Friday, 9 February 2018

The Obama Administration Collusion with Russia and Iran.

In the United States, as layers are peeled off disclosures of gross government abuses that are becoming criminal in nature, the name of Barack Obama is repeatedly being mentioned.

One would have to be either political naïve, or politically biased, not to suspect that the weaponization of the branches of his administration against his political rivals was rampant.

We saw clear signs of this with the IRS going after Obama’s conservative opponents. It is amazing how many computer malfunctions occurred in government agencies from the IRS to the FBI under an Obama Administration. These always resulted in the disappearance of correspondence, emails, and other recriminating documents that, when recovered under duress, showed clear cases of the misuse of power. 
According to Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
Jason Chaffetz, 24,000 emails were destroyed after coming under subpoena by the House Committee.   In the case of the IRS under Lois Lerner, their exposure pointed to the U.S. tax authority targeting and harassing political opponents and conservative NGOs.
In this case, President Obama tried to deflect the political nature of his IRS by blaming the corrupt management on “crummy legislation.”

But now, with the shocking revelations of criminal corruption at the highest level of the FBI and Department of Justice over the circumstances that led four judges of the secret FISA Court granting permits to spy on a political rival in the American presidential election, the finger is not only pointing at Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee but at Barack Obama, the man who occupied the Oval Office.

For those unfamiliar with the background, particularly those who follow the American mainstream media that studiously avoid reporting on the biggest scandal in American political history, here are the headline points;

A salacious and unverified dossier, prepared by a foreign agent, and paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign team, was presented by the FBI to the covert FISA Court for a warrant to spy on the Democrats political opponent.

When the FBI applied, four times, for warrants to spy on Trump associates they failed to inform the judge that the information was unverified and game from a foreign agent or that it had been paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign to spy on their political opponent.  The FBI has an obligation under law to preset verified information without withholding essential facts from the judge. Yet this is precisely what the did.

The scandalous report prepared by Christopher Steele included Russian Anti-Trump disinformation that positioned the presidential candidate frolicking naked in a Moscow hotel bedroom with Russian prostitutes and urinating on a bed once used by Obama. This dossier, prepared by a garbage collection agency, Fusion GPs, who pose as a commercial research and strategic intelligence firm based in Washington DC, was bought and paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign HQ to the tune of $12 million, to dig up dirt on Trump. Much of the information contained in this dossier was provided by Russian sources as part of a Russian disinformation campaign against presidential candidate, Donald Trump.  
Yet, for over the year, the Democrat-supporting media have been beating an empty drum of Trump collusion with the Russians when the collusion was coming from their side of the political divide.

New revelations of uninvestigated Democratic-Russian connections drip almost daily like drops of winter rain.

Adam Schiff, Democratic Deputy ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee was caught on tape responding to Russian pranksters pretending to have dirt on Trump including having naked pictures that Putin had been aware of.  Schiff’s response was “We will be back on touch with you to make arrangements. I appreciate you reaching out to us.” When his office was made aware of the hoax their excuse was that Schiff was suspicious of the call.

Then high ranking Democrat, Mark Warner, was exposed in negotiating with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch linked to organized crime to get access to the foreign agent, Christopher Steele. Instead of doing it openly and officially, Warner suggested having the meeting in London. As he texted the lobbyist, Adam Waldman with close ties to Russian oligarchs and the Clintons, in February 2017, “We want to do this right, private in London, don’t want to send a letter yet cuz if we can’t get an agreement, wud rather not have a paper trail.”  
Digging up dirt on a political opponent must be done covertly, even I you are a high ranking senator.

Carter William Page, an American petroleum industry consultant and, for a brief time, a minor adviser to the Trump election team, became the target of an FBI warrant to a FISA Court based on far-fetched allegations by the same foreign agent Steele who, among other falsehoods, accused him of engineering an unlikely deal in which Page would receive 12% of the value of the proposed sale of Russian petro giant, Rosneft, if the US lifted its anti-Russian sanction imposed after their incursions into the Ukraine. Such a charge was patently ridiculous. There was no guarantee that Trump would lift the sanctions or that a discredited Page would ever persuade Trump to do so. Also, the Rosneft sale would amount to more than $12 billion and the Kremlin, who described Page as “an idiot,” would never have trusted Page to complete such a deal.  When the Trump team learned that Page was under investigation by the FBI, they dropped him. After years of investigation by the FBI, Page has not been charged with any treasonous activity.

The shenanigans at the top of the FBI and DOJ are extraordinary. The revelations of intense communications between two illicit lovers, Peter Strzok, a top FBI investigator who not only worked to exonerate Hillary Clinton of clear criminal activities but was also one of the lead investigators in the Trump-Russian collusion farce, and Lisa Page, a top FBI lawyer and a key player in the anti-Trump probe, are mind-blowing.

The link between them is Andrew McCabe, the Deputy Director of the FBI who was forced to resign over the revelations. All three were Clinton sycophants who plotted to defy the will of the American people and attempt sedition to unseat an elected president, with what they called their “insurance policy” in what was considered the “unlikely” event that Trump was elected president.

