Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Netanyahu thanks Durban II boycotting countries

This is a bold, unabashed and assertive demand that Israel be treated as an equal amongst nations. A thank you with spine, how's that for a twist? And may we all go FROM STRENGTH TO STRENGTH!!

PM Netanyahu sent a Letter to the Countries that Boycotted the Durban
Conference in Geneva

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sent a letter to the countries that
boycotted the Durban Conference in Geneva thanking them for their decision.
The Prime Minister also praised the countries whose delegates walked out
during the speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the event.

The Prime Minister wrote in the letter:

"As Israel marks Holocaust Remembrance Day, I am writing to express my
appreciation for your decision not to participate in the Durban II
conference in Geneva. That decision helps restore a measure of sanity
in a world in which a conference against racism gives a platform to the head of a regime that denies the Holocaust and openly seeks to perpetrate a new one through the destruction of the Jewish state.

With the most basic values of humanity under assault, your government took
an unequivocal moral stand. It is my fervent hope that this stand taken by
your country and a handful of others will mark a turning point in this
battle and that moral clarity will once again prevail in world affairs."

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

what moral compass guides the IDF

The slander heard 'round the world, originally published by Haaretz, that the IDF targetted civilians during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, was proven to be baseless. The soldiers who "testified" about the outrageous conduct of the IDF were later proven to have simply repeated hearsay, despite the characterizations of that testimony as first-hand reporting. In addition, the incidents about which the hearsay was raised were certainly not instances of the wanton killings of civilians.

So read about the very moral and compassionate acts of the IDF from true first hand accounts. StandWithUs is a wonderful organization - check out its website for lots of valuable information: www.standwithus.org.


JERUSALEM (April 6, 2009) – A new wesbsite created by Israeli soldiers to share their personal experiences of serving in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has had 20,000 views in just its first week. www.soldiersspeakout.com contains testimonials from soldiers which contrast sharply with recent reports of alleged IDF misconduct. Additional testimonies have been added since the March 29 launch.

StandWithUs, an international education organization, created the website in response to IDF members in its student programs who felt they had to speak out. This independent initiative is not coordinated with either the IDF or the Israeli Government.

Explains Roz Rothstein, international director of StandWithUs, “we created this website because a few isolated allegations from ‘anti-war’ Israeli soldiers are being used to defame the IDF. Yet the IDF has over 700,000 citizen soldiers and reservists who try to live up to it’s high ethical standards. The IDF impartially judges all alleged violations, and punishes offenders.”

The soldiers share experiences rarely told by the international media. Nina, a 25 year-old IDF medic who served in Gaza, recounts how she and other IDF soldiers treated wounded Palestinian men, women and children and arranged for them to be flown to Israeli hospitals for medical care. She explains that IDF medics are taught not to see nationality, but rather to treat the wounded with the severest injuries first, even if they are terrorists.

Amir, a military reserve paramedic in the Givati unit in Gaza, confirms Nina’s account. “I was present when injured Palestinians were flown out by IDF chopper to Israeli hospitals. Imagine the cost of that helicopter, but we believe that human life is of the highest value – their identity doesn’t matter.” Amir’s video relates how he helped a pregnant Palestinian woman in labor while he was searching for terrorists in Gaza.
The soldiers also describe the challenges of fighting terrorists who use inhumane tactics. Inon, a 25 year-old lieutenant in the Golani brigade, recalls that during the 2006 Lebanon war, he and his unit spotted an elderly woman shouting in pain. As they tried to help, they realized that Hezbollah had wired her with a suicide bomb belt and was using her as a human trap for the Israeli soldiers. "This is what we are up against."

“We had no shortage of volunteers,” remarks StandWithUs Israel Director Michael Dickson, “Many feel that the media has been skewed. Many soldiers feel a deep sense of injustice, including those who risked their own lives in Gaza to protect Palestinian civilians. These young soldiers are deeply moral and recognize that their service is vital to a country like Israel, which is constantly endangered by terrorists and hostile neighbors.

“All the soldiers we met illustrate the IDF’s moral code with first-hand experiences. The media may not always report on it, but by putting the soldiers’ stories on the Internet, they can speak to people directly. I anticipate that there will be many more soldiers speaking out,” predicts Dickson.

