42.6 F
New York
Friday, March 29, 2024
Home Blog Page 2592

Letters to the Editor

0

Time to Defund UNWRA

Dear Editor:

Richard Goldberg’s opinion piece in the New York Post on UNRWA–The United Nations Relief and Works Agency–which deals solely with PA refugees from the 1948 Israeli War of Independence, is very timely. During that defensive war almost 70 years ago, about half a million Arabs were displaced, primarily by order of their own leaders. Today, UNRWA claims about 5 million refugees, because, as Goldberg states,” UNRWA’s mandate has always been to keep Palestinians as perpetual refugees.” The U.S. is the agency’s largest single-state donor, despite the fact that UNRWA has now turned into a terror group with its employees and its programs dedicated to Israel’s destruction.

Tragically, the U.S. State Department and the Obama administration have treacherously aided and abetted UNRWA’s teaching of PA children to kill Jews and sacrifice themselves as martyrs. David Bedein, research analyst, has shown that 240 books, ranging from civics to mathematics–in over 400 UNRWA schools, have a central theme of preparing the children for war against Israel. When Bedein had an expert present these findings to the U.S. Congress, “the Obama administration issued a memo saying there is no problem with the books…the hearing was not necessary…everything is fine.”

UN treachery, aided by the Obama administration and the many anti-Israel State Departments of past administrations, must be exposed and dealt with. As long as UNRWA’s chief mission is delegitimize and demonize Israel, while denying Israel’s rights to its biblical heritage, it should be de-funded by the U.S. and finally dismantled.

Sincerely

Helen Freedman

Director – Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI)


New Years Wish for Governor Cuomo

Dear Editor:

Here is my 2018 New Years wish for Governor Cuomo. Stop believing you are the reincarnation of the late Master Builder Robert Moses. Please find real money instead of picking the pocket of taxpayers and riders with bonding, loan term loans and other budgetary gimmicks to pay for your $100 billion worth of transportation promises.

For starts, how about the $5.8 billion you still owe toward fully funding the $32 billion MTA 2015–2019 Five Year Capital Plan, an additional $1 billion you pledged in response to last year’s NYC Transit subway and LIRR Penn Station crises, $4.3 billion balance needed toward $6 billion Second Avenue Subway Phase 2, $7.25 billion for your 25% share of the $29 billion Amtrak Gateway Tunnel along with paying back the $1.6 billion dollar federal loan and $1 billion State Thruway Authority Bond which helped finance the new $3.9 billion Tappan Zee Bridge, just to name a few. There is not enough space for me to list the balance of all his $100 billion worth of transportation dreams previous commitments.

Sincerely,

Larry Penner

(Larry Penner is a transportation historian and advocate who previously worked 31 years for the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Region 2 NY Office)


The Role of the FBI

Dear Editor:

We know that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a part of the Department of Justice and that they both belong to and are part of the Executive branch of the Federal Government.

We know that Congressional Committees that are charged with oversight of the Federal Agencies are part of the Legislative branch of the Federal Government. When they want documentation from the FBI and or the Dept. of Justice that they deem necessary in their process of oversight, it is requested from the agencies. If there is inordinate delay or evident resistance in providing such documentation, the Committee Chairman can issue a subpoena that legally demands compliance.

As seems to be happening of late, there is either a slow-walk or an intentional stonewalling of such Oversight Committee requests on the part of these particular agencies.

What if . . . The entire Congressional Committee were to march over to the FBI or to the office of the Attorney General at the Dept. of Justice and demand the documents in question – and the Committee Chairman were to state:

“We’re here to pick up the documents requested and

we’ll wait right here until they are brought to us!

Sincerely

Mort Kuff


Thinks JV Op­Ed is “Masterpiece”

Dear Editor:

Unconstrained by conventional politics or opinion, the recent piece you published (“Jerusalem, the State Dept & the UN Reaction: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” by Meir Jolovitz) exposing the truth behind the United Nations vote denouncing the US decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was a masterpiece.

So too was the honest criticism of the US State Department for its failure to extend its recognition of Israeli sovereignty, something that would give real significance to recognition.

In political discourse, most certainly in the Middle East, the truth does not often prevail, but it needs to be shouted nonetheless. Kudos to the writer and to The Jewish Voice.

Sincerely

M.B. Weiss

Lawrence, NY


Questions Approval Ratings

Dear Editor:

I have heard that Trump’s approval rating is at 46%. If I gave a hoot about polls, one way or another, I’d probably be happy about that. However, when it comes to political polling, you get what you pay for. I never expect that any poll will accurately track the positive actions taken by this President or, the degree to which those actions are successful. It simply isn’t in the self-interest of the media’s committed Trump-Haters to publicize his triumphs.

Our citizenry seems to have forgotten that this nation, the land of the free & the home of the brave, was initially established to provide the people with a totally new means of governing themselves. One that would function without the people suffering the tyranny and torments that were endemic to all other systems of government up until the Declaration of Independence by American Revolutionaries and The Constitution of the United States that was created by the Founding Fathers.

They don’t know what they don’t know. But, they are all-wrong, all the time.

Sincerely

Melvin Kornfeld

 

 

Revolution in Iran & US Support for the Pro-Freedom Movement

0
The protests, which began last Thursday in Iran’s most religious cities and spread throughout the country within twenty four hours, now bring together workers and intellectuals, the unemployed, and the elites – a combination not seen since the 1979 revolution that toppled the Shah.

For Mansour Osanlou, the former head of the bus driver’s union in Tehran, a “new revolution” has begun in Iran.

The protests, which began last Thursday in Iran’s most religious cities and spread throughout the country within twenty four hours, now bring together workers and intellectuals, the unemployed, and the elites – a combination not seen since the 1979 revolution that toppled the Shah.

On Saturday, security forces in Tehran used rubber bullets and truck-mounted water canon in an unsuccessful attempt to disperse protesters at Tehran University who were seeking to march on the Supreme Leader’s compound, Osanloo told me in a telephone interview.

They were chanting, “Death to the Dictator,” and “Khamenei should go.” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been Iran’s Supreme Leader since 1989, and until now, he has been portrayed as unassailable by friend and foe alike.

“We thank President Trump for his support, and call on the United States to hold the Islamic regime accountable if they kill or beat protestors or conduct mass arrests, as they did in 2009,” he told me.

The last time the Iranian people rose up, in June 2009, President Obama kept a shameful silence, allowing the regime to kill protesters in silence.

President Trump has the opportunity to change history by using his bully pulpit, which he began to do late Friday night through twitter.

“Many reports of peaceful protests by Iranian citizens fed up with regime’s corruption & its squandering of the nation’s wealth to fund terrorism abroad,” the President tweeted initially. “Iranian govt should respect people’s rights, including right to express themselves. The world is watching!”

And then he added the hashtag that has spread worldwide, #IranProtests.

The State Department followed with a more mildly-worded tweet on Saturday. “We are following reports of multiple peaceful reports by Iranian citizens. The United States condemns the arrest of peaceful protests in #Iran.”

States spokesperson Neather Nauert quickly upped the ante, not only condemning the arrest of peaceful protestors but urging “all nations to publicly support Iranian people.”

And Trump himself continued tweeting over the weekend. On New Year’s Eve, adding this:

“Big protests in Iran. The people are finally getting wise as to how their money and wealth is being stolen and squandered on terrorism. Looks like they will not take it any longer. The USA is watching very closely for human rights violations!

The BBC’s Persian service got in the game early, conducting triage of the thousands of cellphone videos posted to the Internet by protestors and posting those it could validate. The best of these can now be found on the pro-opposition website of the Islamic State of Iran Crime Research Center and their Facebook page.

After a slow start, the Persian service of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty also used social media to rebroadcast selected cellphone videos.

But according to Osanloo, the U.S. government broadcast networks continue to impose a “boycott” on pro-freedom advocates such as himself, while allowing so-called moderate supporters of the Islamic regime free access to U.S.-taxpayer funded broadcasts.

This continued throughout the weekend, with Voice of America’s Farsi Service highlighting the economic grievances of the protestors, and giving equal play to counter-protests organized by the regime and to calls for calm from regime president, cleric Hassan Rouhani.

(The VOA’s English language flagship service was even worse, highlighting an Iranian regime claim that “foreign agents” were responsible for the deaths of protestors.)

I have been following anti-regime protests in Iran for the past thirty years. And while the 2009 Green movement protests involved much bigger crowds – so far at least – the protests of the past few days appear to be broader based, and more bitterly anti-regime in nature.

Early on, you heard calls of “Death to the Dictator,” not just in Tehran but around the country.

And most important of all, the protests erupted almost simultaneously in major cities in areas of the country dominated by Kurdish, Ahwaz, and Balouchi minority communities, who were pointedly absent in 2009.

For six years, until Obama flunkies fired me in 2016, I lectured on the Iranian opposition at the Pentagon’s Joint Counter Intelligence Training Academy (JCITA) in Quantico, Virginia.

I liked to tell my conferees, most of them from our military intelligence services, that if they took nothing away from my talk, to remember just two things: first, that Islamic Iran is not an ordinary country, like Belgium, but an ideological regime that enshrines Islamic supremacy and the export of its revolution in its constitution.

Second, that today’s Iran is no longer “Persia,” but a multi-national mosaic comprised of roughly fifty percent Persians and fifty percent Kurds, Balouchis, Azeris, Ahwazis, Lurs, Bakhtiaris and other minorities.

Many of these minority communities have been ostracized by the Tehran-centric, mullah-dominated regime and abstained from the 2009 uprising because the Green movement brushed off their demands of equal representation.

Today, that appears to have changed, with protests in Kurdish, Balouch, and Ahwazi cities.

Over the weekend, regime security forces drew first blood, gunning down protestors and vowing a brutal crackdown if the demonstrations continued.

Rumors are flying that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is planning a coup d’état to sideline the clerical leadership and impose an openly fascist military rule.

This is a time when the U.S. Treasury should exercise great vigilance to track down the billions of dollars stolen by regime leaders from the people as these corrupt dictators attempt to move their ill-gotten gains to financial safe havens.

But more importantly, this is a time when the White House needs to take control of the U.S. government, and use the Voice of America and Radio Farda as tools to enable protestors in Iran.

Phillip Gordon, a former Obama administration flunky, argued in the New York Times over the weekend that President Trump should “do nothing” to help the protestors.