The public is being entertained with the ongoing release of unclassified FBI documents and text messages between Strzok and Page that has sucked in other culprits in the criminalization of the intelligence agency.  One of the revelation has caught former President Obama in a lie, and maybe more.
In the spring of 2016, Obama was asked if the public could have confidence that his Administration would never tamper with any criminal investigation.  He answered that “I guarantee that there is no political interference in any investigation by the DOJ, FBI, in any case. Full stop. Period!”

Obama sounded definitive, but recently revealed documents show that this is blatantly false.

In one exchange between the FBI lovers, Lisa Page wrote on September 2, 2016, “POTUS (President of the United States) wants to know everything we’re doing.”

What the FBI was doing was spying on the opposition presidential campaign team based on warrant fraudulently obtained on a salacious and unverified dossier paid for by Obama’s DNC and the Clinton campaign team. A glaring case of political sedition.

And then, on February 7, 2018, another bombshell landed in the Senate Judiciary Committee and House Intelligence Committee meeting when an FBI-CIA whistle-blower gave explosive testimony on Russian criminal networks operating in the United States s they attempted to aid and sustain Iran’s covert nuclear industry when the Obama Administration approved the sale of 20% of American uranium mining rights to Russia. Uranium is used both for peaceful energy and for the less peaceful payload of a nuclear bomb.

The Obama Administration, according to the informant, knew that Putin wanted to get his hands on American uranium. They also knew that Russia was double dealing with Iran, and yet nine Obama agencies, led by Hillary Clinton in the State Department, went ahead and approved the deal.

One of the conditions of the agreement was that the uranium would remain within America, but they remained silent when it was exported first to Canada, then to Europe, and then to unknown destinations.

The informant, William Campbell, represented by lawyer, Victoria Toensing, testified because he was furious that the Russians were bragging of their relationships with the Clintons. He disclosed that when Bill Clinton travelled with a close friend to Kazakhstan, which ended up with mining rights there, it was a shoe-in to get the US deal with the Clintons help. This was enhanced with generous donations to the Clinton Foundation by all concerned. When Campbell asked one of his FBI contacts why the Obama Administration approved the Uranium One sale when the FBI knew that the Russian Rosatom group was engaged in criminal activities he was told, “It’s all politics!”

In truth it was all politics for Obama, and all money for the Clintons.

The history of liberty in America is strongly based on correct and ethical governmental procedure. When procedure is corrupted liberty is in peril.

The consequences for America when their intelligence and justice departments are weaponized for political purposes against a political opponent is anarchy and the death of democracy.

The question needs to be asked, are there going to be consequences for a corrupt political system aided by the FBI and the Department of Justices and abetted by a compliant and sycophantic media?

More deals will be forthcoming in the coming days and weeks. The final shoe to fall will be the report on the investigation being completed by Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. This report is expected to be delivered within sixty days, and it promises to be devastating.  

The consequences for Israel of an Obama-Clinton-Kerry uranium/nuclear collusion with Russia, and indirectly, but knowingly, Iran that has threatens our survival, could be fatal.

Barry Shaw is the Senior Associate for Public Diplomacy at the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.












Monday, 15 January 2018

Flags as a symbol of Jew hatred. Global Antisemitism and its causes.


Antisemitism in the Arab and Islamic world is a given. It is accepted as if there is little to be done against it. Even governments in countries that have signed peace agreements with Israel do little to quell the Jew hatred that infests their population. In many cases, political and religious officials continue to stoke the flames, blaming Jews and Israel for all the ills of the world to distract their people’s attention away from their own failures, or they do it openly to promote the global aims of Islam, which includes the destruction of the Jewish state. 
The denial of Jewish history and religion in Jerusalem, particularly the Temple and the Temple Mount and the City of David is all part of this political and religious desire for conquest over the Jews. It is as ancient and as modern as Islam itself. It is fed into children with their mother milk. It is bred into them in what they are taught in their schools. It is soaked into their brains and hearts in their mosques and in their media. 
When they migrate to Europe or to America they bring this baggage with them. When they enter college and university it is part of who they are as adults. When they graduate and become influence and opinion making professionals going into the media, politics, academia, community organizers, trade unionists, leaders of female, social, and human rights issues their anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is an integral part of their agenda. As for the losers, those whose lives remain miserable, whether in the land of their birth, or those who migrate to Europe and hold a grievance, many stroke out against the society in which they live and find the Jew or the Jewish state as the target to which they vent their rage. Some find glorification in it by dressing their violence in the cloak of Islam.

We do, however, expect much more of the Western world as we see a growth of antisemitism country by country. More often than not the local Jews are made to pay for the gathering hate against the Jewish state.

The Anti-Defamation League produced a report in November 2017 showing that an already high rate of anti-Semitic incidents in America in 2016 had risen by a further 67% in 2017. Both vandalism and harassment increased dramatically.
The ADL report only names one culprit – white supremacists, but it is clear by digging into the weeds that the main perpetrators leading the organized Jew-hatred in America, as in Europe and much of the Middle East, are Muslims supported by the radical left.
Take the American campus, for example.

The website of Canary Mission (https://canarymission.org/) is a good place to study the vehement antisemitism that is behind the anti-Israel boycott movement. 
The BDS Movement goes way beyond calling for a boycott against Israel. The ultimate aim of the BDS Movement, in all its forms, is the elimination of the Jewish state.