· The Soldiers Speak Out website is at www.soldiersspeakout.com
· It officially launched on Sunday, March 29, 2009.

Friday, April 3, 2009

Passive Genocide

So far President Obama and England's Prime Minister Brown have publicly announced their demand that Bibi pursue the "Two-State Solution." (See Sharpe's article, below, for info on that point.) Would England embrace a 2 state solution if County Kent became inhabited by and controlled by terrorists and demanded sovereignty? Would England maintain porous borders with Kentistan? Would the US do that if New Englandistan became inhabited by and controlled by terrorists?

This obsession with continuing "the peace process" that will - WILL, not might - lead to Israel's annihilation; and with the "two state solution" by shaving off parts of a tiny country and granting sovereignty to those portions which are committed to Israel's destruction, is a passive insistence on genocide. That is what we must call these vile demands - passive genocide.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Try to have the imp. pts at your fingertips

The Two - State Solution is 87 Years Old
Victor Sharpe - Mar 29, 2009
American Thinker

In 1920, Great Britain was given the responsibility by the League of Nations to oversee the Mandate over the geographical territory known as Palestine with the express intention of reconstituting within its territory a Jewish National Home.
The territory in question stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the eastern boundary of Mandatory Palestine, which was a border that would separate it from what was to become the future state of Iraq.

The League of Nations created a number of articles, which were in line with the original intent of the Balfour Declaration of November 29th, 1917. At the last minute, however, a new article was introduced by the British Colonial Office: article number 25.

At first the sudden addition of this article was not a cause for alarm but gradually it became apparent that its inclusion directly enabled Great Britain in 1921 to tear away all the territory of geographical Palestine, east of the River Jordan, and give it to the Arab Hashemite family; the territory to become Trans-Jordan and led by the emir Abdullah.

Britain presented this gift to Abdullah, the son of the Sherif of Mecca, as a consolation prize for its awarding of the Hedjaz territory and Arabia, which included Mecca, to the rival Saud family: That vast territory is now Saudi Arabia.

British officials also claimed that the gift of Mandatory Palestine east of the Jordan River was in gratitude to the Hashemites for their contribution in helping defeat the Turks. However, even T.S. Lawrence later described in derisory terms the Hashemite role as "a side show of a side show."

This was the first partition of Palestine and created a brand new entity 87 years ago covering some 35,000 square miles or nearly four-fifths of the geographical territory of Palestine. Immediately Jewish residence in the territory was forbidden and it became in effect judenrein - the German term for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from a territory.

This betrayal by none other than Winston Churchill, the Colonial Secretary at the time, was a devastating blow to the Jewish and Zionist leadership, which now saw the promised Jewish homeland reduced to the remaining narrow territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan - an area barely 50 miles at its widest.

Shortly after, in 1923, the British and French colonial powers also divided up the northern part of the Palestine Mandate. Britain stripped away the Golan Heights (ancient biblical Bashan) and gave it to French occupied Syria.

The Balfour Declaration issued by Lord Balfour, British Foreign Secretary, never envisaged that the Jordan River would be the eastern boundary of the reconstituted Jewish homeland. Indeed, the Zionist leadership had put forward in February 1919 its first submission that the eastern boundary would run well east of the Hedjaz railway. The incorporation of the railway would be an economically essential requirement for the Jewish community living east of the River Jordan as well as providing it with vital security.

The squabbling by the French and British colonial powers over the final frontiers of the Palestine Mandate had earlier led the London Times to urge Paris to accept sensible and rational frontiers in both the north and east of Jewish Palestine. As early as September 19th, 1919 it had thundered in an editorial:

"The Jordan will not do as the eastern frontier of Palestine ... Palestine must have a good military frontier east of Jordan ... Our duty as Mandatory is to make Jewish Palestine not a struggling state but one that is capable of vigorous and independent life ... "

But Jewish aspirations inevitably were dashed as a new British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, took the place of Lord Balfour.
This new British official within weeks of succeeding Balfour made it clear that Britain was intent upon separating Transjordan from Palestine: the first two-state solution.

