web analytics
April 25, 2014 / 25 Nisan, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘sort’

The ‘Jewish Voice for Peace’ is Anti-Israel & Anti-Peace

Tuesday, August 6th, 2013

The Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), classified as one of the ten worst anti-Israel organizations in the US by the Anti-Defemation League, partook in Harvard’s One State Conference, supports a Palestinian right of return, which remains the main obstacle to peace, and promotes the BDS Movement. According to a report published by NGO Monitor, they also seek to create a barrier between the American Jewish community and Israel with the goal of diminishing American support for the Jewish state. They work under the presumption that their Jewishness lends legitimacy to ideas that would otherwise not gain as much traction if uttered by a non-Jewish person.

As JVP Executive Director Rebecca Vilkomerson reiterated, “I think part of our job as the Jewish wing of the [Palestinian solidarity] movement, is to facilitate conversations inside the Jewish community… So, I think it’s very important to think sort of how we plan a wedge… So, I think that the more and more we can sort of put that wedge in, saying the Jewish community’s not agreeing on these issues, the more we’ll make progress.” Heike Schotten, an activist in Boston’s JVP Chapter, further explained, “Groups like Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) […] drive a wedge between Zionism and Judaism, demonstrating by their very existence that not all Jews are Zionists.

soda stream israel

One of the Jewish Voice for Peace’s recent initiatives is to urge Sur La Table to stop selling SodaStream, a product originating from an Israeli company operating out of Judea and Samaria. As United With Israel has previously reported, SodaStream builds bridges for peace by offering Palestinian Arabs high quality jobs that can provide them with a decent standard of living. Additionally, SodaStream produces an environmentally sustainable product that allows for soda to be produced inside ones home. Despite these facts, at a Jewish Voice for Peace demonstration, JVP activists chanted: “Occupation is not green! Stop selling SodaStream! Occupation is not green! Stop selling SodaStream!”

According the Anti Defamation League, “While JVP’s activists try to portray themselves as Jewish critics of Israel, their ideology is nothing but a complete rejection of Israel.”

PLEASE CONTACT SUR LA TABLE AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO CONTINUE SELLING SODASTREAM!

Visit United with Israel.

The Petraeus Conundrum

Wednesday, November 14th, 2012

There are some fascinating questions that come to mind regarding the current controversy concerning Gen. David Petraeus, and in the coming weeks and months many of the blanks will doubtless be filled in. To be sure, the personal dimension to the story will continue to draw much attention – infidelity and personal failure in high places will always have a certain allure. But there are some serious public issues involved that we hope will be pursued.

It’s obvious that news of this sort would dominate the media once it surfaced. Surely it would have sucked much of the air out of the story of the president’s efforts to rally the nation in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. It would also have drawn attention away from the president’s newly charged economic appeal to the middle class that had given him some late momentum in his electoral battle with Gov. Romney.

Yet it appears that the news about Gen. Petraeus was circulating long before the resignation, which occurred after the election. Thus, the FBI investigation that led to Gen. Petraeus’s stepping down began in May and continued until late summer, at which point Attorney General Eric Holder supposedly was notified. Yet it is claimed that it was only on November 6– Election Day – that the Justice Department informed Director of National Intelligence James Clapper of the investigation; that on November 7the White House was notified; and that the president was first told on November 8.

Maybe. But it certainly seems inconceivable that an investigation of this sort involving the head of the Central Intelligence Agency – including possible criminal liability for compromising classified national security information – would not have been brought to the attention of the president or his senior staff early on. So the issue of whether there was an effort by public officials to suppress the Petraeus story in order to enhance the president’s reelection prospects is squarely before us.

Perhaps more important, Gen. Petraeus appears to be the intelligence source cited by the president and his senior staff as the basis for their refusal, for more than two weeks, to characterize the Benghazi attack as a terrorist act despite evidence that it was indeed a well-planned operation of an Al Qaeda affiliate. Not a few critics noted that to have acknowledged that fact would have been inconsistent with the administration’s position that Al Qaeda and similar outfits had been routed by U.S. military action.

In any event, soon after the Benghazi attack, Gen. Petraeus testified before a congressional committee that the attack was a spontaneous reaction on the part of Muslims angered by an anti-Muhamamad video. Further, Gen. Petraeus was scheduled to testify at two congressional hearings, beginning November 15,on both the failure to anticipate and properly respond to the attack as well as the decision to identify it as something other than a terrorist attack.

