Israelated - English Israel blogs

"Israelated - English Israel blogs" - 28 new articles SHAME ON OBAMA !!! New Commercial Mocks McCains War Injuries :: Yid With Lid Selecting this years best entrepreneur :: Treading the VC waters A Jewish charity that helps delegitimize Israel :: FresnoZionism.org Is Hillary Replacing Biden? :: Yid With Lid JPost recycles the 'Sarah Palin's not good for the Jews' meme :: Israel Matzav Madam Secretary - A Secure Israel is a Condition for Peace :: Docstalk This Week's Lighter Side :: The Jewish Press Blog New Thinking on the Palestinians :: Docstalk THE OTHER 9/11 STORY :: Docstalk The Daily Kos: Beyond Outrage, Beneath Contempt :: RADARSITE Joe Biden is a Cheapskate: Doesn't Believe in Charity :: Yid With Lid Can she get away with it? :: Israel Matzav Exciting JPC Forum in Aventura, FL on Sept 15 :: Jewish Policy Center Blog Dare To Compare Israel To Canada? :: Canada's Israel CJMF 93.3 FM Promotion: See Paul McCartney in Tel Aviv :: CIC Scene Mr. EU Speaks: Solana says not enough 'urgency' in Peace Talks :: the Hashmonean The Most Idiotic Jew in Congress :: The Jewish Press Blog Iranian Monkey Business :: Israellycool Kever Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai :: Mystical Paths Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - the closure :: Simply Jews Leading scientist urges teaching of creationism in schools :: Simply Jews Sir Paul to Anti-Israel Campaigners: Sod Off :: Israellycool Who Hates Sarah Palin? :: Israellycool The Redemptive Power Of Memory :: a Jerusalem Voice We're in The New York Times Again :: Cosmic X The unbearable snootiness of the Old World :: Simply Jews Gabriel: Time for Muslim moderates to stand up & be counted (Video) :: the Hashmonean Palin Tacitly Supports Israeli Attack on Iran :: Tikun Olam: Make the World a Better Place More Recent Articles Search Israelated - English Israel blogs SHAME ON OBAMA !!! New Commercial Mocks McCains War Injuries :: Yid With Lid Read this article on the community site Cute little commercial Senator Obama came out with today. It mocks Senator McCain for not being able to use a computer. Well, there is a REASON he can't use a computer. When he crashed into North Vietnam BOTH his arms were broken, and those broken arms received little treatment. Not only can't McCain use a keyboard, he can't tie his shoes or comb his hair either. SHAME on Obama for using this example and SHAME on the media for not pointing out that the Illinois senator is insensitive to McCain's war injuries: Wondering No More [Jonah Goldberg] Yep. The day after 9/11, as part of its "get tough" makeover, the Obama campaign is mocking John McCain for not using a computer, without caring why he doesn't use a computer. From the AP story about the computer illiterate ad: "Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats," [Obama spokesman Dan] Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail." Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "extraordinary." The reason he doesn't send email is that he can't use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000): McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball. In a similar vein I guess it's an outrage that the blind governor of New York David Patterson doesn't know how to drive a car. After all, transportation issues are pretty important. How dare he serve as governor while being ignorant of what it's like to navigate New York's highways. Update: Well, now the story is up on Drudge (You heard it here first!). Re: Mark's point about how the supposedly web-savvy Obama campaign can't handle Google, here's another story confirming he has difficulty using a keyboard. Ironically, it's from one of the most pro-Obama journalists out there, Jacob Weisberg, in an article in Slate in 2000: "Six months ago, no one would have pegged McCain as the most cybersavvy of this year's crop of candidates. At 63, he is the oldest of the bunch and because of his war injuries, he is limited in his ability to wield a keyboard." Now, in response to some angry criticism already coming in: Feh. Some say, So what if he was handicapped? He could still learn how to send email. Sure, but why would he? Bill Clinton sent two emails during his entire presidency and often admitted he didn't know squat about the internet. One reader says "Steven Hawking knows how to use a computer!" Yes, because if he didn't he couldn't do his job or communicate. McCain, like Clinton, didn't have that problem. Here's a more sane version of t he same complaint: You are ridiculous about this. While of course McCain probably can't type for long periods or in the manner in which many of us do, there are a tremendous amount of people that peck with just their index fingers. He also can surely use a mouse. How much typing do you really have to do to send emails and use the internet. Plus, when he was asked point blank about it he never said he couldn't type. I am sure he can't use a blackberry, but there are tons of people with far worse injuries than McCain that use a computer. That's absolutely true, I'm sure. But they need to use computers to get through life. McCain doesn't. And the fact that he's not blaming his disability hardly sounds like a serious indictment. If he did blame his disability, many of the same folks yelling at me would be complaining that McCain's whining. Now, I'd hardly be surprised if McCain could type for short stretches and all that. The point is, that it's perfectly understandable why he wouldn't get in the habit of it. Oh one last point for now: Lord knows I think the chicken-hawk arguments are stupid. And I don't think the fact that Obama never served in the military should count against him in and of itself. But how stupid is it for the Obama campaign to claim that McCain is unqualified to be president because he can't grasp cyber-security issues based on the fact he has never sent an email when the McCain campaign can just as easily say Obama can't understand first order national security issues because he's never fired a rife, flown a plane, commanded men in battle, or faced an enemy? I mean which prepares someone to be commander in chief better, hitting "send" on AOL or fighting a war? Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list.Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com • Email to a friend • Related • Selecting this years best entrepreneur :: Treading the VC waters Read this article on the community site This week I helped out with the selection process for E&Y's Entrepreneur of the Year award in the US. I am very familiar with this competition in Israel, and it seems that each year I've been able to fairly easily single out the top 3-5 Israeli companies that stand out (Ormat was the winner in 2007). On this side of the ocean, singling out 5 finalists from nearly one hundred entrepreneurs was an extremely challenging exercise. The main reason is that all the finalists have built exceptional businesses and achieved great success. Several stand out for exceptional achievements (The top 100 list consists of the winning companies in state competitions that have been held across the US) Some highlights from reviewing the nominees: Most of the companies here have actually achieved the "J curve" (i.e. exponential) growth that companies promise as they start off Many of the companies are not necessarily high tech - and come from the services businesses, consumer goods, healthcare, education, and more. Giving back to the community is a core part of the businesses and the entrepreneurs from the start And last, but definitely not least - Exit / industry sale is rarely an option. Companies with well over $50mn or $100mn revenues are still in high growth stages, and look to continue as independent entities far into the future Not many "Ceantech" companies were nominated - proof of the (still) early stage of most companies. This I'm sure will change in the coming years. According to the selection criteria, selecting the best entrepreneur is based on the business created, its success, leadership, financial performance, originality, coping with challanges, etc. I decided to include a few criteria of my own which helped separate a small number from the rest: The business model - how innovative is it, and how powerful / robust are the economics underlying the business How capital efficient is the company - specifically, how much money has been raised from investors per each $ of revenues (or each $ of profit) - and how much ownership has the entrepreneur (and the employees) been able to retain? How much personal risk has been undertaken by the entrepreneur (Its really amazing to see how many entrepreneurs have taken personal loans on their homes, put up personal financing for their business, worked without salary, etc) So the committee eventually selected one winner, which will be announced in mid November at the E&Y strategic growth forum (hosted by Jay Leno). Stay tuned Technorati Tags: E&Y Entrepreneur of the Year • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • A Jewish charity that helps delegitimize Israel :: FresnoZionism.org Read this article on the community site The world seems full of people and organizations who do their best to oppose the state of Israel. This is somewhat unique for such a small country. Compare, for example, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (which is actually a parliamentary democracy). OK, it is one-twelfth the size of Israel with about a half million inhabitants, but it is infinitely less controversial. Anyway, Israel has Hamas and Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, and most of the Arab and Muslim world aching for its demise; it has boycott and divestment movements throughout the world; and the United Nations and possibly hundreds of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) constantly beating up on it for alleged human rights violations. The NGOs, unlike Hamas, do not try to appear bloodthirsty. They aspire to represent civilization at its most highly evolved, altruistically helping the oppressed and disadvantaged. But in many cases they act as auxiliaries to the terrorist militias, chipping away at Israel's legitimacy and setting the stage for her physical destruction. Accusations of 'apartheid', exaggerated accounts of human rights violations, and ignoring the context of the continued terrorist war being waged against Israel are part and parcel of the 'Durban strategy' to delegitimize Israel and force it to make concessions — like total cession of the West Bank and accepting Palestinian 'refugees' — that would lead directly to the conversion of Israel into another Arab state. The Durban strategy (which refers to the 2001 Durban conference against racism which was turned into a anti-Israel hatefest by pro-Palestinian NGOs) is the political struggle, whose weapons are boycotts and divestment, public censure, legal action, and so on that works side by side with the military 'resistance' of Hamas and Hezbollah. The efforts complement one another. What is shocking is that in many cases the NGOs are funded by organizations like the EU or the UN which are theoretically opposed to aggression against legitimate nations. And what is even more infuriating is when they are funded by…Jewish charities. Take the New Israel Fund (NIF). In 2006-07, two NIF grantees entered Israel's national debate over a constitution with their own proposals: Adalah: The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, with its "Democratic Constitution," and the Mossawa Center's "An Equal Constitution For All?". These two groups propose a "binational" state that would couple an unlimited "right of return" for Palestinians with abolishing the Jewish Law of Return. Some Israeli Jews advocate a binational state, but the overwhelming majority of Israelis views it as tantamount to eliminating the state's Jewish character and adamantly opposes it. In addition, some NIF-Ford grantees weighed in on a third such proposal, the "Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel" which appears to oppose Israel being a Jewish state. In March 2007, eight groups that promote human rights for Israeli Arabs and Palestinians who live under Israeli occupation successfully petitioned the Israeli High Court of Justice against what it labeled the "Apartheid order" to create an "Apartheid road" on which Israeli police would restrict Palestinians from traveling in Israeli cars in the West Bank. The petition did not mention Israel's justification for the directive, which it said was to prevent the transport of possible terrorists. Seven of the petitioners were NIF grantees: Yesh Din, Bimkom, Machsom Watch, HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel. In March, The New York Times quoted a