Maybe Mr Gordon wasn’t aware that he was parotting Ayatollah Khomeini’s famous phrase during the 1979 revolution, when he said America could “do nothing” to stop the revolution. Or maybe he was. After all, Obama did more to enable the Islamic dictatorship than any U.S. president since Jimmy Carter.

A free Iran is in America’s best interest. Without the malevolent influence of the Iranian regime, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen would be very different places today.

Helping Iranians to win their freedom from the clerical dictators, and from the IRGC fascists, is a noble endeavor that goes to the heart of why Congress established the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

It’s time to use those tools to assist pro-freedom loving Iranians, and for the United States to call-out the clerical regime in Tehran for its bloody crackdown on the fundamental human and political rights of Iranian citizens.

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
 (Front Page Mag)

 

Why Abandoning Netanyahu Will Not End Well for the Israeli Right–Part 2

0
Yair Lapid,

(Continued from last week)

Former MK Aryeh Eldad of the National Union Party, and Kulanu MK and coalition member Rahel Azariya, are scheduled to participate at Hendel’s protest.

The members of the nationalist camp insisting Netanyahu is bad for the Right ignore the weak foundations of the probes against him and the political bias of police investigators. They ignore as well the probable consequences for their political camp if Netanyahu is ousted from office due to these investigations.

Some of Netanyahu’s homegrown opponents like Hendel and Azariya are motivated by the belief that Netanyahu is too opposed to the leftist establishment that controls Israel’s legal system. They attack him for not stopping his party members from criticizing Israel’s activist, post-Zionist Supreme Court justices and for calling out police investigators and journalists for their bias against him.

Others, including Yifrach and Eldad, argue that Netanyahu isn’t much of a rightist since he hasn’t actively expanded construction in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and has not enacted significant court reform.

We’ve been here before.

The same groups from the soft and hard Right joined together twice before to overthrow right-wing governments and hand the Left the keys to the realm.

In 1992, the far-right Tehiya party brought down the government of Yitzhak Shamir. Tehiya leaders Geula Cohen and Hanan Porat on the one hand justified their behavior by pointing to the Left’s allegations that Shamir and his Likud colleagues were corrupt. On the other hand, they claimed that Shamir’s agreement to participate in then-US president George H.W. Bush’s “peace conference” in Madrid meant that he was no better than the Left.

Their action facilitated convinced enough right-wing voters that there was no difference between the Likud and Labor to bring about the Labor Party’s electoral victory in the 1992 election. A year later, then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin recognized the PLO and initiated the Oslo peace process.

In 1999, the Likud’s soft-right and hard-right establishment bolted Netanyahu’s first government and formed new parties. Dan Meridor, Yitzhak Mordechai and Roni Milo left Likud and joined with leftist politicians to form the “Center Party.”

Bennie Begin abandoned his father Menachem Begin’s party to form the National Union party with far-right ideologues.

Neither of the two parties fared well in the 1999 election.

But together, they brought down Netanyahu’s government and facilitated the Left’s electoral victory and Ehud Barak’s replacement of Netanyahu as premier.

In other words, the soft Right and the hard Right paved the way for the Camp David summit and the Palestinian terrorist war that followed, as well as Israel’s surrender of south Lebanon to Hezbollah. Those events in turn brought about Israel’s surrender of Gaza and northern Samaria to the Palestinians.

Both in 1992 and 1999, the Left based its electoral campaigns on opposition to corruption and tough talk on terrorism. Rabin pledged in 1992 never to recognize the PLO or withdraw from the Golan Heights. The next year he recognized the PLO and the year after that he offered Syrian dictator Hafez Assad the Golan Heights.

In 1999 Barak assured voters that there was no possibility of reaching a permanent peace with the PLO. A year later, he offered Yasser Arafat the Temple Mount and half of Jerusalem.

We can see the same situation forming today. As prejudicial leaks from the investigation of Netanyahu’s cigars multiplied, and Yaniv received more and more air time for his anti-Netanyahu rallies, Labor leader Avi Gabbay made a series of centrist statements to the media. Last month he said he doesn’t support uprooting Israeli communities in the framework of a peace treaty. This month he said that the Left made a mistake by embracing atheism.

Yair Lapid, head of the center-left Yesh Atid party, for his part has been going out of his way to court the Right for more than a year.

In other words, like Rabin and Barak in 1992 and 1999, the Left’s two contenders for premiership are going out of their way to make members of today’s nationalist camp feel comfortable overthrowing Netanyahu while protesting their ideological purity and commitment to clean politics.

The willingness of ostensibly right-wing intellectuals and politicians to make the same mistake for a third time is stunning. If Netanyahu is forced from office for receiving lots of cigars from his friends, the Likud won’t be stronger without him. An ugly battle for succession in Likud among equally uncompelling politicians will immediately ensue.

The Likud will enter the early election frayed, with a weak leader, under the pall of Netanyahu’s forced resignation.

For their part, the leftist parties, with the full support of the media that will hide their radical Knesset candidates list, will present themselves as incorruptible, moderate centrists who are tough on security and nice to poor people.

And they will win.

Yaniv, Gabbay, Lapid and the media all know that they cannot overthrow the government. They know the government will only fall if its members bring it down.

And that’s where the right-wing intellectuals come in handy. By falling yet again for the Left’s Three-card Monte corruption trick, right-wing media personalities are leading a campaign that if successful, will lead to only one outcome: the rise of the Left. And again, once it is in power, the Left never ever governs from the Right.

By: Caroline Glick

 

Let’s Stop Shooting Blanks at Senator Schumer

0
The Sholom Rubashkin (pictured above)case was very important to our community and I was as outraged as everyone else about the travesty of justice, as I was elated at the news of his commuted sentence. We all have tremendous hakoras hatov to President Trump and appreciate this commutation.

In the aftermath of the release of Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin, we’ve seen much jubilation. But that was followed quickly by speculation from members of our community regarding the role or lack thereof of Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer in the advocacy pertaining to the President’s commutation of Rubashkin’s sentence. In the blogosphere especially, there have been efforts urging people to contact Senator Schumer’s office to express their “outrage” and calling him out on this issue. These recommendations were generally accompanied by lots of chest pounding and inflammatory language.

There have been those who suggested that even Nancy Pelosi, the non Jewish woman who represents California’s 12th Congressional District, has expressed her written consent for a commutation of Mr. Rubashkin’s sentence. And yet, Chuck Schumer, who calls himself the ‘shomer yisroel’, refused to write a letter.

I’m always amazed at how our community manages to shoot ourselves in the foot and display our political immaturity to the world. Or perhaps the right verbiage here might be ‘political suicide’.

There’s an old expression–Those who know don’t speak. And those who speak don’t know.

Dear readers: Do you think for one moment that Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic Leader, is not in contact with Schumer, Democratic Leader of the Senate, on a daily basis?? Do you think they don’t work together to formulate the official policy of the Democratic caucus? Wouldn’t you think that Schumer had given her the green light of approval before she decided to write a letter as sensitive as this to President Trump? Are we really so immature not to realize this? In my opinion, this proves that those who are writing these opinions have zero understanding of the governmental process.

Some may counter by asking why Schumer didn’t see fit to write his own letter as well? Honestly, I don’t have the answer to that question. Sometimes there are questions that beg for an answer yet the answers remain unknown. But I can assure you of one thing. Nancy Pelosi would never write a letter of advocacy for Rubashkin without Senator Schumer’s advance notification and tacit approval.

Let me reiterate that I am not privy to inside information on this issue. I am just surmising what must have occurred based on my understanding of the political process. As a consultant who has been in similar situations in the past, this is my conclusion.

The Rubashkin case was very important to our community and I was as outraged as everyone else about the travesty of justice, as I was elated at the news of his commuted sentence. We all have tremendous hakoras hatov to President Trump and appreciate this commutation.

But we need to understand that there is also a tomorrow. There was also a yesterday. And that yesterday included Senator Schumer coming out against the Iran deal.

It’s never a good idea to try to convince an elected official that he is not our friend. I’m not just addressing the Schumer issue on this. It’s something we have to realize when it comes to other officials as well. Because guess what happens. When you declare someone as your enemy that is eventually what he will come to be. Once we write him off, this is how he will come to be perceived. And that is not responsible politics for our Jewish community.

The community must internalize that Chuck Schumer is as powerful as they come. In his capacity as Senate Democratic leader, there are a myriad of issues that the community approaches him on for support. And in many cases he responds positively. The day might come when he will be even more powerful as Senate majority leader. Is it really in the best interest of our community to be in a situation where he views us as confrontational?

We need to conduct ourselves more pragmatically. For example, I personally supported Hillary Clinton for president. Yet the moment that Donald Trump was elected, I accepted him as my President and work with the White House accordingly. I decided to treat the office of the Presidency with the respect and honor that it deserves, and I’ve publicly condemned anyone who did otherwise. There is a time, a place, and a season for everything.

We as a community need to internalize the larger picture. Yes we are a vibrant and growing community, boruch Hashem, and we have much to be proud of. But our numbers are minuscule in the grand scheme of things. And we tend to shoot blanks. We sometimes declare war on an elected official, and when that happens outside of our local districts, we become marginalized. Elected officials at the highest level will pass us over and won’t even invite us to sit down at the table with them because of the immaturity with which we conduct our political and governmental relationships.

I say this as someone who is professionally engaged as the CEO of a public affairs consulting firm. I am in no way a community leader. But I see the handwriting on the wall and I feel it’s time for us to take stock of our actions and add real value to all of our political interactions and relationships.

As far as the wonderful news of the President’s commutation of Mr. Rubashkin’s sentence is concerned–Now that’s something we can all be proud of!

By: Ezra Friedlander

Ezra Friedlander is CEO of the Friedlander Group a public policy consulting firm based in NYC and Washington DC. He can be reached at [email protected] and on Twitter at @EzraFriedlander.

 

 

The War Against Yeshivas in New York City & Beyond

2
The largest and most successful photo supply company in the United States is owned and operated by Hasidic Jews who were educated at Hasidic schools in New York. They employ hundreds of workers who deal daily with the most sophisticated buyers of cutting-edge technology in the nation. Hasidic Jews also fill senior IT, financial and corporate positions there.

Hasidim’s business success proves their schools more than hold their own

Recently, self-appointed critics have attacked Hasidic and other Orthodox schools for their lack of emphasis on secular education. They intimate that these schools leave their students ill-prepared to participate in commerce and to succeed once they graduate. But their misguided criticism is off the mark.

While the city’s Department of Education said it would investigate, the reality is that yeshiva education is remarkably effective in providing the tools necessary for success in the secular world. Indeed, I would challenge any secular educational system to match the results accomplished by our school system.

Some examples: The largest and most successful photo supply company in the United States is owned and operated by Hasidic Jews who were educated at Hasidic schools in New York. They employ hundreds of workers who deal daily with the most sophisticated buyers of cutting-edge technology in the nation. Hasidic Jews also fill senior IT, financial and corporate positions there.

Hasidim also own major commercial and residential construction companies. They regularly deal with the largest financial institutions, renowned architects and the finest law firms in New York City. And many of their subcontractors who are licensed plumbers, electricians and HVAC technicians are products of Hasidic schools.

Our community is home to accountants, comptrollers and computer experts who hold high positions in banks and other financial institutions. The number of Hasidic businessmen who regularly travel to Asia is so great that hotels in China, Japan and other countries in the Far East make accommodation for them so they can observe the Sabbath.

Manufacturers of everything from plastics, building materials, and every consumer good imaginable are produced by graduates of these much-maligned schools.

This success stems from the rigor of the education they receive. In studying Talmud, the students develop analytical skills and critical thinking of the highest order. This is the essence of a most demanding curriculum. Students learn to analyze and critique text with precision. They learn how to analogize and how to recognize false lines of logic. They enter the business world with skills that not only equal but are more often superior to those taught in secular schools. They accomplish this even though English is a second language to many of our students, who are raised in Yiddish-speaking homes.

Of course, there is poverty in our community. But it is simplistic and inaccurate to suggest that the emphasis on Jewish studies is at the root of those financial challenges. It is common for both husband and wife to earn between $75,000 and $100,000 annually yet struggle because large families are common. That is a choice made of religious conviction, not the product of inadequate education.

There is also a cadre of scholars who devote their lives to the study and teaching of Torah. They serve as the intellectual and spiritual leaders of our community. They are charged with the responsibility of dealing with the complexities of modern society according to the tradition of the ages. Their responsibilities run the gamut from resolving controversies arising from complex business disputes according to Jewish law to advising families and physicians about end-of-life issues.

Job discrimination is also a major factor. How many employers in New York refrain from hiring Hasidim, not because they don’t have the ability but because employers simply don’t want Hasidim in their offices or as the face of their company? It is ironic that those critics of Hasidic schools, who profess to be looking out for the well-being of Hasidim, are entirely unconcerned about this discrimination. Those who complain about Hasidic poverty should be on the front lines of the battle to ensure that job opportunities are available to willing and able Hasidim.

Our graduates have been successful in utilizing what they have been taught, both in their Jewish and secular studies departments, and have been successful in building remarkable careers, businesses and institutions. Critics of our educational system are blissfully ignorant of the enormous successes it has produced. What they really seek to take issue with is our value system, one that is in dissonance with that of the secular society that surrounds us.

On that we broach no compromise. We will continue to improve our schools, but we have no reason to apologize for them. Others might look to our system for its excellence in teaching the most important of all skills: how to reason, analyze problems and construct a moral and ethical framework for life.

Whatever the profession or endeavor, those who possess these vital skills are the best educated.

By: Aaron D. Twerski
(Originally published in Crain’s)

Aaron D. Twerski is a professor at Brooklyn Law School and former dean and professor of tort law at Hofstra University School of Law

 

Confessions of an Islamophobe – Robert Spencer’s Courageous Personal Declaration

0
In Confessions of an Islamophobe, (pictured above) Spencer provides a mountain of evidence and examples of ways in which Islamic fundamentalists are advancing their “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” to quote from a revealing Muslim Brotherhood document known as the Explanatory Memorandum, discovered in the course of a 2007 terrorism funding trial of the Holy Land Foundation.
There is arguably no critic of Islam more despised and feared by the Religion of Peace’s apologists than the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s own Robert Spencer, (pictured above) director of the indispensable Jihad Watch website and the author of nearly twenty books. As always, Spencer’s new book is solidly researched (with 33 pages of endnotes) and grounded in his scholarly expertise with Islamic theology. And yet Confessions is also the most personal of Spencer’s many books.

With the possible exception of freedom fighter and European political party leader Geert Wilders, there is arguably no critic of Islam more despised and feared by the Religion of Peace’s apologists than the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s own Robert Spencer, director of the indispensable Jihad Watch website and the author of nearly twenty books.

Spencer is routinely labeled a so-called Islamophobe by those who conflate criticism of Islam with bigotry toward Muslims. This makes him the target of an astonishing amount of hatred and even threats of violence because our media and political elites have inflated the purported danger of “Islamophobia” to a degree of cultural concern greater than the danger of actual Islamic terrorism.

The George Soros-funded smear organization known as the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the “extremist” Spencer “one of America’s most prolific and vociferous anti-Muslim propagandists” (note the use of the inflammatory terms “propagandist” and “anti-Muslim,” the latter of which falsely paints him as a hater of Muslims themselves rather than as a critic of the ideology).

His speaking engagements, when they are not disrupted by protesters or canceled by those who refuse to debate him or even hear him out, require personal security to protect him from the violence of those who accuse him of inciting violence. After a presentation in Iceland earlier this year, Spencer was actually poisoned by a suspected opponent who wanted to silence him permanently.

Robert Spencer is certainly not alone in being branded an Islamophobe; he is simply one of the most prominent because he is the best-educated about Islam and the most relentless thorn in the side of those who would whitewash it. Any public critic of Islam’s demonstrably hateful, violent, and supremacist tenets risks being smeared by the ugly label.

The truth is that “Islamophobia” is a Muslim Brotherhood-concocted myth designed to discredit and demonize critics of Islam as hysterically alarmist and racist (even though – all together now – Islam is not a race). It is how Islamic fundamentalists and their allies among the radical left (in politics, academic and the news media) pervert the legitimate concerns people have about the very real threat of jihad in all its forms. It is how they silence criticism of Islam and prevent concerned citizens from speaking out against the encroachment of sharia law, of stealth jihad, even of terrorism. “If you see something, say something,” the authorities urge, but if you speak up about suspicious Muslims or point to the theological justification for Islamic terrorism, be prepared to be dismissed as a bigot.

Spencer has decided to embrace the scarlet letter “I” proudly. “It is not hatred and bigotry to be the right kind of Islamophobe,” he declares in his newest book, Confessions of an Islamophobe, “as opposed to one who attacks innocent Muslim, something that is never justified.” In fact, “[t]here are very good reasons to be an Islamophobe… to be concerned about Islam for the devastation that it brings into the lives of human beings both Muslim and non-Muslim.”

“Indeed,” he continues, “the only chance for the survival of free societies into the latter part of the twenty-first century may be if large numbers of people join me in becoming this kind of unrepentant Islamophobe.”

The multiculturalist left insists that an “irrational fear of Islam” among “the far right” threatens to morph into the persecution of innocent Muslims, turning them into “the new Jews.” This absurd and offensive accusation – no such Islamophobic blowback has ever manifested itself, even after the horrific 9/11 attacks – obscures the very real danger of an Islamic supremacism surging throughout the Western world, with our political and media elites running interference for it.

In chapters on women, gays, Jews, Christians, and even secular liberals and secular Muslims, Spencer details in his new book how these segments of society in particular face serious and even lethal ramifications for ignoring disturbing truths about the spread of Islam in the West. “I want free societies to continue and prosper,” he writes. “I don’t want to see future generations of American women subjugated, gays brutalized, Jews and Christians living in a harassed and precarious state. That seems to be what our leaders [in the Western world] are choosing for our future. I am among those who are trying to head it off.”

In Confessions of an Islamophobe, Spencer provides a mountain of evidence and examples of ways in which Islamic fundamentalists are advancing their “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” to quote from a revealing Muslim Brotherhood document known as the Explanatory Memorandum, discovered in the course of a 2007 terrorism funding trial of the Holy Land Foundation.

He also provides abundant examples of ways in which the Western left is complicit, either willingly or unwittingly, in the mainstreaming of support for this grand jihad, not least by demonizing Cassandras like Robert Spencer as “Islamophobes.” Politicians both domestic (e.g. Congressman Keith Ellison) and foreign (e.g. Germany’s Angela Merkel) and the media here and abroad seem literally hell-bent on facilitating the Islamization of the West, even as terrorist attacks, anti-Semitism, mass sexual assaults, no-go zones, and pockets of sharia law escalate in Western Europe and to a lesser degree – for now – in America.

As always, Spencer’s new book is solidly researched (with 33 pages of endnotes) and grounded in his scholarly expertise with Islamic theology. And yet Confessions is also the most personal of Spencer’s many books. It begins, in a preface titled “My Journey to Islamophobia,” with an explanation of his early interest in Islam and his admiration for figures such as Nathan Hale, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “who stood for their convictions even at immense personal risk, including even the loss of their very lives, and even when it seemed as if the whole world were against them.”

Today Spencer finds himself among that august number, facing immense personal risk himself by daring to raise the alarm about Islam, even though he is “fully aware that I may be on the losing side.” “I simply can’t renounce what I am doing, because I believe it to be right,” he asserts. “If it means taking abuse and opprobrium and humiliation, so be it.”

Confessions of an Islamophobe is not only a must-read for those already familiar with Robert Spencer’s work, but a perfect starting point for those unfamiliar with it, particularly those who know of him only as an “extremist” and “dangerous Islamophobe.” It not only is a concise catalogue of ways in which the rise of fundamentalist Islam in the West threatens all of us, particularly those demographics like gays and women that the left claims to care so much about, but is a proud apologia pro vita sua as well.

He concludes the book with a courageous declaration that should serve as inspiration for the rest of us “Islamophobes” who face the left’s defamation and hate: “[D]espite all the vilification, all the marginalization, all the peer pressure and all the shaming, this Islamophobe is not ashamed, and will never be ashamed, of sounding the alarm.”

“I am proud of my work. I have no regrets. How can I regret telling the truth?”