The succeeding history of the remaining one fifth of the original territory promised to the Jewish people by Lord Balfour and the British government was one of continuing British betrayal as each successive Mandatory administration displayed pro-Arab and anti-Jewish policies.

During its administration up until 1947, Britain severely restricted Jewish immigration and purchases of land while turning a blind eye to massive illegal Arab immigration into the territory from neighboring Arab states.

Britain`s sorry record of appeasement of the Arabs, at the expense of Jewish destiny in the remaining territory, culminated in the infamous 1939 White Paper, which limited Jewish immigration to just 75,000 souls for the next five years. This onerous and draconian policy, coming as it did on the eve of the outbreak of World War 2, was a death blow to millions of Jews attempting to flee extermination by Nazi Germany.

Britain`s mismanagement of the Mandate finally led to the United Nation`s Partition Plan of 1947. The Jewish Agency reluctantly accepted this additional dismemberment of what was left in Mandatory Palestine of the promised Jewish National Home.

They did this in order to provide a refuge for the surviving Jewish remnants of the Holocaust and for the growing numbers of Jewish refugees being driven out of their homes throughout the Arab world. In contrast, the Arab regimes rejected the Partition Plan. Then, as now, they worked against the existence of an independent Jewish state.

Israel was officially re-born as a sovereign nation in 1948 and its 600,000 Jews fought to survive the massive Arab onslaught, which was intended to wipe out the Jewish state.

In 1948, Trans-Jordan, renamed the Kingdom of Jordan since 1946, had joined the other Arab nations in invading the Jewish state, illegally annexing the Biblical and ancestral Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria and renaming it the West Bank. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation.

The war ended in tortuous armistice lines resulting in an Israeli border a mere nine miles wide at the most densely populated area, which stretched from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordanian occupied West Bank.[GET IT - JORDAN WAS THE OCCUPIER. LLM] Israel`s late Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, described these dangerously vulnerable armistice lines as the Auschwitz borders.

Nineteen years later the Arab states declared again their imminent intention to destroy Israel. In the June 1967 Six Day War Israel liberated Judea and Samaria from Jordan in a defensive war. Israel offered to give away the newly liberated West Bank to the Hashemite regime in Jordan and the Gaza Strip to its erstwhile Egyptian occupiers in return for a full and lasting peace. But the Arab League, meeting in Khartoum in August, 1967, delivered the infamous three No`s: No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel.

It is within the narrow territory remaining for the Jewish state, if one includes Judea and Samaria, that the world now demands the establishment of yet another Arab state. Hamas controlled Gaza would be included in this future state to be called Palestine; a state which has never existed before by that name in all of recorded history - certainly not as an independent Arab state.

Gaza has already been given to the Arabs and they have turned it into a terror base from which they have launched a lethal missile blitz against Israel numbering to date over 10,000 rockets.

Israeli leaders should never have accepted even one missile fired from Gaza at its citizens in southern Israel. To let thousands fall with relative impunity for so many years led the world to believe that it was acceptable. After all, if Israel wasn`t interested in safeguarding its own civilians, why then should the world be. It was accepted as business as usual.

The Gaza War thus came as a surprise to the world community and, just as the Second Lebanon War, it was launched by Israeli leaders too late and ended too soon, leaving both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon free to wreak future havoc upon the Jewish state.

The disputed West Bank, which is the ancient biblical heartland of Israel, is now the territory U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is pressuring Israel to give away to the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians. This is the present day so-called two - state solution and will dismember what is left of Israel and drive some 250,000 Jewish residents from their homes and farms. Why? Because just as in Jordan, Jews will not be permitted to live within Arab territory, while Arabs can remain free to live within Israel.

It is instructive to remember that upon the granting of the Palestine Mandate to Great Britain, an eminent British celebrity and supporter of Zionism, Josiah Wedgwood, addressed a Jewish crowd of thousands at the Royal Albert Hall in London in which he urged the audience to stand up for Jewish rights in its homeland.

According to the late Shmuel Katz in his groundbreaking biography of the great Zionist leader, Vladimir Ze`ev Jabotinsky, titled The Lone Wolf, Wedgwood said:

"... This lesson I want the new Jewish nation to learn and to get by heart: Stand up for your rights. Let us have more of the spirit in the Jewish movement of my good and gallant friend Jabotinsky."