lawyer for the Association of Civil Rights in Israel — a flagship grantee of the NIF and a prime recipient of its funding — explaining, "There is already a separate legal system in the territories for Israelis and Palestinians … With the approval of separate roads, if it becomes a widespread policy, then the word for it will be 'apartheid.' " Adalah's April 2008 newsletter contains an article by the group's general-director, Hassan Jabareen, titled "The Israeli Regime of Hafradah (Separation in English and Apartheid in Afrikaans)." With no mention of Palestinian attacks, Jabareen alleges that Israel "aims to redefine the Jewishness of the state." Also in April, five Adalah board members joined an Israeli Arab delegation to South Africa in a visit the group itself portrayed as commiserating with fellow victims of apartheid. — JTA In addition to its solicitations to liberal Jews (I've received NIF literature, probably because of my membership in a Reform congregation), the NIF has received large grants from the Ford Foundation (a $20 million 5-year grant in 2003 which is being renewed this year). The Ford Foundation has a history of being associated with anti-Israel causes, having funded many of the NGOs at the 2001 Durban conference. The NIF, along with J Street, Tikkun, and other similar Jewish groups represent people of Jewish extraction who have set aside their Jewish identity — except perhaps for laughing at jokes about Ashkenazi Jewish-American food — and have found a different one based on principles of democracy, rule of law, human rights, fairness, tolerance, helping the disadvantaged, non-violence, peace, etc. All these are wonderful things, but their naive Jewish champions are being cynically exploited by those — like Hamas — who are extremely violent, intolerant and undemocratic. Technorati Tags: New Israel Fund, Israel, Ford Foundation • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • Is Hillary Replacing Biden? :: Yid With Lid Read this article on the community site Man I hope this is true, but I just can't believe it. This is from someone who SWEARS it is true. We have received information from sources high in the Democratic Party that , in a total desperation move, Hillary Rodham Clinton will replace the hapless Joe Biden as V-P candidate on the Obama ticket. I will send out more information on this in several minutes. Hillary Clinton has said that Barack Obama is not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. He hasn't grown any more qualified presumably in the past few weeks. As the saying goes, "It took a Republican to have the Obama Dems name a woman to the ticket. He supposedly got this from high ranking Democratic Party contacts. The one straw that broke "Joe Camel's" back was the fact that the Palin Effect is going to cost the Democrats many seats in the House and Congress. The Rassmussen Poll shows that the huge "generic Democrat" lead nationally in congressional races has disappeared. I believe this has been noted by the Democrats now likely to lose their seats. I believe the "transfer" of V-P roles probably will take place either tomorrow or Monday. Biden -- "health problems," you know -- will not be "sick enough" to drop out of his Senate race. He doesn't look any sicker than usual to me. UPDATE It sounds like focus group time, I just received this: about a week I will follow up on the Clinton V-P story. When it will happen is not certain, but it will. Apparently, Bill Clinton (and Obama came hat-in-hand to his office in Harlem) and BhO worked out a couple of possible approaches. Updates on this will be posted on http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/ Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list.Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com • Email to a friend • Related • JPost recycles the 'Sarah Palin's not good for the Jews' meme :: Israel Matzav Read this article on the community site Just a reminder that I'm in Boston, not Jerusalem, and the Sabbath does not start here for several more hours.Friday's JPost includes another set of Democratic talking points on why Sarah Palin was a bad choice for Vice President and how none of the Jews in the US are going to vote for McCain because of her. "Sarah Palin is helping a lot. Sarah Palin in seen as a right-wing evangelical [pick]," • Email to a friend • Related • Madam Secretary - A Secure Israel is a Condition for Peace :: Docstalk Read this article on the community site Eli E. Hertz A strong Israel is a vital asset to the free world and America. To be a strong and dependable friend in a 'rough neighborhood', Israel must have defensible borders and military prowess capable of addressing multiple challenges which can materialize suddenly in this unstable region. The conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Israelis is not the only adversary Israel faces. Historically, anti-Zionism has been the glue behind Arab nationalism. It has provided a convenient scapegoat for deflecting Arab states' frustration over unsolved domestic problems, but it also stems from a deep innate intolerance that exists throughout the Muslim world to any non-Muslim presence. Israel has no alternative but to remain strong enough to fend off the combined capabilities of all Arab states - a reality that leaves little room for risk-taking or margin for error. While indeed peace with the Palestinians is a core issue for both Israel and the Arab states, the scope of the conflict cannot be artificially minimized by ignoring that the Arab world as a whole continues to view Israel as a foreign irritant, an artificial, illegitimate and ultimately transitory entity which by hook or by crook, must ultimately be destroyed or disappear. Israel's security concerns are further exacerbated by its objectively small size, both geographically and demographically. Its tiny size makes Israel more vulnerable than a large country like the United States. This situation is further complicated by Israel's geopolitical proximity to the crucible of Arab terrorism. One must keep in mind that Israel is located in a region of the world where the strong prey on the weak. Even weak Arab states such as Lebanon, Jordan, and Kuwait are victimized by their Arab neighbors. The Middle East, with its patterns of despots, coups, assassinations, civil wars, revolutions and lack of respect for human life, resembles Europe