With the Petraeus resignation, acting CIA director Michael Morell is now scheduled to testify on behalf of the CIA. Gen. Petraeus has indicated that he will not testify, and as a civilian he will have an easier time avoiding that prospect despite the intentions of some in Congress to demand that he appear.

Was the general’s resignation part of an effort to keep him from having to testify? One need not subscribe to all the conspiracy theories now swirling around these developments. Generally, they are not helpful. But there certainly are questions that need to be looked into.

What Might Civilized People be Thinking When Sociopaths Like Tamimi Bask in Adulation?

Tuesday, August 21st, 2012

http://thisongoingwar.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/21-aug-12-what-might-civilized-people.html

After receiving some offline comments on the Tamimi speech we publicized yesterday, we have a few further thoughts to share. The urge to do this is triggered by a sense that something deeply disturbing is going on; it’s being ignored or willfully not noticed by people who ought to be noticing.

When a politician or public figure on our side of the fence makes an ignorant or dumb or smart or incisive statement, particularly when it’s about the Arabs (you know the examples), his/her comments are greeted with near-instant analysis and frequently with condemnation from a global array of press and politicians. The Arab media focus obsessively on such things. Outside the Arab/Islamic world, we frequently see European, American, Australian and other critics drawing wide inferences about how those specific Israeli views are going to bring on the next Black Plague or an increase in pogroms in France. The claim, at minimum, is that irreparable harm is going to be caused to the souls and DNA of innocent Israeli children, to world peace and so on.

To illustrate: when a posse of Israeli delinquents (it happens to be a very current issue here) beat up an Arab youth in a street fight, the New York Times says the event has led to ”a stark national conversation about racism, violence, and how Israeli society could have come to this point” That’s an actual quote: check it out. We think the Times‘ journalist’s conclusion is overwrought nonsense, but that’s not the point. Israel is not, never has been and should never be, immune to criticism, or even object to it, and mostly doesn’t.

Now think for a moment about how Ahlam Tamimi and her hundreds of published interviews and speeches are treated by global public opinion. Pay attention in particular to how Arabs view her, since they are her principal audience.

No one – certainly not the woman herself – denies the fact that she planned and carried out a premeditated killing on a large and vicious scale, which was the whole point of doing it. The law convicted her on the basis that she’s a murderer; she says (more or less) that she did it for the freedom and honour of her nation. The fact that she planned to kill and succeeded mightily has never been in dispute. She does not miss an opportunity to say that it was children, and specifically Jewish children, and even more specifically orthodox Jewish children like ours, who were the target. She regrets that she did not kill more – it’s there in yesterday’s video and in numerous other speeches and earlier videos recorded in her Jordanian freedom.

She appears on television and in front of adoring crowds (ask us if you want to view the video files) and expresses the vilest kind of racist hatred of Jews, Israelis and Zionists. She has done this many times since she unjustly got her freedom in October and her message is hugely amplified by the social media. She is a star on YouTube, a hero on Facebook. She is globally broadcast via satellite television into every corner of the Arabic-speaking world. It’s arguable that she has the largest footprint of any ordinary murderer (ignoring “celebrities” like Hitler, Mao, Stalin et al) in human history. If that seems like an overstatement then we urge you to concede that she is in the major leagues. The fact that most people don’t know this is largely because most people don’t speak Arabic.

She smiles warmly when she says she killed those Jews, and her god wanted her to do it. She points to how she has subsequently been rewarded with freedom, fame, a wedding that received live television coverage. The adoring crowds applaud and ululate. The encouragement (and probably the will) to emulate her actions is clear.

How many Arabic speakers are there in the world? A quick query on the web turns up these numbers: ”280 million native speakers, and an extra 250 million non-native speakers” [source]. How many Arabic newspapers? Many.

Here’s our point: We have searched and have not yet found a blog, article, published speech or op-ed in her language, Arabic, which criticizes the woman or her views. So far, not one. If our readers can point us to exceptions, please do.

Uncle Shmuel Wants You!

Wednesday, August 15th, 2012

Among the 350 olim from the U.S. and Canada who arrived at Ben Gurion Airport on Tuesday with Nefesh Be Nefesh, there were 127 young adults who will enlist in the IDF. In fact, they came already dressed in their own uniform. Sort of.

When the Messiah arrives, we’ll probably be running hundreds of these special reports every day…

Or maybe, when Messiah arrives, folks will be asking: IDF? What’s that?