Sadly, Israeli governments have become notoriously fearful of rejecting outright the deadly trap inherent in the so called two-state solution. Their muted responses have merely encouraged world leaders to repeatedly breathe new life into the discredited plan. The searing tragedy is that the two-state solution may presage for the Jewish people another Final Solution.

Perhaps the Secretary of State prefers to remain oblivious to the stark fact that the Arabs, whom she embraces and who today call themselves Palestinians, are as committed as their parents and grandparents before them to destroy the Jewish state; whatever size or shape its borders. The fact is that this is not a dispute over borders; this is a religious war and the Arabs, so long as the overwhelming majority remain Muslim, will never accept the existence of a non-Muslim state in territory previously conquered in the name of Allah -whatever the size or shape of its borders.

Only just recently, Muhammad Dahlan, speaking on behalf of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, declared on PA TV that the PA will not recognize Israel -- one of the primary demands made upon the Palestinian Arabs in the Oslo Peace Accords. Indeed, Dahlan admitted that the only reason they meet with Israelis at all is in order to continue receiving the immense flow of international funds.

Is Ms. Clinton aware of this Arab charade? Or does she dismiss it and care not for the absence of a sincere and honest Palestinian Arab peace partner and the inevitable plight of the quarter of a million plus Jewish residents who will become displaced refugees by enacting the next two-state solution. Perhaps she cares little for the resulting takeover of Judea and Samaria by Hamas and the inevitable missile blitz that will be launched by the Palestinian Arabs upon the rest of Israel.

Incidentally, what irony when the homes of Peace Now members living in Tel Aviv become daily targets of missiles launched from the very areas they campaign for their fellow Jews to be expelled from.

One wonders if Secretary Clinton knows that eighty seven years ago an original two-state solution was enacted in infamy. If she does, it is unlikely that she cares - anymore than the rest of the Obama Administration or State Department cares.

And what of those Jewish Americans who serve the Secretary and sadly will be in the forefront of destroying Jewish patrimony in the Land of Israel. Will they have a conscience or feel shame for the calamity they create? I think not.

Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish State.

Read this carefully - Lieberman lacks "diplospeak" instead just gives straight talk

Lieberman: Annapolis doesn't obligate us>

Apr. 1, 2009
It took Avigdor Lieberman less than eight hours as Foreign Minister Wednesday to reverse Israeli diplomatic policy of the last two years, saying Jerusalem was not obligated by the Annapolis process.

"There is one document that obligates us - and that's not the Annapolis conference, it has no validity," Lieberman told Foreign Ministry employees gathered in the ministry for a changing of the guard ceremony together with outgoing foreign minister Tzipi Livni.

"The Israeli government never ratified Annapolis, nor did the Knesset," Lieberman said. The one document that obligates Israel - and he stressed that Israel is bound by its ratified commitment - is the 2003 road map, officially called "A performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Lieberman corrected Livni, who said that the government had adopted Annapolis, saying that neither the cabinet nor the Knesset formally endorsed any Annapolis document.

Following Lieberman's comments, the Foreign Ministry issued directives to its delegation abroad saying Israel was no longer pursuing the Annapolis process.

One senior Foreign Ministry official said that by adopting the road map, Lieberman was - in his own way - reconfirming his acceptance of a two-state solution.

The road map is a phase-by-phase plan that is to lead eventually to final status negotiations and two states, but which first calls for the Palestinians to take steps such as dismantling the terrorist infrastructure and building governmental institutions, and calls on Israel to freeze all settlement construction.

Lieberman's comments came at a gathering that most thought would amount to little more than the usual niceties between ministers handing off the baton.

The ceremony started that way, with Livni saying that there was no disagreement between her and Lieberman when it came to fighting against those who wanted to delegitimize Israel. She even offered to represent Israel abroad when asked to do so.

But rather than follow the usual script, thanking Livni for her service and her offer, Lieberman lashed into the Olmert government's policies, making it clear that he would set a new agenda.

Lieberman said that Israel would abide strictly by the road map, as well as by two accompanying documents - the Tenet and Zinni documents - that were drafted to get the two parties to the road map's starting gates.