during its own bloody centuries of nation building. Realistically, for the foreseeable future, little positive substantial change can be expected in this regard. The late Anwar Sadat, keenly aware of just how capricious the Middle East can be, laughed during an October 1980 interview with The New York Times remarking dryly: "Poor Menachem [Begin] ... I got back ... the Sinai and the Alma oil fields, and what has Menachem got? A piece of paper." Political upheaval in Arab lands will continue to threaten Israel's security. The magnitude and multiplicity of strategic threats it faces mean Israel must make its security assessments realistically based on a host of possibilities - to hope for the best but be prepared for worse case scenarios as well, and tie a secure future to far more than 'pieces of paper' sitting on a 'shelf.' Objectively, how vulnerable is Israel? In fact, it is almost impossible for non-Israelis to fathom Israel's size. To say that Israel is a tiny nation does not begin to describe the state's predicament. Slightly larger than the Canary Islands, more or less the size of the state of New Jersey, Israel fits into Lake Michigan with room to spare. Israel's pre-1967 borders - the borders Secretary Rice and the Palestinians want Israel to pull back to (in the 'first phase') - lacked rhyme or reason and reflect the deployment of Israeli and Arab forces when the 1948 armistice agreement for a ceasefire was signed. At one of the narrowest points in central Israel, the entire width of the state from the Mediterranean coastal town of Netanya to the Green Line is a mere nine miles - just about three times the length of John F. Kennedy Airport's runway (14,570 feet or 4,441 meters). If Israel would relinquish the foothills on the east side of the Green Line to Palestinian control, Ben-Gurion International Airport would be within range of shoulder-fired ground-to-air missiles, Katyusha rockets and mortars. The heart of Tel Aviv, Israel's New York City, is merely 11 miles from the West Bank 'as the crow flies.' In an interview with the German news paper Der Spiegel in November 1969, the late Israeli diplomat Abba Eban, a lifelong dove, described Israel's pre-Six-Day War borders as "Auschwitz' lines" that threaten Israel's survivability. IDF Major General (res.) Yaakov Amidror puts Eban's 'Auschwitz' metaphor in operational terms in regard to the West Bank. In a 2005 analysis of what 'defensible borders for a lasting peace' entail, Amidror explained that even from a technical standpoint, the Green Line lacks minimum 'defensive depth' - an overarching principle of military doctrine for all armies: There is insufficient battle space for a defensive force to redeploy after being attacked; there is no room for reserves to enter or counterattack; and there is no minimal distance between the battle front and the strategic interior necessary for any army to function. American military experts have recognized the importance of shoring up Israel's borders to provide some territorial depth. In a study published immediately after the 1967 Six Day War, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Earl Wheeler said that "the minimum required for Israel's defense includes most of the West Bank and the whole of Gaza and the Golan Heights." The study content was considered so explosive and contrary to State Department policy, it was classified "Top Secret" until the Wall Street Journal revealed its conclusions in 1983. The need for territorial depth has not decreased over time. U.S. Lt. General (ret.) Tom Kelly, who served as Chief of Operations during the 1991 Gulf War, said in the wake of the Gulf War: "I cannot defend this land (Israel) without that terrain (West Bank) ... The West Bank Mountains, and especially their five approaches, are the critical terrain. If an enemy secures those passes, Jerusalem and Israel become uncovered. Without the West Bank, Israel is only eight miles wide at its narrowest point. That makes it indefensible." This sentiment was echoed in the assessment of the late U.S. Admiral James Wilson "Bud" Nance, who told Congress in 1991 that there was: "... no logical reason for Israel to give up one inch of the disputed areas. Quite to the contrary, I believe if Israel were to move out of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it would increase instability and the possibility of war, increase the necessity for Israel to pre-empt in war and the possibility that nuclear weapons would be used to prevent an Israel loss, and increase the possibility that the U.S. would have to become involved in a war." The prospects of a new Arab state, a Palestinian state, on Israel's border have raised concern by U.S. policy makers, as well. Writing in Commentary in 1997, Douglas Feith, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, said such a state would give the Arab world "a much greater capacity than they now have to facilitate terrorism against Israel, conduct anti-Israel diplomacy, assist or join enemy armed forces in the event of war, and destabilize local states (such as Jordan) that cooperate with Israel." U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was even more candid, remarking in a talk with Pentagon employees in August 2002: "If you have a country that's a sliver and you can see three sides of it from a high hotel building, you've got to be careful what you give away and to whom you give it." . RSS 2.0: http://blogname.