The in-depth research compiled by Canary Mission reveals that a huge proportion of the antisemitism linked to anti-Zionism on US campuses is being actively propagated and promoted by professors and students originating from Muslim countries, supported by radical far-left professors who make grossly false statements against Israel, often wandering into anti-Semitic stereotyping and rhetoric.

BDS professors who denigrate Israel in their classrooms are fully aware that the aim of BDS is not Palestinian human rights but, according to the words of BDS founder, Omar Barghouti, the elimination of the Jewish state. In his words, “We oppose a Jewish State.” This is confirmed by other top BDS activists. Ahmed Mor has said, “BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state.” And Assad Abu Khalil has said, “The real aim of BDS is to bring down the State of Israel.”

The Canary Mission website makes for compelling reading as a study into the depth of anti-Semitism linked to anti-Israel activism on American campuses.

The international media plays an important role in forcing governments to confront the growing public displays of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hate crimes and violence.

SWEDEN is a country with a sad record of how permissible anti-Israel activity has led to an uncontrollable anti-Semitism.

It took an international media outcry, led by the New York Times, for the Swedish government to appoint an anti-Semitism commissioner to look into the rising outbreaks of violent anti-Jewish attacks. This followed the torching of the Gothenburg synagogue and yet another Malmo anti-Israel demonstration in which mobs chanted slogans about killing Jews. Malmo which now has a growing Muslim population of over 20% has a growing anti-Jewish hate crime incidents.

It remains to be seen if the Swedish anti-Semitism czar is effective, or if it is merely a fig leaf to cover the embarrassment of international media exposure.

It took a social media video of a man carrying a Palestinian flag smashing the windows of a kosher restaurant in AMSTERDAM to cause embarrassment in Holland. 
The video showed Dutch policemen standing aside and watching the man commit his crimes. They only arrested him when he broke into the restaurant and began threatening the people inside. 
To the further embarrassment of the Dutch government and its legal system this man, a Syrian-Palestinian asylum seeker was freed from jail after two days to await trial not on anti-Semitism or hate crimes but on charges of vandalism and theft. Compare this to the case of a Dutch Jew, Michael Jacobs, who was held by police for a week because he carried an Israeli flag as he stood near an anti-Israel protest in Dam Square in Amsterdam.

Holland needs to change Dutch law and its application when dealing with anti-Semitic and anti-Israel incidents which are increasingly violent against Jewish and Jewish property. Frequently, these incidents are perpetrated by individuals and groups with a radical anti-Israel agenda.

Further proof that the far left lead the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, violence in Europe was evident in GREECE last December. It wasn’t the far right Golden Dawn members that vandalized the Israeli Embassy in Athens over the Christmas period. It was members of the far left Rubicon anarchist group who latched onto the Palestinian cause to express their Jew hatred by targeting the symbol of the collective Jew, Israel, when they daubed red paint on the embassy walls.

FRANCE is one European crucible where Muslim migrants are using deadly violence against Jews.  The name Halimi is synonymous with this murderous Muslim anti-Semitic hate.

In 2006, the barbarous and gruesome killing of young French Jew, Ilan Halimi, shocked France. Halimi was kidnapped and tortured over a thee week period by a gang of 28 Muslims known as ‘the Barbarians.’ French authorities refused to look on the Halimi case as a hate crime, despite the at-Semitic rants of the group’s leader, Yousouf Fofana, at his trial.

Following the murder of a Jewish teacher and three Jewish children in Toulouse in 2012 by Mohammad Merah, anti-Semitic crimes in France have greatly increased.

As an offshoot to the Charlie Hebdo terror attack in 2015, a French Muslim terrorist took people hostage in a kosher deli in Paris after killing four Jews. The terrorist was killed in a police shootout.

Three years later, as Jews assembled at the Hyper Casher in memory of the murdered Jews, arsonists burned down two Jewish supermarkets in the Paris district of Creteil where the population in increasingly Muslim and decreasingly Jewish.

In haunting replay of the Ilan Halimi murder, when a 66-year-old female Jewish doctor, Sarah Halimi, was brutally murdered in her Paris home by a 27-year-old Muslim man in April 2017, the police authorities again rejected the claim that this was a hate crime, despite the neighbors hearing him shout “Allahu Akbar” and recite Koranic verses as he murdered her.

In these two brutal murders, eight years apart, against French Jews named Halimi, the French authorities continued to face the awful reality the Jews are targeted for being Jews, despite the evidence.

French Prime Minister, Edouard Philippe, told a Jewish audience in December that “In our country, anti-Semitism is alive. It is not superficial, it is well-rooted and it is alive. And it hides always behind new masks.”   
This new mask is anti-Zionism, a disguise for Jew-hatred. And yet, the Prime Minister in January approved the publication of anti-Semitic essays by the author, Louis-Ferdinand Destouches, known in France as Celine, over the heavy objection of the French Jewish community leaders.  
“You cannot deny the writer’s central position in French literature,” Philippe said in defense of the publication by an anti-Semite.

There was an active boycott campaign to prevent the Israeli Habima theater company from performing a Hebrew version of ‘The Merchant of Venice’ at the Shakespeare Festival at the Globe Theater in LONDON in 2012. 
Caught up in the anti-Israel frenzy, Ben White, one of the boycott campaigners, posted a picture of Howard Jacobson, the English Jewish writer who was to win the Man Booker Prize for literature, on Twitter with the quotation, “If you need another reason to support a boycott of Habima, I present a massive picture of Howard Jacobson’s face.”
How quickly hatred of Israel degenerates into picking on the local Jew.