"We will never agree to jump over all the clauses and go to the last one, which is negotiations over a final status agreement," he said. He noted that the agreement included dismantling terrorist infrastructure and setting up working, effective functioning Palestinian institutions.

The Annapolis process is posited on the idea of negotiating a final status agreement now, which would then be placed on a shelf until a later time when it would became clear that the Palestinians could control the security situation on the ground.

A US State Department official, when asked Wednesday about Lieberman's comments, emphasized America's commitment to a two-state solution and its interest in working with the new Israeli government to advance that goal.

Rather than address Lieberman's dismissal of the Annapolis process, the US official stressed that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had emphasized peace with the Palestinians during his speech to the Knesset on Tuesday.

"Israel is a close friend and ally, and we remain unalterably committed to Israel's security," deputy spokesman Gordon Duguid said. "We have full confidence in and will continue to support the government of Israel, and we will work together for a durable and lasting peace in the region."

Duguid also declined to firmly back the Annapolis process, which was pushed by the Bush administration and kicked off by a conference in Annapolis, Maryland, in the fall of 2007.

He noted that the Obama administration was reviewing many elements of US Middle East policy, but added, "The two-state solution, however, is not one that is under review. We're committed to that solution."

Regarding Israel's difficult diplomatic standing in the world today, Lieberman noted that this came at a time when Israel was willing to make unprecedented concessions.

In relation to public opinion, he asked, "When was Israel at its most popular in the world? After the Six Day War, not after Oslo A, B, C and D."

To be respected in the world, you have to respect yourself, he said. Concessions were not the way to earn respect or make peace, the new foreign minister said.

"Those who think that through concessions they will gain respect and peace are wrong," Lieberman said. "It's the other way around; it will lead to more wars." Peace was not brought closer by "saying the word peace 20 times a day."

"Those who want peace should prepare for war and be strong," he said. "There is no country that has made as many concessions as Israel. Since 1967 we gave up territory that is three times the size of Israel. We showed willingness. The Oslo process started back in 1993 and to this day I have not seen that we reached peace."

Livni, who did not respond publicly to Lieberman's words at the ceremony, was overheard afterward saying, "This speech proved that I did the right thing when I did not join the government."

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a top aide to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his unofficial spokesman, said no one could force the Palestinians to sit around the negotiating table with "a racist like Lieberman."

Hadash MK Afo Agbaria called on the international community to impose a diplomatic embargo on Israel following Lieberman's comments.

"It isn't surprising that such fiery declarations come from the mouth of the racist foreign minister just one day after the government's establishment," Agbaria said.

Meanwhile, even before Lieberman's comments, Middle East Quartet envoy Tony Blair said the peace process was in jeopardy and Israel must fully support the goal of living in peace next to an independent Palestinian state, The Associated Press reported.

A period of diplomatic inactivity caused by the Israeli elections and the change of administration in Washington had harmed the peace process, he said.

"We face a situation of very great jeopardy for the peace process" in 2009, Blair said after talks at EU headquarters in Brussels with Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU external relations commissioner.

"We need a combination of strong political negotiations toward a two-state solution and major change on the ground," he said.

"The next six months actually will be completely critical in determining whether this process can move forward or whether it will slip back," Blair said.

Hilary Leila Kreiger contributed to this report.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562881455&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

must read article for every pro-Israel college student

March 24, 2009 6:45 AM

On Campus: The Pro-Palestinian's Real Agenda

by Khaled Abu Toameh

During a recent visit to several university campuses in the U.S. , I discovered that there is more sympathy for Hamas there than there is in Ramallah.

Listening to some students and professors on these campuses, for a moment I thought I was sitting opposite a Hamas spokesman or a would-be-suicide bomber.

I was told, for instance, that Israel has no right to exist, that Israel’s “apartheid system” is worse than the one that existed in South Africa and that Operation Cast Lead was launched only because Hamas was beginning to show signs that it was interested in making peace and not because of the rockets that the Islamic movement was launching at Israeli communities.