By: Mark Tapson
(Front Page Mag)

 

The Kosher Bookworm: “Rav Kook’s ‘Song of Teshuvah’”

0
Rav Kook’s classic, “Song of Teshuvah” (Penina Press). This commentary makes available to the English speaking and learning public some of the most practical and understandable teachings concerning repentance as taught by one of the leading thinkers of our faith, Rabbi Avraham Yitzchal HaKohen Kook, zt’’l.
Rabbi Weinberger, of the Aish Kodesh Kehilah in Woodmere, and mashpia of Yeshiva University, has given to us an in-depth treasure house that will serve as an invaluable resource for this high holiday season and for many years to come.

It is with great personal pleasure to note the completion by Rabbi Moshe Weinberger of his four volume English commentary on Rav Kook’s classic, “Song of Teshuvah” (Penina Press). This commentary makes available to the English speaking and learning public some of the most practical and understandable teachings concerning repentance as taught by one of the leading thinkers of our faith, Rabbi Avraham Yitzchal HaKohen Kook, zt’’l.

Rabbi Weinberger, of the Aish Kodesh Kehilah in Woodmere, and mashpia of Yeshiva University, has given to us an in-depth treasure house that will serve as an invaluable resource for this high holiday season and for many years to come.

I present to you just a sample of the concluding comments and sacred teachings from Rabbi Weinberger with the hope that this will encourage you to learn further from these teachings:

“As a result of our having sinned, we are removed from the root of our soul, from the One Whom we love. Therefore, our hearts are hurt, broken, disappointed, and angry.”

“Salvation will come only when we hear and respond to this song of teshuvah. We must therefore pray that teshuvah … will come into our lives.”

“A few years ago I went to Rav Kook’s burial site on Har HaZeisim, and I addressed him, ‘There are Jews outside of Eretz Israel who want to hear your song. May G-d help that you won’t abandon us.”

“There is a great thirst for these teachings, which can give life to many people. It is my prayer that more people will gain access to Rav Kook’s teachings and poetry and will, as a result, give pleasure to G-d and increase His honor. Hashem has given us the strength to come to this point, to complete this miraculous sefer.”

“All that Rav Kook wants to convey to us throughout this work is that the process of doing teshuvah should cause us to feel joy, excitement, exhilaration, wonder, and an immeasurable gratitude to G-d.”

For additional related study:

Recently an English translation of Rav Kook’s “Lights of Teshuvah” was published by Yaakov David Shulman, a direct translation of the Hebrew original of all 17 chapters from of this classic.

This simple and direct translation, without commentary, is clear in its presentment with a unique touch of both the prose and the poetry. This work will is a fine introduction to English-speakers of Rav Kook’s thinking.

Shulman’s work also contains his eloquent take on the real value and unique quality of Rav Kook’s theology on teshuvah:

“Rav Kook was a poet of the soul and a spokesperson for a complete human spirit that embraces contradiction, that reconciles the poles of this worldly and other worldly experience. His writings celebrate the union of legalism and poetry, particularism and universalism, faith hidden in atheism and atheism hidden in faith, the spirit revealed from the flesh, and beauty revealed through ugliness. …

“He championed the poetic and creative spirit within each individual. ‘Every time our heart beats with a true expression of spirituality,’ he wrote, ‘every time a new and exalted thought is born, we hear the likeness of a G-dly angel’s voice at the doors of our soul asking that we allow him entry so that he may appear to us in the totality of his beauty’.

“Ultimately, Rav Kook’s robust message is one of life and growth, hope and optimism. ‘Death is a false phenomenon,’ he taught, and ‘to the degree that quantity of movement toward wholesomeness grows, evil decreases and goodness is revealed’.”

By: Alan Jay Gerber
(jewishbookreview.wordpress.com)

 

325 Year-Old Torah Shield Sells for $62,500 in Cedarhurst

0
A rare and important gilded silver filigree megillah case with original megillah. Ottoman empire, 19th century. The body made of finely spun gilded filigree wire work. The megillah section encased in original removable cover. Topped by a crown shaped upper portion and coral finial. 15” long. Hand written megillah with exceptional writing and floral decorations
A rare and important parcel gilt Torah shield. Germany, c. 1690/1720. Hand cut lattice work laid on gilded background. Decorated with double headed eagle, portion plaque holder and a crown.

J. Greenstein and Co., dealers of fine antique Judaica and modern Jewish art, hosted their annual Chanukah auction on December 21, 2017. A number of items fetched impressive hammer prices, including a 325 year-old Torah Shield that was sold for $62,500 as well as a Venetian Ketubah that fetched $23,700.

A rare and important parcel gilt Torah shield. Germany, c. 1690/1720. Hand cut lattice work laid on gilded background. Decorated with double headed eagle, portion plaque holder and a crown. Marked f.h. (maker) 10.4” tall. Provenance: parke-bernet, February 14, 1957, lot 129, the collection of Tullio Castelbolognesi and then Sotheby’s, October 10, 1974 lot 25. $62,500

Jonathan Greenstein, president and expert-in-charge at J. Greenstein and Co., was recently featured on Good Day New York with his $1M collection of rare menorahs from Eastern Europe and Israel. He said in a comment, “I’ve auctioned items from the collections of Michael Steinhardt, Sammy Davis Jr, and Alan Dershowitz. I’ve seen some incredibly expensive examples of Jewish art pass through my auction house, but every year it never seems to get old. These objects fascinate me. It’s an honor to find their next home, whether in a museum in New York or a private collector on the other side of the globe.”

An early and large illuminated ketubah. Venice, 1711. The border richly decorated with scrolling designs, birds, flowers, the mazalot, Jonah and the whale, and other period designs. Portion on upper left and smaller portion on upper right now missing. 21.3” x 31.5

An early and large illuminated ketubah. Venice, 1711. The border richly decorated with scrolling designs, birds, flowers, the mazalot, Jonah and the whale, and other period designs. Portion on upper left and smaller portion on upper right now missing. 21.3” x 31.5”. $23,700

A massive sterling silver Passover compendium by Carmel Shabi. Jerusalem, 1994. Octagonal with the order of the seder cut out along sides. With gilded removable dishes for the insertion of the Passover foods. 16” wide. $15,000

A rare and important gilded silver filigree megillah case with original megillah. Ottoman Empire, 19th century. The body made of finely spun gilded filigree wire work. The megillah section encased in original removable cover. Topped by a crown shaped upper portion and coral finial. 15” long. Hand written megillah with exceptional writing and floral decorations. $16,250

A massive sterling silver Passover compendium by Carmel Shabi. Jerusalem, 1994. Octagonal with the order of the seder cut out along sides. With gilded removable dishes for the insertion of the Passover foods. 16” wide

A pair of important gilded silver torah finials. Probably Germany, c. 1800. The base of each is round. Chased with c-scrolls and floral design. Engraved with former owner’s name Yisroel Fine. Upper portion consists of a five ribbed crown enclosing a bell, topped by bud. Engraved with a number 11 and marked with import mark. 7.4” tall. $37,500

About J. Greenstein & Co.

J. Greenstein & Company, Inc., was founded in 2004 by antique Judaica expert Jonathan Greenstein. For over 30 years, since the age of 14, Jonathan has been the “go to guy” when it comes to authenticating antique Judaica. The gallery holds a number of Judaica auctions each year and has collectors, museums and other institutions that purchase these ritual objects to build their collections of Jewish art. J. Greenstein & Company, Inc. Auction house is exceptionally well respected as experts in antique Judaica and Jewish Art.

About Jonathan Greenstein

Greenstein is the founder, president and expert-in-charge at J Greenstein and Company, Inc. in Cedarhurst, New York. It is a boutique auction house that only sells antique Jewish ritual objects also known as Judaica as well as Jewish themed art.

A rare and important gilded silver filigree Megillah case with original Megillah. Ottoman empire, 19th century. The body made of finely spun gilded filigree wire work. The Megillah section encased in original removable cover. Topped by a crown shaped upper portion and coral finial. 15” long. Hand written Megillah with exceptional writing and floral decorations

Jonathan has been featured on CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, NBC news with Chuck Scarborough, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Crain’s New York Business, The New Yorker, KTLA Television, The Atlanta Commercial Appeal, The Forward, Reform Judaism Magazine, The Observer, Art Market Magazine, The Miami Herald, Long Island Business News, The Jewish Voice, The Jewish Week, The Times of Israel, The American Bar Association Journal, The Jewish Link, Jewish Business News, The Nassau Herald, The Five Towns Jewish Times, The Huffington Post, The Robb Report, The Motley Fool, CBSNY, The Texas Jewish Herald and many others.

His auction house is famous for auctioning Sammy Davis Jr.’s personal menorah, Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach’s piano as well as Professor Alan Dershowitz’s Judaica collection. In addition, during the Madoff scandal, he was made famous for selling Rabbi Alexander Schindler’s Judaica pro-bono for his widow.

He is also a columnist in Hamodia, writes on art and culture for the Algemeiner Journal and is a frequent guest on Fox Business News with Stuart Varney

Edited by: JV Staff

 

 

Review: “Unveiling Jerusalem” Beautifully Showcases Archaeology to Rebut Historical Revisionism

0
Pierre Rehov's beautiful new film, "Unveiling Jerusalem," shines a spotlight on the city's architectural wonders and amazing recent archaeological finds. Even more importantly, it exposes why the religious-political conflict over Jerusalem appears to be getting worse instead of better despite years of "peace process."

Pierre Rehov’s beautiful new film, “Unveiling Jerusalem,” shines a spotlight on the city’s architectural wonders and amazing recent archaeological finds. Even more importantly, it exposes why the religious-political conflict over Jerusalem appears to be getting worse instead of better despite years of “peace process.” It provides much-needed moral clarity on what causes violence between Israelis and Palestinians.

Rehov’s starting point is the Oct. 13, 2016 UNESCO resolution denying any connection between the Temple Mount and Judaism. The resolution never once refers to the Temple Mount, but refers to the place 19 times by its Muslim name, Al-Haram al-Sharif. Likewise, it refers to the Al-Aqsa Mosque 19 times.

“Unveiling Jerusalem” earns its name by offering viewers a glimpse of new archaeological findings and animated reconstructions of the Temple Mount, as well as rare shots inside the stunning Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque. Rehov interviews historians, archaeologists, an Orthodox priest, a Protestant minister, and a Palestinian Muslim human rights campaigner; and adds excerpts from extant writings of Josephus and Tacitus. All confirm the historical as well as religious importance of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount to Christian as well as Jewish history.

By denying the connection between the Temple Mount and the First and Second Temples, the latter being where Jesus reportedly spent some of his final hours, Rehov shows, the Arabs who sponsored the resolution also denied Christian ties to Jerusalem. The movie notes that most European (i.e., Christian) nations abstained from the 2016 vote.

This denial is a new phenomenon. Rehov documents that pre-1967, Arabs freely acknowledged that the Haram al-Sharif was in fact the Temple Mount. He shows a stone inscription dated to the ninth or tenth century C.E., from an Arab village of Nuba (about 16 miles south of Jerusalem), refers to the Dome of the Rock as “the rock of the Bayt al-Maqdis,” i.e., the Holy Temple. He films a 1930 document, A Brief Guide to Al-Haram Al-Sharif, published by the Supreme Muslim Council – led by the anti-Semitic Nazi collaborator, Hajj Amin al-Husseini – states, “Its [the Haram’s] identity with the site of Solomon’s Temple is beyond dispute.” He also shows a 1962 guidebook to the West Bank, published when Jordan controlled East Jerusalem. It identifies the Temple Mount as Mount Moriah, the site of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22, which was subsequently identified with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Importantly, the guidebook identifies only a part of the Temple Mounts as being within Al-Aqsa Mosque.

“Unveiling” shows that, since 1967, Palestinians have increasingly tried to build up their claims and belittle Israelis’ by physically obliterating archaeological evidence of Jewish history. As the movie describes, the waqf controlling the Muslim compound brought in bulldozers in 1999 to dig a pit on the Temple Mount, and simply threw out the debris without making any effort determine whether it contained anything of historical value. Such evaluations are standard in construction projects in many places where there is much less reason to believe anything of historical value exists.

As the movie documents, there is a silver lining here. “We’re digging in the mud they threw out, dumped in a garbage site,” explains Israeli archaeologist Assaf Avraham. Israelis searched the debris and found a treasure trove of Temple artifacts they otherwise wouldn’t have been able to access. For instance, they found Roman tiles from the Herodian Temple complex, and the base of a column from the Herodian Temple.

In contrast to its centrality to Jews, in Muslim history the site’s importance was most limited. Despite the construction of the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque, the area held little importance until Palestinian claims after the Six Day War. The British called it a dump when they arrived during World War I.

Pictures of the Temple Mount from the period of Jordanian control (1948-1967) show a neglected site overgrown with weeds. No Muslim leaders (other than Jordan’s King Abdullah I, to his sorrow) visited Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Jews were not permitted either to live in the Arab part of Jerusalem, or visit to pray at the Western Wall. The Jewish cemetery on Mount of Olives was desecrated.

Rehov intersperses interviews with Palestinians including Shaykh Omar Awadallah Kiswani, Director of Al-Aqsa Mosque, Yussuf Natsheh, Director of Islamist Archaeology for the Waqf (the Islamic trust that administers the Temple Mount compound), and the unnamed Imam of Al-Aqsa Mosque. All deny the importance of the Haram to Jews and Christians and reject their historical claims to the site. Rehov’s success in convincing them to be interviewed for his film is an extraordinary achievement, especially given that his movie is one long debunking of their denials.

The speakers talk in a very calm and low-key manner. Jarringly, the film incorporates clips of Mahmoud Abbas endorsing bloodshed to vindicate Muslim claims and rioting by Palestinian stone-throwing youths.

Essentially, the movie is a plea for Arabs to accept co-existence. Rehov’s strategy is to show that Muslim refusal to accept the validity of other claims to the Temple Mount – the same refusal embodied in last year’s resolution – is an obstacle to peace, and perhaps the main one. The Temple Mount becomes a metaphor for Jerusalem, which serves as a metaphor for the entire land of Israel/Palestine. In contrast to the popular media and political perception blaming Israeli “intransigence” for the absence of peace, Rehov shows that on a more fundamental level, Palestinians lack the willingness to compromise their claims and so share the Temple Mount, the city, or the country. As legal scholar Shmuel Berkovitz says, “I respect their mosque. I respect their belief. Please, respect our beliefs as Jews…”

Rehov’s film isn’t likely to change the minds of Palestinians or their Muslim supporters. The same mindset that throws thousands of years of Jewish history into a garbage dump is unlikely to be persuaded by findings about that history. More likely, Rehov is targeting people of the Christian nations like the ones that abstained from the UNESCO vote.

Whereas veiling has positive connotations in Jewish tradition, and certainly in contemporary Islam, it has negative connotations in Christianity. In Christian tradition, the veil before the Temple’s holy of holies ripped upon Jesus’ death, thus emphasizing that God was accessible to all. Judging by Rehov’s choice of title, it is Christians he most hopes to persuade. Hopefully, his case combining hard facts with Christian history will succeed in making an impact.

By: Johanna Markind
(Investigative Project on Terrorism)

Johanna Markind is an attorney who writes about radical Islam, anti-Semitism, criminal law, and other subjects. She previously worked for the U.S. Department of Justice and the Middle East Forum.

 

Rethinking “Radicalization”: Dutch Researcher Discusses What Makes a Homegrown Terrorist

0
As Bart Schuurman, a research Fellow at the International Centre for Counterterrorism in The Hague, argues in his upcoming book, Becoming A European Homegrown Terrorist, (pictured above) the Hofstadgroep case ultimately came to define homegrown jihadism in Europe
Bart Schuurman (pictured above) spoke with Hofstadgroep members and studied the police interviews with the Hofstadgroep to better understand their actions and thought processes.

On Nov. 2, 2004, Dutch filmmaker and writer Theo van Gogh left his home and set off to work, riding his bicycle as he did most days through the quiet streets of Amsterdam.

Minutes later, 26-year-old Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim angered by van Gogh’s writings and films about radical Islam, fired eight shots at the filmmaker. As Van Gogh stumbled, Bouyeri shot again, then stabbed him with a butcher knife, piercing straight through his chest. Then he sliced across Theo van Gogh’s throat in a failed effort to decapitate him before stabbing him one final time. It was, as many later said, the country’s 9/11, the arrival of Islamist terrorism to the tranquil tulip fields and calm canals of the Netherlands.

Mohammed Bouyeri acted alone, but he was a leading member of what later became known as the Hofstadgroep (Hofstad Group), a loosely-knit circle of Dutch Muslim youth from Amsterdam and The Hague with extremist ideas and half-hatched plans to execute terrorist attacks around the country. In the days following Van Gogh’s death, police raided a home in The Hague, arresting seven Hofstadgroep members after a standoff lasting several hours.

Their trials, and the trials of other members, have shaped much of the Dutch understanding of Islamist terrorism both for citizens and law enforcement. Above all, the cases showed definitively that European Muslims could be radicalized, and that even Muslims raised in the West had become a threat.

In fact, as Bart Schuurman, a research Fellow at the International Centre for Counterterrorism in The Hague, argues in his upcoming book, Becoming A European Homegrown Terrorist, the Hofstadgroep case ultimately came to define homegrown jihadism in Europe. Thanks, too, to the work of Dutch journalists Janny Groen and Annieke Kranenberg, studies into the women in and around the Hofstadgroep have provided important insights into the radicalization of Muslim women in the West, and their role in homegrown jihad.

For his research, Schuurman spoke with Hofstadgroep members and studied the police interviews with the Hofstadgroep to better understand their actions and thought processes.

On the eve of the publication of his new book, Schuurman talked to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) about his findings, what they say about the making of a homegrown terrorist, and how his research can help bring new insights to the fight against Islamist terror.

Abigail R. Esman: The Hofstadgroep was limited to the Netherlands, and the group preceded (by over a decade) the rise of ISIS and even social media. How is knowledge about that group still useful for a more global and more contemporary analysis of home-grown terrorism?

Bart Schuurman says, “The Hofstadgroep is indeed an older case as it was active between 2002 and 2005. As such, it was part of what could be called the first wave of European homegrown jihadism. I argue that insights we can derive from how and why people became involved in the Hofstadgroep are still relevant now. In 2005, a Dutch court convicts 9 of 14 members in the Hofstad Network Trial

Bart Schuurman: The Hofstadgroep is indeed an older case as it was active between 2002 and 2005. As such, it was part of what could be called the first wave of European homegrown jihadism. I argue that insights we can derive from how and why people became involved in the Hofstadgroep are still relevant now for several reasons. First of all, like the current foreign fighter phenomenon, the Hofstadgroep’s extremist inner-circle also initially tried to join jihadist insurgencies overseas. Only when this failed, did some of them begin to consider and plan terrorist attacks in the Netherlands. Secondly, the Hofstadgroep was not a phenomenon unique to the Netherlands, but one example of the broader phenomenon of European homegrown jihadism that is still with us today. While much has changed in terms of context, such as a shift in focus from Afghanistan to Syria, many of the underlying dynamics driving involvement in this type of terrorism remain unaltered. I think that the field of terrorism studies sometimes has the unwarranted tendency to see every development in the terrorist threat as heralding a fundamentally ‘new’ situation to which our previous explanations and theories are of little to no utility. I’d argue it’s exactly the opposite; especially because it’s relatively easier to access high-quality data on older cases, they are a great resource for informing the ongoing debate on what can motivate (and prevent!) people from becoming involved in terrorism.

ARE: Are there any other groups like the Hofstadgroep today, either in the Netherlands or elsewhere?

BS: In ideological terms, the Hofstadgroep could be broadly characterized as driven by an extremist Salafi-Jihadist worldview and focused on waging a ‘defensive’ jihad against what they saw as Western geopolitical aggression and the threat posed by heresy and apostasy. I think it’s safe to say that such views have continued to be embraced by Islamist extremists in the Netherlands and Europe more broadly, although it is difficult to assess the scale on which this has occurred. But it is crucial to distinguish between holding radical or extremist views and becoming involved in any capacity in terrorist violence. The vast majority of radicals never cross this threshold. What I think we see today in Europe is that relatively small numbers of (would-be) jihadist terrorists continue to pose a serious threat and that they are embedded in a broader ‘radical milieu’ from which they draw support. While this threat is a very real one, I think it is important to keep in mind that these individuals and groups are not representative of the Muslim community as a whole. A key observation that we sometimes miss, is that Muslims are in fact the number one victims of groups like [ISIS] and al-Qaeda when we look at the violence in countries like Syria and Iraq.