Jacobson responded with a statement that included, “I am aware that I look Jewish. Massively Jewish. I don’t know. Massively Jewish-looking. I don’t know. But Jewish, yes. So how does this fact bear on the proposed boycott? How does it constitute a reason to support it? What does the face betoken that it might strengthen people in their commitment to boycott an Israeli theater company?

I have addressed the subject of anti-Semitism in my novels and articles. I have warned about finding prejudice where there is none: and have often spoken of how little anti-Semitism I have faced in this country. I don’t go looking for it. I would rather not find it. But to see my appearance adduced as an argument to support a boycott of Habima convinced me that, on this occasion, anti-Semitism has found me.”

In BRITAIN today, the Jewish population is concerned over a potential Labour government as their country grapples with Brexit. The reason for their concern is that anti-Semitism is rampant within the ranks of the Labour Party at all levels. The headline of an article that appeared in the Jerusalem Post on September 29, 2017, screamed, “Antisemitism engulfs the British Labor Party.” 

At their annual conference, Israel was compared to the Nazis and there was a call to expel pro-Israel Jewish groups from a party in what was described “as a thinly veiled call to purge Jews from the Labour Party.”

This is the party led by Jeremy Corbyn, a leader who called Hamas and Hezbollah his friends. 


Anti-Semitism within the British Labour Party was described by the Tablet magazine as “a running sore in Labour politics, in part because of Corbyn’s own past statements and associations, and in part because he has attracted the fringe left, banished in the 1980s, back into the party.”

John Cryer, the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party admitted that he had seen anti-Semitic tweets from party members “that would make your hair stand on end.”

At a side event to the Labour Party annual conference called ‘Free Speech on Israel,’ speakers called for both the Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel to be “kicked out” of the party, accusing Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza. 
One speaker told the audience that Israel and Israelis should not be treated any differently to the Nazis. Other speakers refused to call Israel by name, preferring to refer to it as “the Zionist state.” 
A prominent Labourite, Tony Greenstein, who talked about “Zionist scum” was warmly applauded by the audience.

Wes Streeting, Labour MP for Ilford North, admits to the problem. “People say there is no anti-Semitism problem, but we have seen it there in black and white.”

An internal review into anti-Semitism within the party was considered by many as a whitewash for which the author, Shami Chakrabarti, was elevated to the House of Lords.

In a poll of British Jews conducted in August 2017, 80% said that the Labour Party was too tolerant of Antisemitism within its ranks. 65% said the British government did not do enough to protect its Jews.

Outside of politics, in London, at anti-Israel demonstrations, Hezbollah flags wave in the cold British air. Hezbollah, or what is neutrally called ‘the military wing’ of that Lebanese Islamic group, is designated as a terrorist organization that targets the Jewish state for annihilation, but they are accorded protection by Jeremy Corbyn who refers to them as his friend.  


Outside the American Embassy in London in December 2017, protesters screamed anti-Semitic chants as they demonstrated against the American decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

“Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” were heard as was the Arabic chant of “Khaybar. Khaybar, ya yahud! Jaish Muhammad, sa yahud!” which threatens the slaughter of Jews as executed by Muhammad against the Jews of Khaybar in the year 628.

This is permitted in the capital of Britain 1390 years later.

In SOUTH AFRICA, in November 2017 at a protest outside the Israeli Embassy against the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration recognizing the rights of the Jewish people to a national homeland in Palestine, one of the organizers, Julius Malema said, “We will always carry the flag. We know that what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is wrong.”

The protest was organized by one of the leading radical left-wing opposition parties.  But the flag that was flying at the demonstration was the Hezbollah flag that calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.

More than two thousand Christians travelling to this event in support of Israel had their buses turned away and in some cases impounded on the grounds that the anti-Jewish state protesters were “very aggressive and militant.”

In GERMANY, where pictures of Israeli flags being burned in Berlin and Stuttgart went viral, the President, sensitive to German history, came out to say that the burning of flags of the Jewish state in German towns “frightens and shames me.” He went on to say that “the German Federal Republic is only fully functional when Jews are fully at home in it.”

The German Justice Minister, Heiko Maas, was forced to say, “who burns Israeli flags burns our values.”

When the CDU parliamentary faction announced it was calling for a special commission to look into antisemitism it was, as Manfred Gerstenfeld wrote in the Jerusalem Post, “an admission that hate crimes against Jews are a significant problem” in Germany.

They have reason to be concerned. In the first half of 2017, 681 anti-Semitic offenses were recorded.  A German federal survey showed that 40% of Germans hold Israel related anti-Semitic views.

Volker Beck, a Green Party member of the Bundestag told Die Welt that he believed this figure “is much higher.”

Updated statistics are hard to come by, but in 2016 there were 1,468 anti-Semitic incidents in Germany and 2017 figures are certain to be higher. 62% of German Jews responded to a survey conducted by Bielefeld University by saying that they had experienced anti-Semitism in their everyday lives.