I was also told that top Fatah operative Marwan Barghouti, who is serving five life terms in prison for masterminding terror attacks against Israeli civilians, was thrown behind bars simply because he was trying to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Furthermore, I was told that all the talk about financial corruption in the Palestinian Authority was “Zionist propaganda” and that Yasser Arafat had done wonderful things for his people, including the establishment of schools, hospitals and universities.

The good news is that these remarks were made only by a minority of people on the campuses who describe themselves as “pro-Palestinian,” although the overwhelming majority of them are not Palestinians or even Arabs or Muslims.

The bad news is that these groups of hard-line activists/thugs are trying to intimidate anyone who dares to say something that they don’t like to hear.

When the self-designated “pro-Palestinian” lobbyists are unable to challenge the facts presented by a speaker, they resort to verbal abuse.

On one campus, for example, I was condemned as an “idiot” because I said that a majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas in the January 2006 election because they were fed up with financial corruption in the Palestinian Authority.

On another campus, I was dubbed as a “mouthpiece for the Zionists” because I said that Israel has a free media. There was another campus where someone told me that I was a ‘liar” because I said that Barghouti was sentenced to five life terms because of his role in terrorism.

And then there was the campus (in Chicago ) where I was “greeted” with swastikas that were painted over posters promoting my talk. The perpetrators, of course, never showed up at my event because they would not be able to challenge someone who has been working in the field for nearly 30 years.

What struck me more than anything else was the fact that many of the people I met on the campuses supported Hamas and believed that it had the right to “resist the occupation” even if that meant blowing up children and women on a bus in downtown Jerusalem.

I never imagined that I would need police protection while speaking at a university in the U.S. I have been on many Palestinian campuses in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and I cannot recall one case where I felt intimidated or where someone shouted abuse at me.

Ironically, many of the Arabs and Muslims I met on the campuses were much more understanding and even welcomed my “even-handed analysis” of the Israeli-Arab conflict. After all, the views I voiced were not much different than those made by the leaderships both in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. These views include support for the two-state solution and the idea of coexistence between Jews and Arabs in this part of the world.

The so-called pro-Palestinian “junta” on the campuses has nothing to offer other than hatred and de-legitimization of Israel . If these folks really cared about the Palestinians, they would be campaigning for good government and for the promotion of values of democracy and freedom in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Their hatred for Israel and what it stands for has blinded them to a point where they no longer care about the real interests of the Palestinians, namely the need to end the anarchy and lawlessness, and to dismantle all the armed gangs that are responsible for the death of hundreds of innocent Palestinians over the past few years.

The majority of these activists openly admit that they have never visited Israel or the Palestinian territories. They don’t know -and don’t want to know - that Jews and Arabs here are still doing business together and studying together and meeting with each other on a daily basis because they are destined to live together in this part of the world. They don’t want to hear that despite all the problems life continues and that ordinary Arab and Jewish parents who wake up in the morning just want to send their children to school and go to work before returning home safely and happily.

What is happening on the U.S. campuses is not about supporting the Palestinians as much as it is about promoting hatred for the Jewish state. It is not really about ending the “occupation” as much as it is about ending the existence of Israel .

Many of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas officials I talk to in the context of my work as a journalist sound much more pragmatic than most of the anti-Israel, “pro-Palestinian” folks on the campuses.

Over the past 15 years, much has been written and said about the fact that Palestinian school textbooks don’t promote peace and coexistence and that the Palestinian media often publishes anti-Israel material.

While this may be true, there is no ignoring the fact that the anti-Israel campaign on U.S. campuses is not less dangerous. What is happening on these campuses is not in the frame of freedom of speech. Instead, it is the freedom to disseminate hatred and violence. As such, we should not be surprised if the next generation of jihadists comes not from the Gaza Strip or the mountains and mosques of Pakistan and Afghanistan , but from university campuses across the U.S.


It's my job to scour the Internet and post the latest news stories that I find to be the most accurate, or those stories that are profoundly flawed, and point out why.

I hope you will take these "gifts" (matanote) and increase their value by sharing the knowledge as often as possible. Help educate others - those who truly want to be educated, and those who will resist, sometimes with great vigor.

There's an old joke: When haters of Israel are really enraged they throw bombs and stones at Israel lovers. When lovers of Israel are really enraged? We talk a lot. So - talk a lot! Use hamatanote.