While the thrust of the proposed law is easily understandable, there is a problem as well. The current draft requires claimants to prove malicious intent on the part of the present holder of the property, which some legal authorities say would be extremely difficult.
Recent stories in the Israeli media, citing “unnamed sources,” indicate that Mr. Kerry failed to get backing from President Obama to confront Israel over its rejection of his peace proposals
For us, the key factor is that support in Congress for new sanctions has collapsed in the face of the president’s blandishments.
This week Rabbi Hershel Schachter, one of the most prominent roshei yeshiva of Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, not only issued a stinging rebuke of the practice of women wearing tefillin but also the process by which such decisions are made.
It’s no secret that many in the academic community support boycotts as a means of pressuring and punishing Israel. So it’s understandable that proposed legislation to prohibit use of public funds to promote boycotts – authored by New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and now being considered by the Assembly – has created an uproar. An identical bill was passed last week by the State Senate.
Speaking at the Munich Security Conference about what he saw as the dangers inherent in the failure of Israeli-Palestinian talks, Mr. Kerry said: “The risks are high for Israel. People are talking about boycott. That will intensify in the case of failure. Do they want a failure that then begs whatever may come in the form of a response from disappointed Palestinians and the Arab community?”
The brief informed the court that though “the Jewish faith does not prohibit the financing of contraception,” the legal position taken by the administration threatens to curtail religious observances by American Jews inasmuch as Jewish law does not distinguish between and among different forms of business ownership.
There is an ever-widening schism among Modern Orthodox Jews.
The NPI ranks countries in terms of their ability to influence global events. The ranking is based on a statistical comparative analysis of a country’s economy, military, diplomacy, technology, and population.
The Times reported that American influence “has ebbed” following Syrian President Assad’s defiance of American demands that he step down and al Qaeda’s significant military successes in Iraq.
The furor over the New York Post’s outrageous coverage of the murder of Menachem Stark, including its repeated and irrelevant references to Mr. Stark’s being a chassidic Jew, focused the community’s attention on that particular story. But similar things regularly slip under the radar.
On January 5 it was reported that Secretary of State Kerry had said, “Could [Iran] contribute from the sidelines? Are there ways for them, conceivably to weigh in?…. It may be that there are ways that could happen. But that has to be determined by the [UN] secretary-general. It has to be determined by Iranian intentions themselves. We are happy to have Iran be helpful.”
It is the mark of Ariel Sharon that in death the glowing tributes to his military prowess were not the manufactured puffery that usually infuses these exercises. To be sure, there were the usual critics along the way making relatively minor points. But he really was the fearless, innovative, consummate military leader and defender of Israel everyone is talking about.
On January 1 The New York Times headlined a lengthy news story on the Palestinian refusal to consider recognition of Israel as a Jewish state in the following fashion: “Sticking Point in Peace Talks: Recognition of a Jewish State.”
Plainly, the Post was not interested in simply telling the story of a horrific murder, which was, after all, the subject at hand. Indeed, the overall tone of the coverage suggested Stark was the victim not of assassins but of some form of rough justice.
Several months ago the U.S. reluctantly acceded to the request of President Hamid Karzai and turned over custody of the detainees to Afghan authorities but with a warning that if they were subsequently released – especially those with American blood on their hands – it could torpedo negotiations for a long term security agreement with the U.S.
Despite our dismay over much of the rhetoric that abounded during Bill de Blasio’s inauguration ceremony as New York City’s new mayor last week, we nevertheless stand by our endorsement in the November 5 election.
It had long seemed that the movement to boycott Israel, particularly its colleges and universities, was unstoppable. Almost every week brought news of some fresh resolution according pariah-like status to Israel, ostensibly in response to Israel’s alleged trampling on the rights of Palestinians – though it was easy to suspect something more insidious and deep-rooted at play.
The New York Times, in a front-page story last week about its investigation into what really happened in the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi last year, purported to debunk the accepted wisdom concerning the incident.
We were struck by the widespread criticism of Israel’s intention to officially announce new settlement construction even as it authorized the release of 26 more Palestinian terrorists as a “confidence building” measure designed to please the Palestinians.