On a positive note, since Angela Merkl’s party passed a resolution in December 2016 calling the BDS Movement “anti-Semitic,” there has been a legal push back against BDS activism in Germany.

In August 2017, Frankfurt became the first German city to ban the “deeply anti-Semitic” BDS, as the deputy mayor, Uwe Becker, called them. Since then, Berlin and Munich quickly followed Frankfurt’s anti-BDS example.

In many places, particularly on campus, protests against, and the closing down of, pro-Israel speakers and events is permitted under free speech laws but, in VIENNA, we saw the reverse of such free speech activity.

Three pro-Israel activists were arrested and put on criminal charges for waving Israeli flags.

They did so in protest against anti-Semitic slogans being chanted at a demonstration against the American decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state. The charges against them read that the Israel supporters “showed an Israeli flag at a rally in an extremely provocative way and manner that was visible to participants at the rally and thereby produced considerable offense and provocation among the Palestinians protesters.”

One of the arrested flag wavers said, “My mother is an Israeli. Her family were Jewish refugees from Iraq and Libya. An Arab-speaking friend from Israel was able to translate some of the slogans yelled at the demonstration. For example, the Arab battle cry to massacre Jews “Jews! Remember Khybar. The army of Muhammad is returning!” and “Death to Israel!”
This activist, who gave his name as Matthias, said he heard shouts of “Intifada!” and “child-murdering Israel!”

Vice magazine posted a copy of the police notice with the criminal penalties for waving an Israeli flag which the notice said was “extremely reckless” and which “disturbed public order.”

Waving an Israeli flag at a protest in Vienna is considered a criminal offense but waving Palestinian and Turkish flags at a demonstration were not.

Matthias and his friends were attacked by the pro-Palestinian demonstrators. They were arrested but the violent demonstrators were allowed to return to their anti-Israel rally.

Matthias was seeking legal aid to appeal the penalties and criminal charges against him and his friends. It cannot be that Jew-hating chants at a rally are permitted, but Israeli flag waving protest against anti-Semitic outbursts results in criminal charges

There is much need for the establishment of legal groups in individual countries to fight against the rising tide of anti-Semitism through the application of existing and introduction of new laws.

Good work has been done by the Lawfare Project in the United States and others to set back BDS with the introduction of new laws at state and government level but much more needs to be done to protect Jewish and Israeli students on campuses against the hate crimes perpetrated against them that have been allowed to develop under the banner of “free speech.”

As South Carolina became the first state to codify the universal definition of anti-Semitism into law, Governor Henry McMaster said, “Anti-Semitism has no place in South Carolina, and the passage of this bill will go a long way toward ensuring that our state and its college campuses provide a welcoming environment for those from all walks of live.”

The governor was spot on. Passing such a law enables legal challenge to discrimination against Israelis and Jews whose speech is too often closed down on campuses sometime by violent protest. Discrimination and the prevention of free speech is at play here and the introduction of state anti-Semitism laws open the way for legal defense for the victims against the perpetrators.

In Great Britain, the voluntary group, UK Lawyers for Israel, have been amazingly effective in challenging anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish actions by applying existing laws against rising problem.

In SPAIN, after 50 municipalities passed laws endorsing BDS, the brilliant Angel Mas initiated ACOM and began a campaign to strip back BDS using the application of law. Over the past year, 24 rulings and injunctions have been brought against BDS in Spain thanks to litigation by ACOM and BDS motions have been defeated, repealed or suspended in a dozen Spanish municipalities.

Similar independent legal bodies are being established in Holland, Sweden, and South Africa. All these countries have become hotbeds of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate in which the Jewish population live in increasing fear.

The problem is a simple and obvious one. Anti-Semites who hate Jews can get their thrills by slamming the Jewish state. By calling themselves anti-Zionist they are allowed to get away with their anti-Semitism. It’s that simple.

David Hirsch, in his seminal book ‘Contemporary Left Antisemitism,’ called it this way. “Anti-Semites always pose as victims of the Jews, or of ‘Zionism,’ or of ‘the Israel lobby.’ And the claim that Jews try to silence criticism of Israel by mobilizing a dishonest accusation against them is now recognizable as one of the defining tropes of contemporary antisemitism.”

A perfect example of that is Linda Sarsour, as rabid a hater of the Jewish state as you can get. 
When she is recruited to address a Jewish anti-Israel gathering to protest that she is a defender of Jews you know you have a problem. You have a problem because, according to Sarsour, you cannot claim to be a feminist and support Israel at the same time. Being a believer in Israel, to her, makes you a racist and ipso facto you cannot be a feminist. 
And, if you are a Jewish supporter of Israel you become a Zionist and a racist and, therefore unkosher and unwelcome in her circle of intersectionality. 

Muslims, like Linda Sarsour, who want to see an end to the Jewish state, who are recruiting useful Jewish idiots to their cause, always play the victim card portraying Jews as their executioners. See Hirsch's description of them.

The Israeli government would be wise to invest money, manpower, and resources in support of volunteer groups and organizations who are defending Israel and the Jewish people from such dangerous attacks and harassment.

This report was compiled for the 2018 GFCA Conference on Anti-Semitism by
Barry Shaw,
Senior Associate for Public Diplomacy,
Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
Author of the book ‘Fighting Hamas, BDS, and Anti-Semitism.’



Sunday, 14 January 2018

A Letter from Golda Meir



Golda Meir sent a letter to the New York Time which was published on January 14, 1976, 42 years ago.

It makes for fascinating reading today


“Golda Meir, on the Palestinians”

By Golda Meir

The New York Times

January 14, 1976

To be misquoted is an occupational hazard of political leadership; for this reason I should like to clarify my position in regard to the Palestinian issue. I have been charged with being rigidly insensitive to the question of the Palestinian Arabs. In evidence of this I am supposed to have said, “There are no Palestinians.” My actual words were: “There is no Palestinian people. There are Palestinian refugees.” The distinction is not semantic. My statement was based on a lifetime of debates with Arab nationalists who vehemently excluded a separatist Palestinian Arab nationalism from their formulations.

When in 1921 I came to Palestine – until the end of World War I a barren, sparsely inhabited Turkish province – we, the Jewish pioneers, were the avowed Palestinians. So we were named in the world. Arab nationalists, on the other hand, stridently rejected the designation. Arab spokesmen continued to insist that the land we had cherished for centuries was, like Lebanon, merely a fragment of Syria. On the grounds that it dismembered an ideal unitary Arab state, they fought before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry and at the United Nations.

When the Arab historian Philip K. Hitti informed the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that “there is no such thing as Palestine in history,” it was left to David Ben-Gurion to stress the central role of Palestine in Jewish, if not Arab, history.

As late as May 1956, Ahmed Shukairy, subsequently head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, declared to the United Nations Security Council, “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.” In view of this, I believe I may be forgiven if I took Arab spokesmen at their word.

Until the 1960’s, attention was focused on the Arab refugees for whose plight the Arab states would allow no solution though many constructive and far-reaching proposals were made by Israel and the world community.

I repeatedly expressed my sympathy for the needless sufferings of refugees whose abnormal situation was created and exploited by the Arab states as a tactic in their campaign against Israel. However, refugee status could not indefinitely be maintained for the original 550,000 Arabs who in 1948 joined the exodus from the battle areas during the Arab attack on the new state of Israel.

When the refugee card began to wear thin, the Palestinian terrorist appeared on the scene flourishing not the arguable claims of displaced refugees but of a ghoulish nationalism that could only be sated on the corpse of Israel.

I repeat again. We dispossessed no Arabs. Our toil in the deserts and marshes of Palestine created more habitable living space for both Arab and Jew. Until 1948 the Arabs of Palestine multiplied and flourished as the direct result of Zionist settlement. Whatever subsequent ills befell the Arabs were the inevitable result of the Arab design to drive us into the sea. Had Israel not repelled her would-be destroyers there would have been no Jewish refugees alive in the Middle East to concern the world.

Now, two years after the surprise attack of the Yom Kippur War, I am well aware of the potency of Arab petrobillions and I have no illusions about the moral fiber of the United Nations, most of whose members hailed gun-toting Yasir Arafat and shamefully passed the anti-Semitic resolution that described Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, as racist.

But though Israel is small and beset, I am not prepared to accede to the easy formula that in the Arab-Israeli conflict we witness two equal contending rights that demand further “flexibility” from Israel. Justice was not violated when in the huge territories liberated by the Allies from the Sultan, 1 percent was set aside for the Jewish homeland on its ancestral site, while in a parallel settlement 99 percent of the area was allotted for the establishment of independent Arab states.

We successively accepted the truncation of Transjordan, three-fourths of the area of historic Palestine, and finally the painful compromise of the 1947 partition resolution in the hope for peace. Yet though Israel arose in only one-fifth of the territory originally assigned for the Jewish homeland, the Arabs invaded the young state.

I ask again, as I have often asked, why did the Arabs not set up a Palestine state in their portion instead of cannibalizing the country by Jordan’s seizure of the West Bank and Egypt’s capture of the Gaza Strip? And, since the question of the 1967 borders looms heavily in the present discussions, why did the Arabs converge upon us in June 1967, when the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Sinai, the Gaza Strip and old Jerusalem were in their hands?

These are not idle questions. They go to the heart of the matter – the Arab denial of Israel’s right to exist. This right is not subject to debate. That is why Israel cannot by its presence sanction the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization at the Security Council, a participation in direct violation of Resolutions 242 and 338.

We have no common language with exultant murderers of the innocent and with a terrorist movement ideologically committed to the liquidation of Jewish national independence.

At no point has the P.L.O. renounced its program for the “elimination of the Zionist entity.” With startling effrontery P.L.O. spokesmen admit that their proposed state on the West Bank would be merely a convenient “point of departure,” a tactical “first stage” and finally, a combatant “arsenal” strategically situated for the easier penetration of Israel.

I am often asked a hypothetical question: How would we react if the P.L.O. agreed to abandon its weapon, terror, and its goal, the destruction of Israel? The answer is simple. Any movement that forswore both its means and its end would by that fact become a different organization with a different leadership. There is no room for such speculation in the case of the P.L.O.

This does not mean that at this stage I disregard whatever national aspirations Palestinian Arabs have developed in recent years. However, these can be satisfied within the boundaries of historic Palestine.

The majority of the refugees never left Palestine; they are settled on the West Bank and in Jordan, the majority of whose population is Palestinian. Whatever nomenclature is used, both the people involved and the territory on which they live are Palestinian.

A mini-Palestine state, planted as a time bomb against Israel on the West Bank, would only serve as a focal point for the further exploitation of regional tensions by the Soviet Union.

But in a genuine peace settlement a viable Palestine-Jordan could flourish side by side with Israel within the original area of Mandatory Palestine.

On July 21, 1974, the Israeli Government passed the following resolution: “The peace will be founded on the existence of two independent states only – Israel, with united Jerusalem as its capital, and a Jordanian-Palestinian Arab state, east of Israel, within borders to be determined in negotiations between Israel and Jordan.”

All allied problems can be equitably solved. For this to happen the adversaries of Israel will have to stop devising overt schemes for her immediate or piecemeal extinction.

There are 21 Arab states, rich in oil, land and sovereignty. There is only one small state in which Jewish national independence has been dearly achieved. Surely it is not extravagant to demand that in the current power play the right of a small democracy to freedom and life not be betrayed.

Golda Meir was Prime Minister of Israel from February 1969 to June 1974.


Barry Shaw
Author of '1917. From Palestine to the Land of Israel' and the 2018 book 'Sarah's Story. A Tale of Love and Destiny.'


Friday, 15 December 2017

The Uranium One scandal and the implications for Israel.


Under the George W. Bush presidency, a tough line was taken against the Russian incursion into Georgia and Russian pressure on the Ukraine. Bush laid plans to create a missile-defense shield in Europe.
When Barack Obama became president, he and Hillary Clinton decided to reset relationships with the Kremlin. At the heart of the reset was what Newsweek called “a bevy of potential business deals[1]which included energy sources. This fitted nicely with Putin and the Kremlin’s ambitions to control much of the world’s nuclear market, including uranium stockpiles.
Rosatom, is the Russian State Atomic Nuclear Agency. It controls the Russian nuclear arsenal. It’s head, Sergei Kiriyenko, was Russia’s Prime Minister and its energy minister when Bill Clinton was President of the United States.
Rosatom not only built the Bushehr nuclear reactors in Iran, it also supplies them with uranium. Rosatom also operates in North Korea and Venezuela.
During Hillary Clinton’s term as Secretary of State, she received many diplomatic cables outlining Moscow’s nuclear ambitions. For example, in 2009, she received a classified cables informing her of Rosatom’s plans to impose “a zone of pressure” on Eastern European governments for supplies to the Kremlin-linked nuclear agency, particularly Ukraine and the Kazakhstan uranium market.[2] The cables also mentioned that the Russian military intelligence were involved in these plans.
In June 2009, Rosatom bought a 17% stake in the Canadian Uranium One company which had projects in Wyoming, Utah, Texas, and South Dakota.
In December of 2009, Kiriyenko told a meeting of the Russian presidium of Rosatom’s aggressive plans and President Putin agreed that the Russian government would provide the money for Rosatom’s equity capital to buy American uranium.[3]
This was happening at the time that Hillary Clinton was directing negotiations with the Russian government for civilian nuclear energy. As the State Department explained it, the 123 agreement, as it was called, “would support commercial interests by allowing US and Russian firms to team up more easily in joint ventures,” and in March 2010 Hillary was in Moscow meeting with Putin. By then, Putin had set in motion the purchase of a controlling interest in Uranium One by Rosatom.
By May of 2010, when Secretary of State Clinton brought the proposed text of the US-Russian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement to Congress, Rosatom was ready to become the majority controller of Uranium One.
While this process was taking place, Ian Telfer, the chairman of Uranium One, began donating large sums into the Clinton Foundation, through a Canadian entity called the Fernwood Foundation. According to records released by the Clinton Foundation, Telfer had contributed sums of $100,001 to $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation but, according to Canadian tax records, Ferndale Foundation donated more than two million dollars to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State.
The Clinton Foundation’s public disclosures did not list Fernwood as a donor but between 2009 and 2011 Fernwood contributed over two million dollars to the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, named after the Clintons and Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining tycoon that flew Bull Clinton around the world on his private jet to make connections for his mining projects.[4] They were dressed up as projects of the Clinton Foundation to foster economic growth in the developing world but almost all concentrated on projects such as mines and oilfields in which Giustra was invested. According to Canadian tax records, almost all the funds CGSCI collected were transferred directly to the Clinton Foundation.[5]
The fact that these donations were not listed in Clinton Foundation’s public disclosures was an infringement of the memorandum of understanding with the Obama White House and contradicts Mrs. Clinton’s written statements to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Other Russian uranium advisors and agents were multi-million-dollar contributors to the Foundation.[6]
The ties between business and politics are often blurred but there is sufficient evidence that Putin directly ordered acquisitions that were approved by the Russian Presidium.  This is important when one considers the destination and use of uranium.
Several senior congressmen, including Peter King, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Spencer Bachus, and Howard McKeon, were troubled by Rosatom’s activities for United States national security interests. They pointed to Rosatom helping to build the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran as “raising red flags.” They wrote, “We believe the take-over of essential US nuclear resources by a government-owned Russian agency…would not advance the national security interests of the United States.”
Congressman Ed Markey pushed a bill in Congress said, “Russia continues to train Iranian nuclear physicists and supplies sensitive nuclear technology to Iran.”[7]