Pick your messianic dream and go with it…

Risks You Need to Know Before Buying Dividend-Paying Stocks

Sunday, July 22nd, 2012

In my last blog, “Three Reasons to Buy Dividend-Paying Stocks,” I described the benefits of buying dividend-paying stocks and why people may think that they are a worthwhile investment. But before you rush to buy dividend-paying stocks for your portfolio, take a few minutes to read about some of the pitfalls involved with this kind of stock.

1. Sometimes, a company will either reduce or suspend its dividend payments. If this happens, it may be prudent to reconsider staying invested in the company, as most companies will only cut dividends as a final resort. The cut/elimination of dividends may be a wake-up call to a company’s demise. Shareholders won’t generally rejoice at getting smaller than anticipated payments, so why would the company risk their negative reactions, unless it is in some sort of trouble?

2. Benjamin Franklin said, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes,” and this definitely applies to dividend-paying stocks. With dividend-paying stocks, you are going to be hit for taxes twice. First of all, the IRS levies the usual corporation taxes from the company itself on its profits, before shareholders are even compensated. Then, the company transfers whatever profits are left to the shareholders (i.e., you), and you have to pay another tax on the dividends that you receive! (If you have dual citizenship or are living in Israel, the Israeli government may also levy a tax on dividends. Check with your accountant to confirm that you won’t be double-taxed.)

3. Although it’s great that companies may reward their shareholders by paying dividends to them, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Consider the possibility that the reason why the company is paying its investors (as opposed to reinvesting in its own growth and development), is because it can’t find any better investment options right now. Indeed, many large companies tend to pay out dividends when their growth has started to slow. Perhaps this is not what you want, as you would prefer to invest your money into something that is a little more dynamic.

Are you still thinking about buying dividend-paying stocks? If so, I suggest that you reread my last blog, “Three Reasons to Buying Dividend-Paying Stocks,” and then read this article again as well. If you have the full picture, it will be easier for you to see if dividend-paying stocks are really for you.

When Governments Elect Another People

Wednesday, July 18th, 2012

http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/when-governments-elect-another-people.html

Elections are won by demographics. No soup company blindly dumps cans of its newest “Turkey Coconut Bouillon with Nutmeg and Omega 3″ in Aisle 6 of the supermarket without testing to see what demographics such a hideous concoction might appeal to. Will the product appeal to lesbian single mothers, divorced Asian firefighters or eccentric Latvian millionaires? Politics is no different.

A political party has its base, definable groups who groove to its message, who eat up the red meat that its candidates toss their way. It has the demographic groups which will always vote for it and those who might swing its way. It knows them by race, gender, age, class, sexuality, home ownership and a thousand other statistical slices of the pie. It has those numbers broken down by states, cities and neighborhoods so that it has a good estimate of its chances in a given place and time based on the demographics of the people who live there.

This kind of information is helpful for winning elections– but showing up to play the electoral hand you’re dealt is for suckers. And by suckers, I mean conservative parties.

Breaking down the demographics is like looking at the cards in your hand. Once you’ve done that, the only remaining variable in a static game are your opponent’s cards. With election demographics, players can see all the cards everyone has. That makes the game static. Hands will inevitably be won or lost… unless you can draw some new cards.

The most obvious way to play the demographic game of thrones is with gerrymandered districts. A gerrymandered district is shaped to include a majority of the winning demographic leading to a nearly automatic victory for the party. It’s the political equivalent of stacking the deck.

Gerrymandered districts are of dubious legality, except when shaped to create a majority minority district, in which case it becomes an obligation under civil rights laws. This stacks the deck, creating permanent sinecures for some horribly incompetent politicians and permanent seats for the Democratic Party.

But that is just a matter of rearranging the cards in the deck. What if you could bring in cards from outside the deck? What if you could change the value of some cards? Then you would be on the way to being the best card sharp in Washington D.C. or London or Paris.

Sure you could win elections by creating a few gerrymandered districts, but you couldn’t win a country that way. To do that, you have to change the national demographics.

Suppose you were running our fictional soup company and you discovered that “Turkey Coconut Bouillon with Nutmeg and Omega 3″ isn’t popular with key demographics. The only people who like it are unemployed Pakistani immigrants, lesbian single mothers and divorced Asian firefighters.