ARE: What did you learn about the personalities of those likely to join such groups, or to act as lone wolves? (Is there also a similarity between those who join groups and lone wolf attackers?)

Dutch police raid Hofstad Network location in “Laak Quarter” of The Hague

BS: Most researchers would agree that there is no such thing as a terrorist profile, at least not one of any practical utility. Most terrorists are relatively young and most are male; beyond that considerably diversity has been observed in terms of socioeconomic background, family obligations etcetera. None of which means that personality factors cannot play a role at all. In fact, things like past involvement in violence or previous socialization to extremist beliefs can be important parts of the explanation for why someone became involved in terrorism. Perhaps the most important thing that I took away from my Hofstadgroep study in terms of the influence of personality factors, is that extremism and terrorism cannot simply be explained as stemming from psychopathology or deprivation. On the whole, group-based terrorists are not driven (primarily) by mental health problems or lack of opportunities to pursue alternative career paths in society. The uncomfortable truth is that, for many of these individuals, involvement in terrorism is a more or less conscious decision. An interesting finding about lone actors is that many of them did not ‘go it alone’ for tactical considerations, but because they failed to join or form a terrorist cell of their own. This may tie into the higher prevalence of mental health problems among lone actor extremists, which can make them appear untrustworthy or simply disagreeable and therefore prevent them from being truly accepted by other extremists.

ARE: Is there a difference between those who join local groups and the lone wolf types who are influenced by ISIS and Al Qaeda? That is to say, do they see the larger terror groups in the same way Hofstadgroep members saw their own group?

BS: Again, while some lone actors (Unabomber, Breivik) make a conscious decision to operate alone, many would have liked to join others but failed to do so. But both lone actors and participants in groups like Hofstad are generally heavily-influenced by the larger radical milieu of which they are a part; taking inspiration from videos, writings, speeches etc. of leading figures and groups.

ARE: You distinguish between radicalization and fanaticism in your work. Can you explain what these are?

BS: I have been critical of the concept of radicalization for a long time. Although it has become a household term since 2004, it doesn’t really explain how and why people become involved in extremism and terrorism. Radicalization suffers from lack of a clear definition and it is inherently subjective. A century ago, those in favor of extending voting rights to women were often labeled radicals by their opponents. Few would (hopefully!) dare make that same argument now. Not only do our views of what is ‘radical’ change over time, but by associating radicalization so closely with terrorism, we have lumped together activists who, although we may disagree with them, are essentially advocating change while remaining within the limits of the liberal democratic order, with individuals and groups committed to the use of extreme violence to get what they want. If that isn’t problematic enough, most interpretations of radicalization continue to overstate the degree to which beliefs influence behavior. Saying someone was ‘radicalized’ prior to committing a terrorist act doesn’t really help us understand that act; there are millions of people with radical or extremist views and the vast majority of them never become involved in terrorism in any way, shape or form. So while extremist beliefs are usually an important component of the overall picture of why people commit terrorism, they are insufficient by themselves to function as an explanation. For that reason, I think we should stop talking about radicalization and instead study the pathways to lead to involvement in terrorism, as this implicitly draws attention to the multitude of factors that constitute such processes. Fanaticism struck me as a more useful concept because, as it was developed by British psychologist Max Taylor, it recognizes that not all ‘fanatics’ will act on their beliefs but stipulates conditions under which they are more likely to do so. “Fanaticism” is thus able to overcome, at least to some degree, “radicalization’s” greatest shortcoming; namely, why the vast majority of radicals never become terrorists.

ARE: Why are fanatics more likely to become violent?

BS: It is more a question of when, rather than why. Fanaticism (or radicalism, if you will) is more likely to actually lead to violence when 1) the beliefs adhered to are distinctly militant; 2) when the fanatic/radical also holds to millenarian views, such as that the apocalypse is nigh and can be hastened by the individual believer; and 3) (to me most importantly) when the radical/fanatic is not exposed to contrarian views that can challenge his/her extremist convictions or inject some grey into a black/white world-view.

ARE: You also indicate that the Hofstadgroep members were less concerned with creating change than with making a statement about their own Islamic identity. In a way, it seems you are saying it was more about themselves than about the world. That’s an interesting perspective for me, because it parallels my own ideas about terrorists being narcissists, and I wonder if this isn’t in fact true of other terrorists and terror groups–not just Islamist. Is this a view or an approach to terrorism we have overlooked? Maybe we’ve been missing the real picture. Or is it some of both?

BS: I am always a bit careful using terms like narcissism because people can then be quick to pathologize such statements. But there is definitely something interesting going on in terms of identity. A key question for me is always; why would anyone join a terrorist group? The most likely outcomes are death or a life in prison. Now, while jihadists (at least profess to) want to die for their beliefs, terrorism has a much longer and broader history than Islamist extremism alone. There have been many secular terrorist groups who were not keen to go to an afterlife. So, what does terrorism offer that can make some people takes these risks? A large part of the answer lies, I believe, in the attractions of group membership. Things like status within a particular community, the notion of being part of something grandiose and important, the feeling of living an important and exciting life, the comradeship formed under fire, these are key factors binding people to terrorist groups, whether we’re talking about [ISIS], the IRA or the Italian Red Brigades. I think it would be great to delve more deeply into such factors in future research.

ARE: Finally: How can your research help counterterrorism analysts and law enforcement going forward?

BS: I hope that my work will be able make a contribution to the work of counterterrorism policymakers and practitioners in two ways. First of all, by providing a unique primary-sources based account of how and why involvement in a key example of European homegrown jihadist group occurred, I hope to contribute to their subject-matter expertise. More importantly, I hope that my findings will challenge counterterrorism professionals to keep critically re-examining the assumptions about such processes that they use to guide their own work.

By: Abigail R. Esman
(Investigative Project on Terrorism)

Chiune Sugihara, “Japanese Hero to the Jews”

0
Transit visa- Chiune Sugihara (Credit for all photos: New York Jewish Travel Guide)
Confronted by the plight of the refugees that camped outside his house in hope of assistance, Sugihara defied his government’s orders and endangered himself and his family by hand-writing and issuing hundreds of visas to these Jewish refugees

Most Americans know of Oskar Schindler, the German businessman who saved more than 1,200 lives during the Holocaust, by hiring Jews to work in his factories and fought Nazi efforts to remove them. But not so many people know about Chiune Sugihara, the Japanese diplomat who disobeyed his government’s orders and issued visas that allowed 6,000 Jews to escape from Nazi-occupied territories via Japan. His courage and bravery are now praised by thousands of Jews and non-Jews worldwide, and he has been recognized as one of the Righteous among the Nations at Jerusalem’s Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial. The Sugihara Story is a particularly powerful.

I recently visited Gifu Prefecture and the town of Yaotsu, where the residents built the Memorial Hall and the Hill of Humanity Park to honor Chiune Sugihara.. In the Gifu Prefecture, they have preserved an original document, a passport bearing a Curaçao visa together with a Sugihara visa. which was donated by a survivor named Sylvia Smoller and a replica is exhibited in this Hall. Nearby in Jindounooka Park, the name which means “Hill of Humanity,” a bust of Chiune Sugihara is displayed.

Chiune Sugihara

The definition of a “hero” — someone who is admired or idealized for his courage and achievements and sacrifices his career, future, family, and possibly one’s life — is synonymous with Chiune Sugihara. For Sugihara, it would be wrong to willfully ignore the plight of the refugees in the interest of protecting himself or his family even at a cost of his own safety that was confronted by his sense of a moral obligation. To refuse the refugees signed visas would, in effect, be the same as offering them signed death certificates. He decided between saving his loved ones and saving hundreds of strangers, Chiune Sugihara chose the latter and his actions saved thousands of Jewish refugees…

Sugihara’s fascinating and incredible life story all started in March 1939 – as Europe stood on the brink of World War II – Sugihara was appointed to open a Consulate in Kaunas, Lithuania and he had barely settled down into his new post when the German army invaded Poland, with a wave of 15,000 Jewish refugees streamed into Lithuania, bringing terrifying stories of German atrocities. Caught between the Nazis and the Soviets, they were desperately seeking ways to emigrate; the Soviets only allowed peoples to pass through Russia if they had a transit visa, issued by Japan, so obtaining a Japanese visa became a matter of life and death.

Hill of Humanity Park

When Lithuania was annexed to the Soviet Union in the summer of 1940, all foreign diplomats were asked to leave Kaunas and the Jewish delegation came with a desperate request: as it had become impossible to obtain immigration visas to anywhere in the world, the only possibility was to go to Curacao – a Dutch colony – that required no entry visas. Japanese transit visas were necessary in order to obtain permission to cross to the Soviet Union, to reach the port of Vladivostock, from which the Jews could sail from. Facing all these women, children, and elderly with pleading eyes made Sugihara feel helpless. He wanted to help, but had no authority to issue visas without permission from the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and wired his government three times requesting to issue these visas, and all three times he was denied.

Confronted by the plight of the refugees that camped outside his house in hope of assistance, Sugihara defied his government’s orders and endangered himself and his family by hand-writing and issuing hundreds of visas to these Jewish refugees. He was guided by the strength of his morality, and issued these transit visas for 29 days, as he sat for endless hours composing them. Hour after hour, day after day, he wrote and signed 300 visas a day all written entirely by hand and by the time he had to leave Kaunas, thousands of Jews received these visas. But even as Sugihara’s train was about to leave the city, he kept writing visas from his open window. When the train began moving, he gave the visa stamp to a refugee to continue the job. “We will never forget you.” Those were the last words he heard from the refugees. As Sugihara yelled out, “Please forgive me. I cannot write anymore. I wish you the best.”

The Port of Humanity Tsurga Museum

The resident at the port Tsuruga, warmly welcomed the sudden appearance of the large number of Jewish refugees, a wide variety of actions in support were carried out, such as providing food to these refugees and opening public baths just for them. Without such cooperation of the people in Tsuruga, thousands of Jewish refugees could not possibly have been sent safely to their final destination, the last stop on their journey to freedom.

It should be also pointed out that the credit for saving these refugees should also be shared with those who have aided him, that is two other men of conscience: Jan Zwartendijk, acting Dutch consul in Lithuania, and L.P.J. de Decker, Dutch ambassador to Latvia, both of whom took risks at least as great as Sugihara had, as their country had been occupied by Germany since May 1940. Zwartendijk and de Decker acceded to granting of entry visas to Curacao, the Dutch colony in the Caribbean, without taking the necessary steps to get them authorized at the other end. It was a similar scenario on a smaller scale as for Chiune Siguhara.

Being a humble and a modest man, Sugihara never mentioned his wartime deeds to anyone, and the world knew little of him until almost 30 years later, in 1968, when Joshua Nishri, the Economic Attache to the Israeli Embassy in Tokyo located him in Tokyo with one of his survivors. The reunion was most significant for Sugihara, since – for all these years – he had not known whether the visas he signed had actually aided any refugees in fleeing Lithuania. His acknowledgement that so many people made it to safety brought tears of joy to Sugihara’s eyes and was overwhelmed with satisfaction and happiness and with no regrets. Even if only one life had been saved, he felt that all of his hardships would have been worth it. As it is quoted in the Talmud “whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.”

Despite of all the publicity given to him in Israel and other nations, he remained virtually unknown in his home country. It was only when a large international Jewish delegation attended his funeral , that his own people discovered his great altruistic deeds. In 1985, Sugihara was the only Japanese person to be awarded the “Righteous Among the Nations”, a title by Yad Vashem on behalf of Israel and the Jewish people, an honorary title given to non-Jews who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust. A monument was erected on a hill in Jerusalem, a cedar grove was planted in Sugihara’s name at Yad Vashem, and a park in Jerusalem was named in his honor. A street in Netanya, Israel was named after Sugihara in June 2016, in a ceremony attended by one of Sugihara’s sons, Nobuki. With Sugihara`s visas, as many as 6,000 refugees were able to flee, making their way to Japan, China, and numerous other countries in safety and known as “Sugihara Survivors”. Now he is considered a hero in Japan, and the refugees he saved have more than 40,000 descendants.

When visiting the Gifu Prefecture, Mr. Hiroshi Matsumoto, President of JTB ( Japan Travel Bureau) noted the creation of a route called “ Tourism of Humanity “ that includes the following places : The Chiune Sugihara Memorial Hall dedicated to the virtues of morality and peace and visitors will learn about his life which is dedicated to his memory. Inside the hall there are not only documents and materials about his life and work, but also an exhibit of the Holocaust. English and Hebrew translations of the exhibits are provided for foreign visitors. We can also find a replica of Sugihara’s Lithuanian diplomat office, where he issued the ‘Visas for Life’. The Chiune Sugihara Memoriale Hall and the Hill of Humanity Park was built to honor his achievements and preserve his memory for future generations.

The Port of Humanity Museum in Tsuruga features panels and videos that present the history of Tsuruga Port. The Museum displays articles, photos, of some 6,000 Jewish refugees who fled from Nazi Germany in 1940 carrying “visas for survival” issued by Chiune Sugihara. There are also many heartwarming stories about interactions they had with local residents.

As the governor of Gifu prefecture, Mr. Hajime Furuta explained, “in the last few years, the region has seen an increase of foreign tourists, especially those interested in learning about Chiune Sugihara. Many tourists also visit and stay at various world heritage towns such as Takayama and Shirakawa-go.”

According to Mr. Ken Takashima, Town Promotion Office, Yaotsu Town there are ” over 15,000 Israeli and Jewish tourists from all over the world visiting the Gifu area and in particular “the Sugihara memorial places”. It was also noted by Mr. Hiroshi Matsumodo, President of JTB – (Japan Travel Bureau) that “last year the Gifu Prefecture and JTB formed an agreement in working together not only to honor Sugihara but to share his legacy to the rest of the world and to expand our effort to increase tourism in the Gifu prefecture for the Chiune Siguhara route “ Tourism of Humanity”. A part of this effort, they have opened an information centers in New York City and Los Angeles.

To conclude, Sugihara wrote in his 1983 memoir ” To be perfectly honest, I am convinced to this day that I took that path of action faithfully, putting my job on the line, without fear or trepidation in my heart.” And perhaps the following words were the most eloquent on his contribution to humanity: “I took it upon myself to save (the refugees). If I was to be punished for this, there was nothing I could do about it. It was my personal conviction to do it as a human being. Now, Gifu officials are confident and pursuing the registration of UNESCO Memory of the World for the materials and documents related the vast number of visas he had issued. Certainly, his actions should not just be left as records, but preserved as memory and to perpetuate his legacy. Hopefully the story of this Japan’s admirable diplomat will reach the corners of the world. (New York Jewish Travel Guide & New York Jewish Guide)

For more information, visit:

To plan a trip to Japan, contact the GIFU PREFECTURAL GOVERNMENT or log on to: https://www.kankou-gifu.jp/

By: Meyer Harroch

 

 

 

New York City’s Biggest Investment Sales for 2017

0
Chinese conglomerate HNA Group paid one of the highest prices ever for a Manhattan tower when it purchased 245 Park Avenue between East 46th and 47th streets (pictured above). In May, the 45-story, 1.8 million-square-foot building was purchased from Brookfield Property Partners and the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System.
The second largest sale was a partial stake of 60 Wall Street for $1.04 billion. GIC, the Singaporean sovereign wealth fund, purchased a 95 percent stake in the 50-story office tower from Paramount Group and Morgan Stanley.

As we usher in 2018, let’s take a look at the year behind us and the biggest investment sales in New York City for 2017. The city recorded approximately $32.5 billion in investment real estate sales for the year, as per data from Cushman & Wakefield. The figure is down about 44 percent from 2016, when investment sales were close to $57.8 billion. As compiled by the Real Deal, here is a list of the most expensive investment buildings sold for the year in the Big Apple.

  1. By far, the most expensive building sold was for $2.2 billion. Chinese conglomerate HNA Group paid one of the highest prices ever for a Manhattan tower when it purchased 245 Park Avenue between East 46th and 47th streets. In May, the 45-story, 1.8 million-square-foot building was purchased from Brookfield Property Partners and the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System.
  2. The second largest sale was a partial stake of 60 Wall Street for $1.04 billion. GIC, the Singaporean sovereign wealth fund, purchased a 95 percent stake in the 50-story office tower from Paramount Group and Morgan Stanley.
  3. WeWork and Rhone Capital made the third largest deal, acquiring 424 Fifth Avenue for $850 million. The former Lord & Taylor flagship store, has just been sold by the Hudson Bay Company amid store closures. The 676,000-square-foot property will serve as WeWork’s new global headquarters.

    WeWork and Rhone Capital made the third largest deal, acquiring 424 Fifth Avenue for $850 million. The former Lord & Taylor flagship store, has just been sold by the Hudson Bay Company amid store closures. The 676,000-square-foot property will serve as WeWork’s new global headquarters.

  4. Next on the list was the sale of a partial stake in One Worldwide Plaza for about $840M from New York REIT. SL Green Realty and RXR Realty purchased 48.7 percent of the 50-story office tower, which is valued at $1.725 billion in the deal.
  5. Blackstone Group purchased a 49 percent share in One Liberty Plaza for $759.5 million, in December. The 54-story, 2.3 million-square-foot Financial District office tower was sold by Brookfield Property Partners.
  6. MetLife and Beacon Capital Partners sold a 1.1 million-square-foot office tower at 85 Broad Street for a price tag of $652 million. Canadian pension manager Ivanhoe Cambridge and its frequent partner Callahan Capital Properties purchased the former Goldman Sachs headquarter.
  7. German insurer Allianz SE purchased a 43 percent share in 1515 Broadway for $628.9 million. The 57-story, 1.9 million-square-foot office tower, sold by SL Green, is valued at a massive $1.95 billion by the deal.
  8. Tishman Speyer sold its 375 Hudson Street leasehold for $615 million. Trinity Real Estate, who already owned the base of the 1.1 million-square-foot, 19-story office building, acquired it all.
  9. New York REIT also sold 1440 Broadway. CIM Group purchased the 25-story, 749,000-square-foot office building for $520 million.
  10. The final sale in the list, is also the only one that isn’t an office tower. Metro Loft Management paid $416 million to purchase Vanbarton Group’s 90 percent stake in 180 Water Street. Metro loft now has full ownership of the 24-story, 573-unit rental apartment tower, which was recently converted from an office tower.

    By: Ilana Siyance

     

2017’s Most Valuable Manhattan Condos Filed

0
Central Park Tower, developed by Extell, is poised to become the most expensive condo building in Manhattan’s history. The 179-apartment tower, located at 217 West 57th Street, filed a staggering proposed sellout price of $4,016,410,000. At the top of the list by a landslide, the tower will also become known as the city’s tallest residential building.
Second on the list is The Belnord on the Upper West Side with a target sellout price of $1.35 billion. The century old rental building has obtain permission to convert into 213 condominiums. Developer HFZ Capital Group will try to get an average price of $6.1 million per apartment.

Overall, in NYC for 2017, the luxury residential real estate market was nothing to write home about but rather on par with last year. A single Manhattan building made the year memorable for condominium sales. Central Park Tower, Gary Barnett’s 95-story tower, broke records becoming the first single Manhattan building to cross the $4 billion threshold. As per the Real Deal, here is the list of New York City’s most expensive condo offering plans accepted by the NYS Attorney General’s office in 2017.

  1. Central Park Tower, developed by Extell, is poised to become the most expensive condo building in Manhattan’s history. The 179-apartment tower, located at 217 West 57th Street, filed a staggering proposed sellout price of $4,016,410,000. At the top of the list by a landslide, the tower will also become known as the city’s tallest residential building.
  2. Second on the list is The Belnord on the Upper West Side with a target sellout price of $1.35 billion. The century old rental building has obtain permission to convert into 213 condominiums. Developer HFZ Capital Group will try to get an average price of $6.1 million per apartment.
  3. Bizzi & Partners and New Valley are working on a new construction at 125 Greenwich Street. They are hoping for an $875 million sellout for the 77-story luxury tower. Apartment prices will range from $1.3 million to $6 million.

    Bizzi & Partners and New Valley are working on a new construction at 125 Greenwich Street. They are hoping for an $875 million sellout for the 77-story luxury tower. Apartment prices will range from $1.3 million to $6 million.

  4. The next notable project on the list is a new construction at Two Waterline Square in Lincoln Square. The projected 38-story, 160-unit condominium tower anticipates a $653 million sellout. The tower will be part of a trio of residential buildings on Riverside Boulevard, with 263 units in all. GID Development Group and Henley Holding Co. say condo prices will start at about $2 million.
  5. Tribeca’s landmarked clock tower building is undergoing a transformation by The Elad Group and Don Peebles’ Peebles Corporation. They hope to bring 151 condos to 108 Leonard Street, with a sellout price of $637 million.
  6. Victor Group and Lendlease filed to construct a new 55-story condominium tower at 277 Fifth Avenue in Nomad. The projected sellout price is $535 million. With 113 apartments, that works out to an average of $4.7 million per unit.
  7. The Chetrit Group is converting the landmark building on 49 Chambers Street in the Financial District. The planned 14-story building will have 99 residential apartments with a target sellout price of $334 million.

    The Chetrit Group is converting the landmark building on 49 Chambers Street in the Financial District. The planned 14-story building will have 99 residential apartments with a target sellout price of $334 million.

  8. GID Development Group’s One Waterline Square also made the list. Part of a trio, the Lincoln Square building will have 56 units and a slated sellout price of $315.3 million.
  9. The Toll Brothers’ new construction plans were accepted for a 111-unit condo building in Tribeca. The projected 20-story building has a sellout price of $314 million.
  10. Last to make the list is Noho’s 40 Bleecker Street. Broad Street Development is converting two adjacent rental buildings into a 12-story, 61-unit condominium building. The ambitious sellout price is set at $288.5 million.

    By: Hadassa Kalatizadeh

     

Five Key Moments in US-Israel Relations in 2017

0
President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem on May 23, 2017. Credit: U.S. Embassy Tel Aviv
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley on stage at the AIPAC conference in March. Credit: AIPAC

Love him or hate him, 2017 was a year dominated by President Donald Trump. The U.S.-Israel relationship was no stranger to that, ranging from Trump’s visit to the Jewish state in May to his historic decision on Jerusalem in December. At the same time, some of this year’s other major stories in the Israeli-American arena had little or nothing to do with Trump.

JNS takes a look back at the following five key moments in U.S.-Israel relations during the past year:

Trump’s policy changes on Jerusalem

On Dec. 6, Trump recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capitaland declared plans to eventually move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to that city. The president called the policy changes “long overdue” and said recognition of Jerusalem as the capital is “obvious” given that all of Israel’s government functions—from the Knesset to the prime minister’s residence—are located there.

“This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality,” said Trump. “It is also the right thing to do.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Trump’s decision reflects the “commitment to an ancient but enduring truth, to fulfilling his promises and to advancing peace.”

Trump’s Israel trip

Trump made Israel one of his first visits abroad as president when he touched down in the Jewish state in late May to much pomp and circumstance. Trump’s trip included the first visit to the Western Wall—one of Judaism’s holiest sites—by a sitting American president.

The visit did not come without controversy. A U.S. official’s remark that the Western Wall is part of the West Bank and not Israel stirred Israeli-American tension before the White House disavowed the comments.

The Western Wall prayer controversy

Two Israeli F-35 “Adir” jets fly in formation after receiving fuel from a Tennessee Air National Guard KC-135 on Dec., 6, 2016. Credit: U.S. Air Force/1st Lt. Erik D. Anthony

The Israeli cabinet in June decided to freeze an agreement for a permanent egalitarian prayer section, jointly overseen by non-Orthodox Jewish groups, at the Western Wall. The move by the Israeli government, which reneged on a January 2016 agreement, sparked a crisis between the government and Diaspora Jewry.

Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Naftali Bennett admitted that “mistakes were made” by the government in its decision, but said the controversy largely resulted from a “campaign of misinformation claiming the [Western Wall] is being closed to Diaspora Jews…This is false.”

A ‘new sheriff in town’ at the U.N.

Trump’s Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has been determined to change the culture of bias against Israel at the world body. At the AIPAC Policy Conference in March, Haley described herself as the “new sheriff in town” and vowed regarding anti-Israel elements that she would “kick them every single time” they display their bias.

Indeed, Haley has taken aim at U.N. bodies that have repeatedly and disproportionately targeted Israel, including the Human Rights Council and the UNESCO cultural agency. In October, the U.S. announced that it would pull out of UNESCO due to its “anti-Israel bias.”

In the wake of Trump’s announcement on Jerusalem, Haley blamed the world body for being the real obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace and vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution that called for the withdrawal of the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem. When the same resolution was passed by the U.N. General Assembly, Haley said the vote “will be remembered.” Before the General Assembly vote, she said the U.S. would be “taking names” of countries that supported the U.N. condemnation of Trump’s Jerusalem move.

Haley’s series of moves defending Israel at the U.N. came after the departing Obama administration in December 2016 refused to veto a Security Council resolution that condemned Israel’s settlement policy and described eastern Jerusalem as “occupied Palestinian territory.”

Israel declares advanced American-made fighter jets operational

Less than a year after receiving its first nine F-35 stealth fighter jets from the U.S., the Israeli military declared the fleet of aircraft fully operational in early December.

“The announcement of the operationalization of the ‘Adir’ aircraft comes at a time in which the IAF is operating on a large scale on a number of fronts in a dynamic Middle East,” said Israeli Air Force chief Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin.

Israel has agreed to purchase 50 of the F-35 jets from the U.S. and was the first foreign country permitted to acquire the advanced warplanes, at a cost of roughly $100 million each.

Tal Inbar, who heads the space research center at the Israel-based Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies, told JNS regarding the F-35 that the “technological jump of the plane compared to all other planes in the [Middle East] is enormous, but the jump in operational capabilities is no less important. The freedom of maneuver that the air force gets has been significantly strengthened.”

By: Sean Savage
(JNS.org)

Stanton, Yankees Hungry for World Series Win in 2018

1
Giancarlo Stanton (pictured above) was recently acquired by the New York Yankees in exchange for Sterling Castro and others
Aaron Judge with 51 home runs will play alongside Giancarlo Stanton for the 2018 season

After a surprising season, the New York Yankees, a franchise expected to be in transition, who in fact, finished only one win shy from making the World Series, have pulled off one remarkable deal as the Bronx Bombers lived up to their reputation by acquiring the best slugger in the game, Giancarlo Stanton, from the Miami Marlins. Desperate to rid the Marlins of Stanton’s onerous and expensive salary, new Marlins CEO, Derek Jeter, signed off on the deal which landed his former team the great slugger while the Marlins only received second baseman Starlin Castro, two mid-level minor leaguers and, as part of the transaction, gave the Yankees $30 million.

Stanton voted National League Most Valuable Player in 2017, leading the league in home runs (59), runs batted in (132) and slugging percentage (.631), joins an already power-leaden lineup which includes the only other 50 homerun player this season, American League rookie of the year Aaron Judge who cranked 52 homeruns. There line-up is so dominant now, even Stanton, at last week’s press conference gleefully said “I feel sorry for the baseballs”. Newly hired manager Aaron Boone also stated, “You add the National League MVP to what we feel like is already a very strong lineup, the possibilities start to run through your head of what that could look like.”

Heading up the Yankees’ front office is long time general manager Brian Cashman

This trade is a big steal for the Yankees, as they are only the 3rd team in history to acquire a reigning MVP. The first trade of this kind happened back in 1914, when the Philadelphia Athletics sold Eddie Collins to the Chicago White Sox for $50,000. Ninety years later, the Texas Rangers sent MVP Alex Rodriguez to the Yankees for infielder/outfielder Alfonso Soriano..

Derek Jeter, one of the most iconic players in Yankees recent history, part of a franchise with some of the most iconic names in baseball like Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle, has already made many Miami Marlins’ fans angry with his moves to trim salary and add depth to their minor league system. While Jeter only owns 4% of the Miami Marlins, he seemingly, is calling most baseball decisions. Jeter came into Miami with the local community with hopes of making the Marlins a perennial winner but has already departed with some of Miami’s best players. In addition to trading Stanton, the Marlins, under Jeter have traded speedster Dee Gordon and power hitter Marcell Ozuna.

Derek Jeter, one of the most iconic players in Yankees recent history, part of a franchise with some of the most iconic names in baseball like Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle, has already made many Miami Marlins’ fans angry with his moves to trim salary and add depth to their minor league system. While Jeter only owns 4% of the Miami Marlins, he seemingly, is calling most baseball decisions

In addition to trading three of his best players, Jeter has also raised eyebrows by firing many long-term Marlin employees. How Jeter and the new Marlin owners repair an already ruptured relationship remains to be seen; one thing for certain, the Marlins have helped the Yankees return to home run dominance not seen since the days of Roger Maris teaming with Mickey Mantle the year that the former broke Babe Ruth’s single season home run record.

By: David Dweck

 

New Tax Overhaul Sees Goldman Sachs Reporting $5B in Losses for 4th Quarter

0
Financial giant Goldman Sachs reported a reduction of around $5 billion in earnings for the fourth quarter in a year end filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission

Financial giant Goldman Sachs reported a reduction of around $5 billion in earnings for the fourth quarter in a year end filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission last Friday. The losses are due to adjustments and tweaks made in order to comply with the new tax overhaul which includes a one time 15% tax on overseas liquid assets and 8% tax on overseas illiquid assets.

Under the original tax code financial institutions were only taxed on overseas earnings when the assets were repatriated back to the U.S, at a fairly high rate. This often resulted in American multinational financial institutions building up trillions of dollars and deferring their taxes on these assets without end.

The one-time “repatriation tax” was designed to incentivize financial institutions to bring these overseas earnings back home. Under the new tax code which goes into effect in 2018 corporate taxes are being lowered to 21% which is a focal incentive for repatriation of assets

Despite this loss of earnings financial stocks did not tumble as they only went down by .2% in trading Friday. Investors do not seem too worried about the earnings reductions of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup; and others. Richard Bove, a research analysist on CNBC said, “the tax reshuffling will encourage financial giants like Goldman to reallocate some of their assets to take advantage of the new laws”. Citigroup was stung the hardest with $20 billion while JP Morgan’s and Barclay’s reductions were substantially less.

Most of the losses for the quarter can be attributed to adjustments due to the one-time repatriation tax. However, as Bloomberg reported, institutions have speed up the delivery of promised stock awards to top executives in an effort to lower the taxable profit which are still under the current tax cuts. Analysts estimated that close to 2/3rd of the 4th quarter losses were do to the one-time tax.

By: Jared Evan