Faced with this opposition, Uranium One offered concessions. It did not have an export license that allowed it to export or ship uranium out of the United States. Supporters of the deal argued that, without an export license, it was unlikely that American uranium would end up in Iranian reactors or laboratories.
Despite these concerns, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States approved the Russian purchase of Uranium One. CFIUS is an elusive executive task force that evaluates any investment transactions that might have an effect on American national security. The Secretary of States tends to chair such meetings that includes other senior cabinet officials and intelligence heads. The approval of the Uranium One deal for American uranium assets did not discuss global markets as it assumed the material would remain within America.
Concerns soon grew about “a growing nexus in Russian and Eurasian states among governments, organized crime, intelligence services and big business figures.”[8]  In 2010, Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence warned Congress of “bribery, fraud, violence, and corrupt alliances with state actors to gain the upper hand against legitimate businesses.”[9]
Amidst this background, a small Canadian investment company named Salida Capital became intimately involved with the Clinton Foundation. Salida Capital was identified as a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear agency.
According to Canadian tax records, Salida Capital received an anonymous donation of $3.3 million into its charitable foundation, the Salida Capital Foundation, and it began to pump large sums of money into the Clinton Foundation that amounted to almost three million dollars in less than two years.[10]
Salida Capital also began sponsoring speeches by Bill Clinton. Why would Rosatom, a Russian state nuclear agency, not known for philanthropy, begin funneling vast sums of money into the Clinton Foundation at a time when it was pushing for influence in obtaining America’s uranium assets?  And why would Rosatom begin paying Bill Clinton $500,000 for speaking fees via Salida Capital at a time they were chasing US government approval for the sale of American uranium? His fee rage at that was between $150,000 to $185,000. The timing, and the amount of monies given to the Clintons, raises serious questions.
Bill Clinton hadn’t given a speech in Moscow for five years. Suddenly, at the time that Rosatom was attempting to take over America’s uranium stockpile, he was invited to speak the for half a million dollars by a Cypriot registered company called Renaissance Capital. This firm is top heady with former Russian intelligence officers with close ties to Putin, according to Peter Schweizer in his book “Clinton Cash.”
Hillary Clinton, who had been a hawk in opposing US strategic assets to foreign governments reversed herself and allowed the Russian purchase of Uranium One which was approved on October 22, 2010 by CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. The result was that Uranium One and half of the projected American uranium assets were transferred to a private company controlled by the Russian State Nuclear Agency. Although the Russians said they intended to own just 50% of the company, today it owns the company outright.
The Russian purchase of a large share of America’s uranium stockpile raised serious national security concerns for the very reasons that Mrs. Clinton had rejected previous deals. The question needs to be asked why $145 million was transferred into her Foundation or her Initiative fund, and her husband’s radically increased speaking fees were “pay to play’ for her decision to advance the Russian deal?  As Peter Schweizer points out in his book, based on State Department ethics documents as of 2016 she never revealed these transactions to her colleagues, the Obama White House, or to Capitol Hill.
If Secretary Clinton did not disclose the ties between Uranium One executives and the Clinton Foundation to members of CFIUS she may have violated the terms of the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding that she signed with the Obama Administration designed to avoid conflicts of interests between her role and decisions as Secretary of State and donations to her Clinton Foundation. She may also have violated government rules on ethical conduct.
In September 2013, the presidents of Russia and Iran, Putin and Rouhani, announced that “Tehran and Moscow will cooperate in the future construction of a second nuclear power plant at Bushehr.”[11]
Despite assurances to Congress that no uranium would leave the United States, and despite Rosatom not having an export license, a shipment of yellow-cake uranium - material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons – was sent to Canada followed by shipments to Europe and from there to unknown locations between 2012 and 2014.
On January 9, 2017, the National Post reported that the Obama Administration had approved the Russian shipment of a huge shipment of uranium to Iran on the assurance that Iran had no interest in weapons.[12]
Under the much criticized Iran nuclear deal, inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) cannot be performed in Iranian military facilities.[13] Although, IAEA inspectors can check civilian facilities such as Bushehr and Fordow, they are prevented from inspecting suspect activities in the Parchin military complex. The last time inspectors were allowed there was in 2015 where they reported finding amounts of uranium. It is suspected that this facility is one of the off-limits Iranian military sites in which nuclear weapons research and testing, using uranium, is taking place.
Ali Akhbar Salehi, one of Iran’s vice presidents, boasted that Iran could have enriched uranium within five days if President Trump reneged on Obama’s nuclear deal, according to a report in the Independent newspaper on August 22, 2017.[14] How would this be possible if the Iranian’s did not have processed yellow-cake illegally? And where did that yellow cake come from?
What a sad epilogue it would be if the nuclear missile that Iran may launch at Israel contains American uranium sold to the Russians by the Obama-Clinton Administration via the Uranium One deal.
Barry Shaw is the Senior Associate for Public Diplomacy at the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
He is the author of '1917. From Palestine to the Land of Israel.'

https://www.amazon.com/1917-Palestine-Land-Israel-extraordinary/dp/154230010X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1513357281&sr=1-1&keywords=1917.+from+palestine+to+the+land+of+israel



[10] “Clinton Cash.” Peter Schweizer. Page50.