Sure you could take a shot at putting out another flavor, but damn it, you like this one. And you also spent your entire advertising budget for the next three years promoting it, and thanks to your ad campaign, everyone now associates your company with “Turkey Coconut Bouillon with Nutmeg and Omega 3″. And if people don’t like it, then your company is doomed.

You could try to change people’s minds, or you could try to change the demographics to ones that favor your soup. To do that, you would have to bring in a lot of Pakistani immigrants, create a poor economic climate, promote divorce and homosexuality, and create some public sector jobs.

Luckily, no soup company can do that sort of thing. But governments can.

That’s the neat thing about governments, if they want to change national demographics, bring in more immigrants, create more single-parent families and more unemployment; they can do all those things easily.

Suppose, for example, that instead of running a soup company, you are a UK Labour politician. They say you’re bright, and while that may be debatable and some time later the very people who said it will spit in disgust at the idea, but you are young and you can see the writing on the wall. After Thatcher, there’s no future for the kind of cheap labor radical who threatens to take the workers into the streets at every opportunity. The working-class vote that your party identified with is on the way out. And even if it wasn’t, it won’t survive the leftward drift of your party.

Israel, Iran, And The Shiite Apocalypse (Second of Three Parts)

Wednesday, July 11th, 2012

For Israel, and also its cross-pressured U.S. ally, there would be very difficult problems to solve if an enemy state such as Iran were permitted to go fully nuclear. These problems could lethally undermine the conceptually neat, but probably unrealistic, notion of balanced nuclear deterrence in the region.

The multi-fragmented Middle East could likely not sustain the sort of comforting equilibrium that once characterized U.S.-Soviet relations. For example, it would be hard to imagine such an area’s successful and long-term reliance upon MAD, or Mutual Assured Destruction.

Whether for reasons of miscalculation, accident, unauthorized capacity to fire, outright irrationality, or the presumed imperatives of jihad, an enemy state in this fevered neighborhood could sometime opt to launch a nuclear first-strike against Israel, in spite of Israel’s own obvious and forseeably secure nuclear capability. A Cold War “balance of terror” could not readily exist in the Middle East.

After absorbing any enemy nuclear aggression, Israel would certainly respond with a nuclear retaliatory strike. Though nothing is publicly known about Israel’s precise targeting doctrine, such a reprisal would almost certainly be launched against the aggressor’s capital city and/or similarly high-value urban targets. There would be no assurances, in response to this particular kind of authentically genocidal aggression, that Israel might limit itself to striking back against exclusively military targets.

But what if enemy first strikes were to involve “only” chemical, and/or “minor” biological weapons? In that case, Israel might still launch a presumptively proportionate nuclear reprisal, but this would depend largely upon Israel’s calculated expectations of follow-on aggression, and also on its associated determinations of comparative damage-limitation.

Should Israel absorb a massive conventional first strike, a nuclear retaliation could not be automatically ruled out. This argument is plausible if: (1) the aggressor were perceived to hold nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction in reserve; and/or (2) Israel’s leaders were to believe that non-nuclear retaliations could not prevent national annihilation.

Recognizing Israel’s exceptionally small size, its calculated threshold of existential harms could be considerably lower than Israel’s total physical devastation. In 2003, this precise judgment was contained in the Project Daniel final report, “Israel’s Strategic Future” (www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/03-ISSUE/daniel-3.htm).

Facing imminent attacks, Israel, even if it had delayed launching defensive first strikes, could still decide to preempt enemy aggression with pertinent conventional forces. The targeted state’s response would then largely determine Israel’s subsequent moves. If this response were in any way nuclear, Israel would assuredly undertake prompt nuclear counter-retaliation. And if this enemy retaliation were to involve “only” chemical and/or biological weapons, Israel might still plan to undertake a quantum escalatory initiative.

This sort of initiative is known in military parlance as “escalation dominance.” It could be necessary, even indispensable, to Israel’s preservation of intra-war deterrence. Here we need to bear in mind that deterrence would not necessarily cease functioning upon the commencement of hostilities. It could, in fact, continue to play a very different, but still more or less productive role, during any ensuing conflict.

If an enemy state’s response to an Israeli preemption were limited to hard-target, conventional strikes, it is improbable that Israel would ever resort to nuclear counter-retaliation. But if the enemy state’s conventional retaliation were an all-out strike directed toward Israel’s civilian populations, as well as to Israeli military targets, an Israeli nuclear counter-retaliation could not be ruled out.