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss • Email to a friend • Related • This Week's Lighter Side :: The Jewish Press Blog Read this article on the community site A great majority of what gets posted on this blog has a serious political bent to it. In the interest of keeping things interesting, once a week we'll post something more lighthearted. From this week's issue of The Jewish Press: Cold Meat on a Shabbos Afternoon by Shmuel Tennenhaus "So much has been written about the Rubashkins, specifically the allegations made against their company. AgriProcessors has been filleted by writers, roasted by bloggers, and smoked by former employees. It's not my purpose here to defend the company against those allegations; I'll let the public-relations professionals and attorneys handle that. I merely wish to share my personal experiences with Rubashkin meat. In 1994 I was living at home, in Hallandale, Florida (a city about 30 minutes north of Miami) when it was decided I would go to a yeshiva out of town, as there were no Chabad yeshivas in the area. I informed my parents I wanted to study in a yeshiva in France because that's where my classmates in Miami were headed. That summer, we made all the necessary preparations. Since classes at the French yeshiva were taught in Yiddish, my parents hired a tutor to teach me the basics of the language -- basically, if someone is procrastinating, say "nuuuuu?" and if a miscreant pulls into a parking spot you had your eye on, mutter "aaaach!" Finally, it was time to depart. Swimming in my bar mitzvah black hat and wearing dark trousers with white socks, I was a real 14-year-old fashion plate that day at Miami International Airport. Spanish blared over the intercom with sporadic English announcements. I recall the pride in my father's eyes -- his eldest son was going away to yeshiva. My mother was also shepping nachas but would have preferred a school closer to home - somewhere, say, in Canada or New York. At the airport gate, my dad congregated with the fathers of my friends. I recall their discussing how when they went to yeshiva they had two pairs of pants, maybe three. Now their children insisted on ten pairs minimum -- some of them even cuffed! The French yeshiva was known for its rigorous learning. It was also notorious for its less than tasty food, which, to add insult to injury, was served in such tiny portions. (There's an oft-repeated story about a founding father of the yeshiva observing his students eating bread and butter and commenting, "I understand they want to eat bread and butter. But why does the butter have to be on the bread?") During my three-year stay, I often went to bed hungry. I survived on baguettes, which became as difficult to consume as they are to spell. Yes, I know Americans typically consider the baguette be a French delicacy. That's because they eat one every six months. Try living on it for thirty-six consecutive months, excluding Passover, without much else. Another thing: baguettes taste best when fresh. But as time passes - a week or so in the squalor of a yeshiva kitchen usually does the trick -- the bread turns coarse, rough, and barely edible. Things would have been much more bleak for my stomach had it not been for a small contingent of fellow students. Luckily, there were several Rubashkin boys among our ravenous group. Without fail, every Shabbos afternoon, during the day's customary third meal, the Rubashkin clan would bring out vacuum-packed rolls of smoked turkey and salami. Their spoils were graciously shared with all the other students. In addition, some savvy American students had managed to smuggle boxes of ketchup and mustard packets into the yeshiva, which enforced a strict ban against bringing in outside food. The condiments were considered contraband; we considered them essential to our Shabbos repast. We would take those wonderful slices of meat and a ketchup packet and create a sandwich on the always available baguette. This was the highlight of my Shabbos. The prayers were nice. A lighter study schedule was enjoyable. But those cold cuts were heaven on earth. The manna in the desert had nothing on the smoked meat the Rubashkins dispersed to the throngs of starving yeshiva students. (In fact, the wandering Jews complained to God about the manna, saying they'd prefer meat.) Incidentally, I also had the good fortune of rooming with a Schmerling from Switzerland. His family owned the large Zurich-based cheese and chocolate company. Shmerling had an insatiable appetite for crunchy peanut butter, which for some reason was not kosher back in the Swiss Alps. I, on the other hand, hailed from the United States, where kosher peanut butter was plentiful and abundant. On more than one occasion Shmerling and I engaged in barter: two bars of dark chocolate for one plastic jar of peanut butter, which had managed to remain intact despite traveling overseas in my duffle bag. Schmerling also had a weakness for cucumber and mayonnaise sandwiches. Naturally, he was adamant about using a particular brand of Swiss mayonnaise - one that, I kid you not, came in a tooth paste-type tube. Today Schmerling is a respected Chabad shaliach somewhere in Florida. For me, though, he'll always be that earnest young man meticulously applying mayonnaise from a toothpaste-type tube onto French bread. Getting back to the Rubashkins, I realize the immense company they built from scratch is under intense criticism from certain quarters. But I confess to harboring a most favorable bias when it comes to that family - a bias based on some very generous young Rubashkins sharing some very delicious cold meat with some very hungry fellow yeshiva students on some very long Shabbos afternoons." Shmuel (Shmuly) Tennenhaus is CEO of VanityKippah.com. He lives in Seattle, where he has developed an affinity for fish. • Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • New Thinking on the Palestinians :: Docstalk Read this article on the community site P. David Hornik FrontPageMagazine.com | 9/12/2008 "We support the vision of two democratic states living in peace and security: Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital, and Palestine. For that to become a reality, the Palestinian people must support leaders who reject terror, embrace the institutions and ethos of democracy, and respect the rule of law. We call on Arab governments throughout the region to help advance that goal Back in 2004 President Bush had those words introduced into the GOP platform. A source informs me that this year one delegate proposed striking those words from the platform, but the attempt got nowhere. It's unfortunate because, while some recent Israeli governments have indeed embraced that vision, it's by no means a consensus Israeli position. One Israeli who has now published a piece questioning the two-state principle is former chief of staff Moshe Yaalon, who is close to opposition leader and former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and thought likely to receive a post if Netanyahu forms another government. Given Israel's current political turmoil, that could happen sometime this year or next year. Yaalon's ideas are important, then, both because of his leadership potential and because he's a particularly deep thinker on these issues. To begin with, Yaalon points out, the notion of a "two-state solution" assumes that a state on part of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean is a Palestinian goal—when the whole historical record bears witness that it isn't. "Instead, from the dawn of Zionism to the present day, the Palestinian leadership has rejected every partition plan proposed, and has reacted violently to all political initiatives seeking a settlement along those lines." It happened most recently in 2000 when an Israeli-U.S. offer of a state to Yasser Arafat led, along with other factors, to the savage violence of the Second Intifada. The reason is not hard to find: "the rejection of Israel forms an integral part of the Palestinian ethos," and the real goal is not a state beside Israel but one in place of it—as abundantly expressed to this day in every Palestinian medium from mosque sermons to TV shows to schoolbooks to newspaper articles and cartoons. In Yaalon's view, Arafat's failure to create stable political institutions during his decade as president of the Palestinian Authority was not inevitable but, rather, deliberate, serving his objective of maintaining a condition of chaos that enabled his ongoing terror war against Israel. Likewise, Yaalon sees Arafat's successor Mahmoud Abbas's widely perceived "weakness" also as a deliberate strategy "designed to avoid the daunting task of Palestinian nation-building." Meanwhile many in the international community see the problem as economic and keep showering the PA with aid—even though "the Palestinians can[not] be forced to enjoy an improved economy and the fruits of prosperity while their own priorities remain entirely elsewhere." So, even though the PA has kept raking in billions of dollars in assistance since its creation in 1994, the Palestinian economic situation has sharply deteriorated in that time. Some of the costs, then, of blindly pursuing the two-state vision while ignoring the Palestinian reality emerge, and they're heavy costs. They include creating an entity with paramilitary forces that have murdered and maimed thousands of Israelis, and that has also soaked up huge amounts of wasted aid money while severely impoverishing its residents after the steady improvement they had experienced under Israeli "occupation." They also include the inculcation of a virulent, anti-Israeli, jihadist mentality in a whole generation of Palestinians. Still another cost stemmed from the Bush administration's pursuit of the "democracy" part of the vision, with its strong championing of PA elections leading to Hamas's win in January 2006 and eventual consolidation of its power in Gaza. Although the Fatah stream represented by Arafat and Abbas is no less committed to Israel's destruction, Hamas at present is more unified and energetic, and more closely tied to the world Islamist movement including especially the Iranian government. What could be done instead? Yaalon says the current "top-down strategy," where "we aimed to reach a…final settlement…with the Palestinian leadership, hoping that political reform among Palestinians would follow," needs to be replaced with a "bottom-up strategy" where "the PA first proves its ability to govern." That would entail "educational, law and order, security, economic and political reforms," with educational reform—meaning particularly an end to the anti-Israeli hate-education—as the key to all the others. Yaalon's suggested reform process "would not be dependent on any issue related to a final settlement," and during it "the IDF must continue to operate in the area in order to foil attacks against Israelis." The point would be to "see if the Palestinians are able to manage the autonomy that they [now] have," to "run their civil affairs and to govern themselves." Only if that worked out, first, could a "regional settlement" emerge that would "satisfy both parties." Yaalon's alternative vision is also optimistic in presuming that any autonomous Muslim-Arab society living in such close proximity to Israel could become peacefully disposed toward it. He also seems deliberately vague about what a "regional settlement" means and the Palestinians' ultimate political disposition. But Yaalon at least gets the order right and at last puts the onus on the Palestinians instead of their being, as he puts it earlier in the article, the "cause celebre of the international community" even as they conduct themselves barbarically. And what Yaalon says is a dose of fresh, reality-attendant thinking at a time when political establishments both in Israel and the U.S. have trouble seeing past tired formulas that have actually fostered only ruin and mayhem. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Tel Aviv. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com. RSS 2.0: http://blogname.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss • Email to a friend • Related • THE OTHER 9/11 STORY :: Docstalk Read this article on the community site Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online, September 11, 2008 Seven years ago we suffered the worst attack on the American homeland in our history. The material damage proved far greater than the 1814 British burning of Washington, the human losses more grievous than the almost 2,400 Americans lost at Pearl Harbor. Years later, we tend to forget all the dimensions of that sinister homicidal bombing of our institutions. Radical Islam brazenly signaled that it need not have missiles or sophisticated bombers to burn 16 acres in the heart of Manhattan and set the Pentagon afire. Instead, it could turn from the inside out our own technology against us, in a manner that we were scarcely aware of—and in an iconic fashion at the heart of our greatest cities, ensuring collective psychological trauma that trumped even the terrible loss in blood and treasure. Some bewildered Americans offered apologies that either the attacks were tit-for-tat payback for America's overreaching global presence, or—more preposterously still—that our record against Muslims incited such hatred. And so yet another cultural war broke out over the "causes" of 9/11. Only with difficulty were the American people reminded that we had, in fact, helped Muslims in Bosnia, and in Kosovo against European Christian Serbia, and in Somalia against gangs and thugs, and in Afghanistan against the Russians, and in Kuwait against Saddam, and that the record of the Chinese, or Indians, or Russians using force against Muslims was far more frequent and cruel than our own. Only with difficulty was the case made that the jihadists had no legitimate cause, but rather hated modernism, globalization, and Westernization….We forget now, seven years later, just how many scolded us, alleging (from the Right) that our liberalism and decadence, and our falling away from God, or (from the Left) our help to Israel, our overseas bases, and our need for oil caused 9/11, rather than the devilish hatred of bin Laden and the sick mind of Mohammed Atta and his ilk—emboldened by the hunch that America, as in the past, either could not or would not retaliate in serious fashion to serial terrorists attacks against its people and property.… Yet given the nature of the postmodern liberal West, the more we checked immigrants from the Middle East to ensure that there were no more wolves in sheep's clothing, and the more we monitored charities and mosques that had at times sponsored fringe Islamic hate groups, all the more we were pilloried as illiberal, as extremist on the defensive as the terrorists had been on the offensive. Thousands of hours were wasted refuting empty charges that a Timothy McVeigh's isolated terrorist attack in Oklahoma City was the moral or factual equivalent of years of constant Islamic terrorism, worldwide, that had killed thousands of innocents. The more we sought to prevent "another 9/11" through increased security, and the more therein we found success in preventing another attack, so too the more we faced yet another paradox: renewed security prompted a sense of complacence which in turn questioned the need for increased security in the first place. In short order, civil libertarians—enjoying the unforeseen hiatus from the promised repeated attacks—accused the administration of unduly terrifying the nation. And if they could not precisely explain to the American people how their daily lives were now stripped of constitutional protection, they nevertheless were able to charge, as the peace here at home continued, that our government police needed more policing than did Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Critics demanded an end to wiretaps, FISA protocols, Guantánamo, and the Patriot Act. Yet when a Democratic majority took over the Congress, there was a strange unwillingness to repeal such measures…. The question arose: Against whom, and when, and where, and how to hit back? Voices of doom answered that the Taliban's Afghanistan was not the al-Qaeda perpetrator, but rather the graveyard of both British and Russian imperial troops, given its peaks, snow, warlords, and tribal badlands. Yet within five months following 9/11, the Taliban and al-Qaeda alike were routed to Pakistan and a constitutional government was in place. And while the effort to pacify Afghanistan still continues, so does the constitutional government in Kabul, which is rebuilding the country rather than hiding out in the caves of Waziristan. It would be cruel to relate by name all those prominent Americans—including politicians, think-tankers, pundits, and military analysts—who felt once, and vehemently so, that the rogue and genocidal regime of Saddam Hussein—in violation of UN accords and 1991 armistice agreements, and the object of 12 years of no-fly zones—was an impediment to the need to change the conditions that had fostered 9/11. Yet suffice it to say that, when Iraq went from a brilliant three-week victory to someone else's flawed and bloody five-year occupation, almost no prior supporter of the need to remove Saddam could be found. It was not just that most changed their minds as the pulse of the battlefield changed; but rather that many prior supporters insidiously convinced themselves that in the now distant past they had never advocated such a supposedly preposterous war in the first place. Seven years later, hundreds of billions of dollars have been expended; over 4,000 Americans have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan; and America's preexisting cultural wounds have had their thin scabs torn off by acrimony over warring abroad and security at home. And yet herein lies the greatest paradox of all that followed from September 11. If no one on September 12, 2001 thought it possible that the United States would not be hit again by a terrorist attack of similar magnitude, here we are still free from a major terrorist assault over 2,500 days later. Bin Laden and Dr. Zawahiri are still hiding out in the caves of tribal Pakistan, in fear of daylight sorties by deadly American drones, but counting on safety from coalition ground attack through the auspices of their wink-and-nod—and nuclear—Islamic Pakistani hosts. The top cadres of al-Qaeda, nonetheless, are now either mostly dead, captured, or in hiding.… [P]olls reveal that Middle Eastern support for bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the tactic of suicide bombing are at an all-time low. Constitutional governments remain in power in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Al-Qaeda has suffered a terrible material and public-relations defeat in the heart of the ancient caliphate. While many rightly point to lapses in the conduct of the Iraq war, faulty intelligence, and wrongheaded emphasis on supposed arsenals of WMDs rather than the casus belli outlined in the 23 writs authorized by the Congress, few can answer a more existential question: Had we not met, defeated, and humiliated tens of thousands of jihadists on the battlefields of Iraq, where else might we have inflicted such a terrible defeat on our enemies—given the nuclear sanctuary of Pakistan, the bellicose governments of Iran and Syria, and the duplicity of the Gulf monarchies? And if we had not killed, captured, scattered, and turned our enemies abroad, how then might we have prevented them from coming back here to attack us at home? And are the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, as in the past, aiding anti-American terrorists, or helping to hunt them down? The truth is, we chased al-Qaeda from Iraq and Afghanistan and it is now in lunatic fashion chasing Danish cartoonists, European novelists, and opera producers as it cuts the fingers off smokers, tries to cover up the genitalia of animals, and looks for the mentally ill to strap on suicide belts.… George W. Bush is reviled, in part because of an inability to articulate what the war against terror was, and what it was for. But Bush hatred has been reduced to a sort of politically correct trinket, worn around the neck of the clannish critics as a reminder of the President's ineptness in expression or supposedly dangerous views—without examining what others might have done to achieve the same results of achieving freedom from further attack. But in years to come it may well be said that the president kept us safe for years when none thought he could, and removed the two most odious regimes in the Middle East and replaced them with the two best—and confronted a confident and ascendant radical Islam and left it demoralized and discredited among its own host Arab and Muslim constituents. In the present toxic environment, all of that is not to be spoken—but all that has nevertheless happened since September 11. _______________________________________ _http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/seven-years-after-12714 . RSS 2.0: http://blogname.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss • Email to a friend • Related • The Daily Kos: Beyond Outrage, Beneath Contempt :: RADARSITE Read this article on the community site "All this 9/11 worship is ghoulish and downright silly. Some Brit on b3ta.com is even making fun of our pompous charade." From Daily Kos.com Barack Obama at Yearly Kos Event ------------------------------------------------------------------ A note from Radarsite: This is funny? Or perhaps this man here -- is he funny? Maybe this lady here is what's so funny. My God. Can someone please explain this to me? Can anyone out there help me to understand how any American website, regardless of their political leanings, could find any justification, any justification whatsoever for publishing this cartoon? Can anyone describe for me the mentality of the British cartoonist who drew it? I won't waste my reader's valuable time waiting for answers. I do not want answers or explanations. But I will say this. This is purportedly a Democratic, liberal website. If any Democrat or liberal out there does not immediately and passionately condemn this post, and condemn this vicious traitorous website and everything it stands for, if any Democrat or liberal out there does not at once disassociate themselves from this horror, then you are indeed the enemy, and I hate you as vehemently as I do al Qaeda. Perhaps even more vehemently, because you have the arrogance to consider yourselves to be Americans. God help you. - rg Hat tip to Van Helsing at Stop The ACLU • Email to a friend • Related • Joe Biden is a Cheapskate: Doesn't Believe in Charity :: Yid With Lid Read this article on the community site Joe Biden is running on a ticket that talks about service and helping out the less fortunate. It seems that Biden isn't a real believer in the Democratic Platform. He just released ten years of Tax Returns and despite the fact that he has made between $210,432 - $321,379 in each of those years, except for last year when he donated $995 to charity, he has donated LESS THAN $400 dollars in each of those years. For comparison's sake the average person making over $200,000 gives over $20,000 in charitable donations. WAY TO SHOW YOU CARE JOE. The following is from the Tax Professor's Blog: Biden Releases 10 Years of Tax Returns .......the returns show that the Bidens have been amazingly tight-fisted when it comes to their charitable giving. Despite income ranging from $210,432 - $321,379 over the ten-year period, the Bidens have given only $120 - $995 per year to charity, which amounts to 0.06% - 0.31% of their income: It is jarring that a couple earning over $200,000 per year would give as little as $2 per week to charity. This giving compares very unfavorably to John McCain, whose tax returns show that he gave 27.3% - 28.6% of his income to charity in 2006-2007. During the same period, the Obamas' tax returns show that they gave 5.8% - 6.1% of their income to charity. Perhaps the Obama-Biden campaign needs a new slogan: "Change You Can Believe In (As Long As Someone Else Pays For It)" Update: Independent Sector reports that 89% of American households contribute to charity, with an average contribution of $1,620 -- 3.1% of income. IRS statistics reveal that the average taxpayer with AGI over $200,000 makes over $20,000 of charitable contributions: $15,000-$30,000 AGI: $1,916 average charitable deduction $30,000-$50,000 AGI: $2,158 average charitable deduction $50,000-$100,000 AGI: $2,703 average charitable deduction $100,000-$200,000 AGI: $4,057 average charitable deduction $200,000 or more of AGI: $20,434 average charitable deduction Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list.Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com • Email to a friend • Related • Can she get away with it? :: Israel Matzav Read this article on the community site After yesterday's Jacob Walles interview showed that foreign minister 'Tzipora' Livni has been 'secretly' negotiating away Jerusalem, her Kadima primary rival Shaul Mofaz went after her. Livni's chief rival in the upcoming Kadima primary, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, responded to the Walles interview by slamming Livni, saying she could no longer get away with not revealing whether she • Email to a friend • Related • Exciting JPC Forum in Aventura, FL on Sept 15 :: Jewish Policy Center Blog Read this article on the community site Don't miss the JPC's first forum of the fall, this Monday, September 15 at Aventura Turnberry Jewish Center. Celebrated radio host Michael Medved will moderate a spirited discussion with syndicated columnists Mona Charen and Cliff May, along with Commentary Magazine editor John Podhoretz. The panel will address vital policy issues of our time. Israel struggles for security amidst a sea of enemy states.Iranian leaders call for the annihilation of the Jewish state, and make no secret of their • Email to a friend • Related • Dare To Compare Israel To Canada? :: Canada's Israel Read this article on the community site by Karen Kloosterman Here is a picture of Canada. Compared to Canada, Israel's total length is less than the distance between Toronto and Montreal. Its territory is smaller than Vancouver Island and about the same size and shape of Lake Manitoba (see Israel marked in red). Maybe this is why

  ...

[Message clipped]