Moshe Kahlon and Director of the Water Authority Giora Shaham called the “Strategic Plan for Coping with Shifts in the Water Economy in the Years 2018-2030.” The plan calls for the reduction of pumping from rivers and streams in northern Israel and the creation of two new desalination plants to increase the quantity of desalinated water.

This major, national plan includes, among other things, a plan to restore the flow of natural spring-water to seven streams – including Betzet, Ga’aton, Naaman, Tzipori, and Kishon – in the northern Galilee, the Hadera River in central Israel, and Einan stream in the Hula Valley. Adapted from a plan originally drafted by SPNI in 2015, the plan will allocate NIS 81 million to repair the severe damage caused by Israel’s ongoing water crisis to the country’s rivers and streams.

After years of lobbying, we at SPNI congratulate the government for giving our natural water crisis the attention that it so desperately requires. However, the plan only addresses natural streams. No plans have been suggested to conserve the streams flowing into the Jordan river, leaving the river completely neglected. While the plan, if implemented properly, is a step in the right direction to ensure stable amounts of water for agriculture, consumption and natural revitalization, there is still much work left to be done.

Israel’s water woes have never stemmed from inability. After all, Israeli ingenuity has brought forth flowing water and blooming agriculture in the desert. But dealing with water issues has always just been a part of Israel’s reality. We will continue to lobby the government so that Israel continues to take the appropriate steps to correct this persistent issue. And if the government continues to prioritize the conservation of our natural water resources, we will truly have something to gush about: our title as the world’s true water innovation super power.

By: Aya Tager

Aya Tager is a member of the Marketing and Communications team at the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI), the oldest, leading and largest environmental non-profit organization in Israel. This article is based on an interview with Dr. Orit Skutelsky, SPNI’s Coordinator of Water and Streams.

What Justice Demands – Elan Journo’s New Book Clarifies the Arab-Israeli Conflict

0

Last week, a United States amendment to a draft resolution that would have condemned the terrorist group Hamas was blocked at the U.N. General Assembly even before getting to a vote. U.S. Ambassador and future POTUS Nikki Haley called the move “shameful” and declared, “It is no wonder that no one takes the U.N. seriously as a force for Middle East peace.” This is just the latest example of the sort of anti-Israel resistance that the tiny Middle East democracy and its ally the United States confront daily in the Arab-Israeli forever war. What will it take to resolve this conflict? What is the solution?

Elan Journo offers one in his new book, What Justice Demands: America and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. The book is not a comprehensive history of this complex conflict, but a clarification of its essential nature and moral significance. Its central point is that America must reexamine and change its two-state approach, which Journo argues has not only come to nothing, it has made matters worse. While ostensibly supporting Israel, we actually have sold her out and empowered jihadists in the process.

Born in Israel and raised in the United Kingdom, Journo is a Fellow and Director of Policy Research at the Ayn Rand Institute whose articles have appeared in a such publications as Foreign Policy, Middle East Quarterly, and the Los Angeles Times. He is the co-author of Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism, a contributor to Defending Free Speech, and editor of Winning the Unwinnable War.

In What Justice Demands, Journo puts forth a secular moral framework for the conflict in terms of justice. He begins in Part I by evaluating the moral standing of Israel and, in Part II, that of the Palestinians. He does this by asking the simple question, “Where would you rather live?” In what one French diplomat called the “shitty little country” of Israel, or in any of its neighboring Arab states? The latter, Journo details, are all authoritarian, totalitarian, and/or failed states which impose thought control, gender apartheid, and religious oppression, including honor killings and the dehumanization of gays; Israel, by contrast, offers intellectual freedom, gender equality, and a sexual tolerance unheard of anywhere in the Muslim world.

Israel also offers prosperity and progress to all, in contrast with the Arab world’s widespread poverty, ignorance, and stagnation. Despite “the international chorus of denunciation against Israel—at the U.N., on campuses, in editorials, from the advocates of boycotts, sanctions, and divestment,” Journo writes, “[i]t is only in Israel that individuals in their daily life are free to set and pursue their own path and to achieve their own vision of a good life.”

What explains this dramatic discrepancy? Briefly, it is Israel’s political system, which emphasizes the rule of law and the sovereignty of the individual, unlike the surrounding monarchies, dictatorships, and theocracies which “deliberately, methodically work to subjugate their people.”

Journo goes on to examine the four foundational grievances Palestinians hold against Israel: dispossession, expulsion, occupation, and denial of rights. In each case he systematically and rationally dissects and evaluates those claims, which by and large don’t hold up. Of the Israeli “occupation,” for example, he concludes:

Who bears the responsibility for the economic hardships, political constraints, and tightened security—the lineups at checkpoints, the security barrier, the curfews, the travel permits—under the occupation and since its partial dissolution? Fundamentally, the Palestinian movement and its state sponsors, who have backed guerrilla forces, and who have encouraged, fomented, and funded terrorist attacks. They, not Israel, are the ones who have made life worse for every individual in the occupied territories who truly seeks peace and a better life for himself and his loved ones.

Journo stresses “one crucial point”: even the most serious of “Israeli errors and moral failings” do not “justify the vociferous condemnations of Israel. None comes remotely close to the actual ‘gender apartheid,’ nor the incontestable violations of individual freedoms, nor the daily atrocities that are the norm throughout the Middle East. None of the grievances comes remotely close to warranting the conclusion that Israel per se is an illegitimate state.” Such condemnation, he says, “points to an ulterior, preexisting motivation. And it is particularly revealing that the fundamental hostility toward Israel long predated the occupation, and it actually became more ferocious when Israel began ceding control of some of the occupied territories.”

Then Journo turns to the Palestinian movement to ask, “[w]hat is the nature of that movement, what are its means and ends, and how should we judge it morally?” He recounts the origins of Palestinian nationalism and the rise of terrorist leader Yassar Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization, the waging of jihad against Israel, the culture of martyrdom and contempt for life that animates the movement, and the fraudulent nature of the Palestinian leadership, which “claims to fight for freedom, justice, and the well-being of the Palestinian community.” But “[i]nstead of seeking to protect the freedom of individuals, the movement has worked to eradicate it… Instead of seeking justice, the movement inflicts injustice.” Journo concludes this chapter by declaring the movement and its cause “fundamentally evil.”

“What justice demands of us,” Journo states, “in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a principled stand in support of Israel—along with everyone else in the region who seeks genuine freedom, including among the Palestinian population—and a stand against the Palestinian movement and its cause.” He lays out precisely what this means and how the United States can change its approach to be a more effective supporter of freedom in the region. Detailing three episodes in American policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – in the post-Cold War era, the post-9/11 era, and today – Journo contrasts what we actually did (such as embracing the PLO during the Olso peace process) with what we should have done.

He finishes the book with four necessary steps to a “truly just” resolution to the conflict, including 1) recognizing the ideological nature of the conflict, and 2) stepping away from the two-state solution. Overall, the plan conforms to what the scholar Daniel Pipes has summed up as “Israeli victory, then peace” – decisively defeating the Palestinian movement first and proceeding from there to a lasting peace.

“We know what’s at stake in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Journo ends his book. We know the moral character of the adversaries.” The time is now to abandon “our persistently unjust policy” and embrace a wholly new rational perspective that leads to victory. “The goal of victory, however, does not require that Israel’s defeated enemies become its admirers or friends. They just need to feel deterred, permanently, from taking up arms against it.”

Reviewed by: Mark Tapson

Mark Tapson is the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s Journalism Fellow on Popular Culture, and the Center’s Director of Marketing and Media.