Such a counter-retaliation could be excluded only if the enemy state’s conventional retaliations were entirely proportionate to Israel’s preemption; confined entirely to Israeli military targets; circumscribed by the legal limits of “military necessity”; and accompanied by explicit and verifiable assurances of no further escalation.

It is almost inconceivable that Israel would ever decide to preempt any enemy state aggression with a defensive nuclear strike. While particular circumstances could arise where such a defensive strike would be completely rational, and also be entirely lawful according to the authoritative 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (which refused to prohibit certain residual resorts to nuclear weapons that are presumed essential to national survival), it is still implausible that Israel would ever permit itself to reach such distinctly all-or-nothing circumstances.

Also worth mentioning is that Israel remains pledged to a military doctrine of “purity of arms” and to incomparably strict compliance with humanitarian international law, especially the imperative minimization of collateral, or non-combatant, harm.

Finish Line (Conclusion)

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

At certain points in each of our lives, we are given challenges – some big, some small. Some people embrace it, welcoming every chance they get to grow and mature, while others are deathly afraid of any sort of change in their blissful, comfortable routine.

I was given many challenges over the past year and a half, none of which I would have ever chosen to face had I been given the choice. But as we face the challenges head-on that come our way and overcome them, we grow and become better, wiser and more understanding people. Our struggles are what make us who we are and determine how we relate to others. And hopefully, we can look back at our challenges and appreciate the level of trust God has in us to overcome them.

Regardless of the painful experiences I was dealing with, there was one challenge that I took on with anticipation and determination. Running a half-marathon – 13.1 miles – is not something I ever thought I would do, yet that’s exactly what I did this past January in Miami Beach. Along with 134 other members of Team Yachad, I ran in support of Yachad, the National Jewish Council for Disabilities.

My adventure started about six months ago in a New Jersey high school with my first meeting with some of the dedicated staff members and runners. I also met with Coach Jasmine (“Jaz”) Graham, who patiently answered every question I threw at her, and who provided me with my very own training regimen to fit my schedule.

Training for the half-marathon was a challenge I both dreaded and looked forward to. Unfortunately I have never before been able to incorporate regular fitness into my daily routine, as there never seemed to be enough time in the day to get to the gym or enough energy to hit the treadmill. Training with Yachad was the motivation I needed to start moving, and thus began my personal journey to fitness, awareness, and self-discovery.

Team Yachad 2012

I was extremely self-conscious the first time I went running. I kept looking around to see if there was anybody that I knew, and comparing my speed with the numerous other people who were running through the park. At the end of my run, I was both exhausted and exhilarated. The fact that I was able to run the few miles, despite never accomplishing this before, gave me an enormous feeling of pride. I felt like I wanted to do this every single day.

That feeling lasted about 10 or 12 hours – until every bone in my body began to ache and bring me pain. Yet the incredible rush that running gave me motivated me to continue, and I was determined to support and run along with Team Yachad in the half-marathon. Running gave me an opportunity to be alone with my thoughts, to clear my head, and to escape (at least for that hour or so) the chaos that was going on in my personal life. Something about the fresh air, the rhythmic sound of my feet hitting the pavement, and the peace and quiet through the park was soothing. It was exactly what I needed at that point in my life.

After a few weeks of training, I began to notice a change in myself, both during my workout and in general. I was feeling more confident, more sure of my abilities and myself. I ran with better posture, I wasn’t comparing myself to the other runners in the park, and I felt like I could do anything. I never realized the impact that the training alone would have on my life.

After several months and a few bumps along the road, including a bad fall and a torn ligament, I finally arrived in Miami Beach for the Yachad marathon weekend. The Shabbaton was incredible, and I met many special people during my trip. The marathon itself was a once-in-a-lifetime experience that will stay with me forever. The incredibly gratifying feeling of satisfaction and pride after finishing the race with Team Yachad is indescribable. It was also quite inspirational to see the display of unity, the inclusion of every single person – including 15 runners with disabilities – and the dedication each runner displayed toward Yachad and each other.

Looking back, I am honored to have been part of such a moving experience. It was humbling to meet Yachad’s special people, along with its staff, members, volunteers, and everyone who participated in the event. I still continue to run when I can, feeling much more secure and comfortable when I do. Yachad has influenced my life in many ways, and inspired me to take on something I never thought I could do. For those feelings alone, I am truly grateful.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/sections/magazine/potpourri/finish-line-conclusion/2012/03/22/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: