Monday, February 28, 2011


By Schmoel Yitzhak

While everyone and your Uncle Dudley is passing judgement on upheaval in the Arab world, approximately ninety-nine and forty-four one-hundreths of the so-called "experts" are completely missing the point.

But first, let's dismiss what's supposed to be the point; that the thundering rush to "democracy" in Arab countries will be beneficial to mankind.

Actually, no such democratic movements are unfolding but quite the opposite. The onrushing movement happens to feature the forceful annexing of assorted countries by militant Islamic forces.

You can count them on the fingers of one hand:

1. IRAN: Democracy was supposed to thrive after Jimmy Carter backstabbed The Shah. Some "democracy in Mullah-ville." Dissenters are cut down faster than ten-pins in a bowling alley.

2. LEBANON: Like the National Socialist (Nazi) Party in 1933 Germany, Hezbollah's private militia -- adjoining and coupled to the Lebanese army -- has intimidated all opponents by force and, in effect, runs the country, with guns.

3. GAZA: When confronted with opponents in the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Hamas goons simply tossed them off buildings and murdered them in other less wholesome fashion. Democracy in Gaza is as real as Looney Tunes.

4. SYRIA: Bashar-al-Assad is the prototypical dictator who would welcome democracy the way he would embrace the Bubonic Plague.

5. EGYPT: White House dreamers -- led by the empty-suit disguised as a president -- would lead us to believe that a genuine democracy will prevail in Cairo. Reality has proven that such a wonderful event never happens in the Arab world. What, in fact, soon will evolve is the emergence of Egypt's Israel-hating Muslim Brotherhood, another fanatic branch of militant Islam.

Given an opportunity to intervene against any of the above in order to produce a true, peace-loving democracy in either Tehran, Beirut or Gaza, Barack Obama has done nothing more than target Israel for building homes for its citizens.

The ludicrous American response to the Libyan massacres would border on hilarious were it not so pathetic.

As always, Uncle Sam's Secretary of Sloth, Hilary Rodham Clinton, spouts her cheery -- and sometimes not-so-cheery -- homilies about what should and should not be done to restore revolutionary decorum.

Her latest tirade included the suggestion that America actually might resort to force in order to once and for all depose of Libya's Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

That, of course, will never happen because the White House never seems to flex its muscles when it's supposed to do so. When the United States gets really serious about firing guns at the enemy, it's invariably the wrong foe and not the genuine troublemaker who feels the pain.

Anyone with a good chunk of reality in his or her brain knows that America under the chicken-hearted Muslim president never will confront -- head-on -- the real enemy which is Iran. And if ever there was an appropriate time to take arms against any Arab nation now is the moment and the obvious enemy is Iran.

You won't find any of the New York Times Obama-apologists dissecting the true problem. Fortunately, there are some journalists who get it and one happens to be Michael Slackman. His most recent article, "Arab unrest propels Iran as Saudi influence declines" is a clear-cut treatise about what's really happening. By rights it should open some eyes -- and minds -- at the White House but that would be too much to expect.

"The popular revolts shaking the Arab world have begun to shift the balance of power in the region, bolstering Iran's position while weakening and unnerving its rival, Saudi Arabia," notes Slackman.

"Iran has already benefitted from the ouster or undermining of Arab leaders who were its strong adversaries, and has begun to project its growing influence."

Bear in mind that Saudi Arabia has been America's staunch ally -- apart from the only pure democracy known as Israel -- in the Middle East. One would think that Obama understands that by shying away from a confrontation with Iran, he is undermining the Saudis. But his actions indicate a 180-degree turn from that reality.

With these facts in mind, what should Benjamin Netanyahu do on behalf of Israel?

Trust nobody; not Obama, not Clinton-of-the-forked tongue and certainly not any Arab leader.

What we have seen for decades is that Arab leaders invariably employ the Israeli-Palestinian battle as a "distraction from their own oppressive regimes." The quote comes directly from UK Prime Minister David Cameron.

More important is Barry Rubin's answer to Cameron. Director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal, Rubin never fails to understand the realities.

Rubin: "The problem is that it (the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation) is such a good distraction precisely because doing so is wildly popular with the Arab masses, who may well want more militancy than those governments are willing to provide."

My advice to Bibi is to be as pro-active as necessary to protect his citizens.

The "democratic" movement in Egypt already has resulted in a dangerous weapons-smuggling increase to bolster Hamas. Therefore, to halt the weapons-smuggling, Israel must re-take the strategic Philadelphi Corridor. No longer can Israel rely on the new Egyptian leaders to support the peace treaty.

"The Egyptian revolution removes the most powerful Arab country countering the Islamists (and Iran)," writes Rubin. "It will produce a new government that will not be allied to the U.S. but will work more closely with its enemies. Eventually, a revolutionary Islamist government may emerge."

If Barack Obama believes that such a turn of events will be beneficial to America, he is more addle-pated than I think he is and that's pretty bad.

Worse still, his thinking is inherently dangerous to the United States and a huge challenge to Israel.

Thursday, February 24, 2011


By Schmoel Yitzhak

If you didn't know better you could mistake The New York Times for a subsidiary of Al Jazeera.

The most conspicuous distinction between the two is that the Times is printed and Al Jazeera is broadcast over the airwaves.

Since its inception Al Jazeera has been an Arabic propaganda machine with a distinct prejudice against -- no surprise here -- Israel.

By contrast, The Times bias against the Jewish State generally is presented in more subtle forms and therefore is much more devious and dangerous.

This should come as no shock to anyone who has studied the New York newspaper's history.

Perhaps the most egregious example of Times' disdain for Jewish life occurred during World War II when revelations about the Holocaust-in-the-making filtered west to America.

Times' editors thought so much about the significance of such massacres that the Times' Holocaust story was buried far inside the newspaper in a conspicuously small sidebar.

In recent decades, relentlessly, The Times has become less and less articulate -- and much less emphatic -- when it comes to Israeli support.

As least when Bill Safire was writing a regular Times column, one could rely on Safire to express pro-Israel opinions, especially when it came to the Jewish nation's right to its self-defense.

But once Safire's column was removed, there was nobody left to support Israel at the Grey Lady. Thomas Friedman, the columnist with the Jewish-sounding name, writes as if he's receiving permanent grants from Saudi Arabia, the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas.

Even worse has been The Times bent since Democrats took over the White House.

Acting as if it is Barack Obama's personal public relations firm, The Times has supported every single anti-Israel move perpetrated by the Chief Executive; and Benjamin Netanyahu has learned, there have been plenty.

Any opportunity to bash Israel is exploited by The Times either on its editorial pages or the Op Ed (opinion) sheets where authors are carefully selected to support the newspaper's editorial policies which, naturally, coincide with Obama's.

Thus, it was no surprise that when the upheaval in Egyptian politics took place, the Muslim president reached out to the sworn enemy of President Hosni Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Really, it didn't seem to matter to America's leader that one of the Brotherhood's sworn objectives is the annihilation of the Middle East's only democracy, Israel.

Once The Times understood where Obama was coming from, the paper's publisher and editors fell into lockstep with the White House.

How did The Times do that? Much in the manner that Al Jazeera would. It opened its pages to the Jew-haters and began publishing apologists for the Muslim Brotherhood. These include Tariq Ramadan and Essam El-Errian who were given major space on the newspaper's op-ed page.

Not satisfied with that slap at Jews and Israel, The Times ran a "news" story depicting Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, Yusuf Qaradawi, as committed to pluralism and democracy.

If The Times thought it could get away with such editorial applesauce, it had another think coming. Thankfully, the Committee For Accuracy In Middle East Reporting In America (CAMERA) caught The Times with its plants down. Here's how CAMERA put it:

"Qaradawi is a virulent anti-semite who has called on Allah to wipe out the Jewish people. Moreover, he has worked to undermine the democratic principle of free speech by defending the Iranian fatwa calling for the death of writer Salman Rushdie and by promoting a day of rage against cartoons of Muhammed printed in Sweden and Denmark.

"The man (Qaradawi) has defended the practice of female genital mutillation and affirmed Muslim teachings calling for the death penalty to be applied to those who leave Islam and encourage others to do the same. There is no way anyone can honestly regard Qaradaw as committed to pluralism and democracy."

That is unless your name is Barack Obama who wants his country to work with the Muslim Brotherhood or your newspaper is the Western edition of Al Jazeera; alias The New York Times!

Wednesday, February 23, 2011


By Simon Fischler

This last month has been a tumultuous one for us here in Israel.

However, like all other months, it has been consistent in one area: Israel, as always, has born the brunt of constant criticism.

We watched as our “cold peace” neighbor Egypt overthrew long time U.S. and Israeli ally, President Hosni Mubarak.

We witnessed closely the ineptitude of the Obama administration’s Middle-Eastern policy as the administration failed to backup their longtime ally.

Let’s not get into the U.S.’ long and sordid history of making alliances with autocrats, tyrants and dictators; point was, they had an alliance they should have made some attempt to honor, in order to show the world that they stand by commitments. So, while they were too chicken to support an ally (whom they never really liked, anyway), they also couldn’t actively support the protestors.

There’s absolutely nothing like being wishy-washy and indecisive to make a good impression on your average militant Muslim. This, of course, means that another huge chunk of the U.S.’ reputation in the Middle East went bye-bye, along with Hosni.

We Israelis then were lectured for not doing enough to support Egyptians seeking the freedom and democracy we enjoy here in Israel, despite the fact that we were, in effect, simply honoring our “cold peace” with Egypt.

To all this criticism I have one name in response: Sheik Yusef Abdullah al-Qaradawi. This icon of Islamic hatred towards Israel and the West just returned to Egypt after a three- decade vacation, thanks to President Mubarak’s ouster.

At Friday prayers the Sheik, before one million Egyptians in Tahrir square, took it upon himself to blame Israel for Egypt’s problems and called for Israel’s destruction. Hey, what else is new?

If there is any more doubt as to why this little Friday sermon is ominous and bodes ill for Israel, just look up the return of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to Iran in 1979. That should clear everything up!

Last week Israeli friend Tony Blair told the world it needs to do more to recognize the culture of Islam if it wants to make things right in the Middle-East. While I appreciate what Tony has to say, he totally overlooks the fact that most Muslims, Islamic clerics, Arab Dictators and theocratic muslim leaders could care less what we think, or whether we understand the “culture of Islam.”

Mr. Blair is dead wrong; the West, Israel and America do not need to bow down to Islam. It is high time the world starts making Islam and the governments that tout this political (yes, that’s right; Islam is more a pure militant political movement than it ever has been a religion) movement recognize the rights of others.

It is high time that the Coptic Christians, in Egypt long before Islam arrived, get their rights fulfilled. It is high time the world demand that Arab and Muslim governments stop denying the Jewish Nation its right to statehood and self-determination. Same goes for Darfur, South Sudan and most of Africa which has been ruthlessly colonized by Arabs and Islam.

That is something Helen Thomas should take into consideration before she opens her mouth the next time. Helen, we Jews will pack up our bags and head to our homeland (not far for us to go being that Israel historically has been recognized as the homeland of the Jewish Nation)as soon she and the rest of the Arab Nation (if I’m not mistaken Ms. Thomas harks back to Lebanon) packs up and returns to the Sand Dunes of ARABIA.

In all seriousness, it is not a joke that media organizations like CNN are giving Helen Thomas a chance to explain herself. Or rather, it is a grotesque, monstrous joke.

Does David Duke get a chance to explain himself? No, because everyone knows he is a racist creep. The same should apply to Helen Thomas, but I guess as long as you bad mouth Israel and Jews (not even criticize), you’ll still get a second chance to explain yourself. Or maybe like Qaddafi, they’re giving her air time because, despite being quite mad (in her case probably because of senile dementia; Qaddafi has always been a psycho), she’s so old they have to respect her ranting?

Speaking of Muammar, did I forget to mention that Libya is sitting on the UN’s Human Right’s Council? That’s taking “know thy enemy” a bit far, don’t you think?

This little nugget of insanity should sum up the United Nations and why it should be disbanded and replaced with a better alternative. In the last week, Libyan forces have killed more than 600 of their own citizens peacefully protesting Qaddafi’s 42-year old dictatorship.

Muammar Qadaffi, you see, does not need to answer to “friends” like American President Barack Obama, as Hosni Mubarak did. So when he has his air-force drop bombs on those peacefully protesting his leadership, it is all good. Same goes for Iran and the Mullahs who have totally stamped out protests against their theocratic dictatorship.

I am sure somehow at the end of the day American President Barack Obama will find a way to foist all of his disastrous Mid-East policy failures on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel and the settlements in Judea and Samaria.

What I’m really curious about is how Israel is going to be blamed for the unrest in Yemen and Bahrain!

One last note. It is very nice that English Author Ian McEwan decided to ignore the calls for him to boycott Israel and came to accept the Jerusalem Prize for Freedom of the Individual in Society. Yet, upon receiving the prize, what does Mr. McEwan do but lambaste Israel for settlements and not giving a right of return to Arabs. Is he serious?

Are all these creative artistic minds so devoid of individual thought?

Why can’t someone like Ian McEwan do his homework and search for the truth here? Instead of a tired, old-hat blasting of the settlements, why does he not blast the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Nation for turning down statehood and peace not once, not twice but three times? Must he be a sheep and spout the cliched, anti-Israel rhetoric?

And this “right of return” B.S. is really growing tiresome. Is Islam going to give more than 900,000 Jews “right of return” to the likes of Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia and Libya ... plus reparations? Yeah, right.

Why is it Mr. McEwan doesn’t know that Israel grants hundreds of Palestinians citizenship every year under “family reunification” laws? As for a generic “right of return” for all Palestinians, McEwan should know better and never demand that Israel, the Jewish, democratic, nation/state commit national suicide.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011


By Schmoel Yitzhak

If Barack Obama and his Sweetheart of Sigma Chi Secretary of State are so fanatically opposed to Jews building in East Jerusalem or the West Bank, have they ever considered where else in the Middle East Jews can build a home? Apparently not.

Surely, Hilary Clinton knows that Jews are verboten in Saudi Arabia. They haven't got a chance in Gaza or Lebanon because neither Hamas nor Hezbollah want Jews in their midsts.

And, when you think about it, that truth holds for virtually every single country in the Arab world.

Which really doesn't leave much room other than in Israel; and that happens to include Jerusalem; East, West, North and South.

If you had listened to America's president you would get the idea that if American pressure had broken Benjamin Netanyahu on the "settlement" issue, peace would reign from Tunisia to Egypt; from Libya to Iran.

Over and over and over again -- like a kettle-drummer's beat on his tympani -- Uncle Sam's State Department stooges have repeated the "settlement-freeze-brings-peace" mantra as if it were as factual as the sun rising in the East.

It was a propaganda line that America's left-wing media sprinted with like the last runner in a relay race because the New York Times and Los Angeles Times -- among other faux newspaper -- desperately want the empty suit in the White House to succeed.

On precious few occasions do we find a deviation toward the Jewish side and only when the Arabs (Palestinians) commit such outrageous faux pas that even notorious
Israeli-bashers such as the Washington Post concede that the likes of Mahmoud Abbas are simply as phony as a three-dollar bill.

In a recent editorial, the Post slammed the Palestinian President for the fraud that he is and its headline says it all: ABBAS PROVES HE PREFERS POSTURING TO A PEACE PROCESS.

"Abbas," says the Post editorial, "has mostly refused to participate in the direct talks that Obama made one of his top foreign policy priorities."

The Post revelation isn't quite as sensational as the discovery of electricity because any fair-minded person with a knowledge of the Palestinian Authority knows that what Abbas -- along with Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian mullahs -- wants is the extermination of Israel. The Arabs differ only in the means to achieve this end.

Meanwhile, media types such as the Post are ever-so-slowly beginning to see the light and are fingering Abbas for his congenital lying. Exhibit A is oft-repeated promise of presidential elections.

"Abbas," the Post notes, "has failed to schedule overdue elections, including for his own post as president."

Should we be surprised? Not a bit.

Too slowly, the civilized world is wising up to the uncivilized behavior of militant Islam and even the less-militants such as the Saudis.

"The cesspool of human oppression in the Arab world has been opened for all to see," notes columnist David Suissa. "Don't you wish the Arab world had a modicum of Israel's civil society?"

This is the same State of Israel that stands out as a beacon boasting the only true democracy in the Middle East. Yet Uncle Sam's commander-in-chief has yet to set foot in the Jerusalem over which he fusses or Tel Aviv where he houses an Amertcan embassy that -- by rights -- should be in Israel's capital city.

While Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, et. al. erupt with protests, Obama remains totally without clue as to positive action. That has been his trademark dating back to the last Iranian uprising that begged for American intervention.

"In 2009, following Iran's rigged election," writes the Jerusalem Post's Sarah Honig, "thousands took to the streets in defiance of the theocracy that Jimmy Carter piteously enabled.

"As pro-democracy demonstrators were killed in Teheran and as its ayatollahs furthered their designs to arm themselves with nukes, the current leader of the free world (Obama) spared no effort to stress the need to downplay the Iranian fuss."

This is the same Obama who couldn't wait to stab Mubarak in the back after years of embracing him as America's partner.

This is the same Obama who -- in the Spring of 2010 -- picked a fight with Bibi over building houses in an existing Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem. These are homes that President George W. Bush conceded were established facts that must be respected.

As columnist Jonathan Tobin notes, America's commander-in-chief is willing "to treat 40-year-old Jewish neighborhoods in Israel's ancient capital as illegal settlements."

What is it with Obama and Secretary of State Clinton? Have they no sense of political fair play or is that the stupid question of the month?

Perhaps David Suissa has the best answer: "Maybe it's just easier to beat up on a free and open society like Israel."

This much is certain: Israel is the only free and open society where Jews can live because no Arab country would dare let them in; and that's a fact.

And while Libya burns and Egypt wrestles with a leadership quandary and the rest of the Arab world becomes restless, it become more and more apparent how utterly asinine the settlement-building fuss had become!

Wednesday, February 16, 2011


By Simon Fischler

HELLO, apparently everyone is too caught up with the protests in the Arab world to recognize the power moves Iran is carrying out at this very moment.

Two Iranian warships are steaming towards the Mediterranean Sea and Syria through the Suez Canal (courtesy of the new democratic Egypt). In Lebanon Sheik Hassan Nasrallah just announced that Hezbollah needs to be ready to LIBERATE the Galilee.

I think you know where this is going.

The Mullahs in Teheran may be crazy; they also might run their theocratic country ruthlessly, but they are not stupid.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs called the protests in Egypt “an Islamic Awakening.” Mistakenly they thought they had defeated their own opposition movement a year before with force far more brutal than anything done in Egypt. Then, just a few days after Mubarak’s resignation in Egypt, they woke up to find the streets of their country filled with protesters.

They do not intend to make the same mistake that their Arab enemy Mubarak made in Egypt. They also have a trump card President Mubarak never had: attacking Israel.

Sheik Nasrallah is always happy to abide by his masters’ commands and his Iranian rulers know that time is short. They need a war with Israel and they need it now.

They also presume that the uneducated masses in the Arab and Muslim world, along with a large portion of the virulently anti-Semitic far left will put everything aside, including their freedom to condemn Israel.

This attack, if and when it happens, will almost definitely come on the northern border of Israel with Lebanon.

Hezbollah will attempt to take over an Israeli town, thus “Conquering the Galilee”, holding it hostage and causing Israel a major embarrassment. This will also cause Israel to hit back in what the world inaccurately calls “disproportionate” force.

The Iranian warships will be more than willing to assist their Lebanese underlings and engage the Israeli Navy when it blockades Beirut. This of course will give Iran the ability to start unleashing its Shihab 3 missiles on Israel.

The Israeli government and the Israel Defense Forces must be ready for what might possibly be an immediate attack.

Tragically, once again Israel will have to defend herself, and if she prevails, she will again somehow become the scapegoat, the bad guy. Worst of all, in the process of simply surviving, she will aid the perfidious Iranians, Hezbollah and God knows who else in distracting their downtrodden, oppressed oppositions from the terrible reality existing within their own lands.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011


By Schmoel Yitzhak

It is amusing in a sardonic way to learn that Barack Obama is "furious" with Hillary Clinton over the manner in which her State Department has disagreed with the White House over the Egyptian political transition.

Then again, what did the president expect when he hired Mrs. Bill to run State?

Has the pseudo-Muslim president forgotten that Madame H spent more than a year verbally ripping Obie to shreds during the Democratic primaries?

Hillary never will recover from the manner in which she blew her chance at the Democratic nomination and the likelihood that she would have gained the presidency.

Thus, whenever the opportunity presents itself to fire a torpedo at her boss, she will -- and did.

Which explains why Uncle Sam's policy regarding the Egyptian turmoil appears to be a product of a pair of sixth-graders.

On the one hand, Clinton's lackeys at State blueprinted a scenario that would have allowed President Mubarak to remain in office so that there would be a slow, reasonably orderly Egyptian transition at the top if, in fact, Mubarak chose to resign.

Nay, nay, nay. The White House wanted Hosni out of there faster than you can say, "They don't know what the heck they're doing on Pennsylvania Avenue!"

Naturally, this kind of stuff could not be hermetically sealed from the public by the Chief Executive so -- sooner rather than later -- we learned that Vice President Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Robert Gates lined up with The Madame against the prez.

When Obie discovered Hillary's plan, he drafted the Democrats' clown prince -- no friend of Israel -- John Kerry who showed up on "Meet The Press" to reinforce the president's position. (It also inspired rumors that Kerry will next be Secretary of State.)

What this all means is that Uncle Sam -- more than ever -- has become the laughing stock of the Middle East, if not the lead hypocrite.

If the White House is so keen on nurturing democracy in Egypt, why hasn't Obama ripped the leaders of Saudi Arabia among other dictatorships in the area?

There's been the potential for an Egyptian-style revolution in Iran but the Administration has done everything possible to appease the Iranian mullahs and the nut case running the joint for them.

Then we have the pathetic picture of Hilary urging on the Teheran protesters about two years too late while Obama continues to do next to nothing to stimulate support for the anti-government group in Iran.

Funny, but I never hear a whisper out of the Dear One whenever Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his puppet threatens the only democracy in the Middle East with extinction.

Make no mistake, the upheaval in Egypt will do nothing to help either America nor Israel because the moderates will relentlessly be shoved aside by militant Islamics. it may not happen in a month but it will happen.

That's why I firmly believe political consultant George Birnbaum is on target when he warns about a domino-style collapse of moderate Arab regimes.

Sadly, no policy produced in either White House nor State Department policy so far suggests that America has a clue as to how the Middle East can be made safe for a genuine, Israeli-style democracy!


By Simon Fischler

American President Barack Obama will be remembered by historians as the American President who single handedly destroyed American foreign policy in the Middle-East.

For Israelis, Obama will be remembered as the American President who created the worst relationship with Israel -- even at times hostile towards Israel.

Obama will also be remembered by Israelis as the president who put their country back into the hostile waters of the Middle-East circa nineteen fifties.

President Obama’s Middle-Eastern policy has all but destroyed any chance for peace. The ineptitude of the Obama regime towards its allies has strengthened radical countries and organizations.

Today Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas are no longer afraid of the American paper tiger being guided by Obama and his administration.

These governments and organizations have been emboldened by Obama’s misguided, naive and weak Middle-Eastern policy.

Why shouldn’t these radical elements feel cocky?

They have seen American backed leaders fall from power with no help from Obama.

It was Palestinian top negotiator Saeb Erekat himself who said that with George W. Bush the radicals were at least afraid; with Obama they are laughing at him. One must also remember the Palestinian Authority leadership and people like Erekat were not fond of Bush. For Erekat to say such a thing is proof of how badly Obama has destroyed America’s image here in the Middle East.

Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri was left to the Hezbollah wolves when they staged an unlawful coup. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was tossed into the dust bin by Obama the second things got a little hot in the kitchen.

Not very reassuring for other American-backed allies, especially in a region where debts are usually paid in blood.

Is it not funny that Obama and his administration sat by, barely saying word, as freedom-seeking Iranians took the streets, putting their lives on the line, to fight the fraudulent reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

There were hundreds of thousands of Iranians risking their lives daily in a popular uprising; fighting the most oppressive of regimes, one that makes Mubarak’s Egypt look like Switzerland. This regime also happens to be America’s greatest enemy (which they apparently do not or refuse to recognize) and Obama did not lift a finger of support.

These same Iranians have defied their oppressive regime and taken to the streets once again and all Mrs. Clinton had to say was that the Iranian people should be allowed to protest. Nothing about how the Iranian regime should step aside for true democracy. Looks like it is better to be an enemy of the Obama administration than an ally.

Most Americans, especially those who voted for him, do not understand or refuse to understand that President Obama has put America and her allies in great danger.

As for Israel, there are analysts who believe the resignation of President Mubarak and the U.S.’ failure to stand by him take away Israel’s ability to strike Iran.

In fact it has done just the opposite.

Israelis and the Israeli government have no faith in Obama. They know they have no friend in the Oval office, no matter how many times Obama and Hilary Clinton talk about the supposedly unshakable bond between Israel and America. With the possibility of losing the safety of a peaceful Western border with Egypt, Israel is far more prone to act alone, that is preemptively against the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Now is the time for Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, before the citizens of Egypt get the chance to take away the peace treaty that has kept our two nations at peace.

It will take time for the Egyptian military and what is left of Egypt’s government to bring about true democratic elections. If the Egyptian military stands by its words and allows a democratic government to be elected, the peace treaty and its survival will depend solely on the citizens of Egypt. It is to be hoped they will chose a government that will abide by the treaty. As we saw in the past, when the Palestinians went to elections and voted Hamas into power, what we had hoped for was not the reality.

I doubt Israel will wait for this outcome; she cannot put the future of her citizens at risk.

So much for Peace, Mr. President.

Sunday, February 6, 2011


By Schmoel Yitzhak

If you had a dollar for every theory on Egypt's future, you just might be able to match the figures in President Hosni Mubarak's bank account which now total a few billion bucks.

Nobody in the Arab world knows precisely how the post-Mubarak Egypt will emerge because the variables are endless.

In Israel, it is a different story and I hope that Benjamin Netanyahu is aware of the choices.

The choices are, really, a take-off on the Hollywood comedy, "Dumb and Dumber." Only this time there's nothing amusing about the options.

My title would be "Bad and Bader."

Consider the two "favorites" to displace Mubarak -- Mohamed ElBaradei and Amr Moussa.

That pair of Arab "leaders" offer different platforms and divergent supporters but they share on common belief -- a hatred of Israel.

Determining which is the bigger phony is like making a dessert choice between cyanide and poison gas. No matter how you shake it, they're both death warmed over in a Brooks Brothers suit.

ElBaradei is cloaked in a few layers of pseudo-respectability. He is the former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

After all, he is a Nobel Peace laureate and if you believe in the Nobel Peace prize then you also believe in Dumbo, the flying elephant, and Pinocchio's ability to tell the truth without his nose becoming the size of a cane.

ElBaradei's other claim to "fame" -- better to call it infamy -- was his former position as the United Nations nuclear watchdog. Having ElBaradei insuring that Iran develop a peaceful nuclear program was roughly equivalent to appointing a wolf to guard the hen house.

Throughout his UN stint ElBaradei did just about everything to aid the iranian nuclear program short of providing Mullahs with America's atomic blueprints on a silver platter.

But the UN being the UN, ElBaradei's administration was allowed to move along on its perfidious path without meaningful challenge from either the European Union or any of the other self-styled "objective" world organizations so willing to tell Israel how to protect itself.

It's fascinating to note how ElBaradei suddenly assigned himself the title of "Egyptian opposition leader" since most insightful political observers report that he has virtually no following in Egypt where he has spent precious little time in recent years.

The man sure has connections because he wound up on NBC's Meet The Press on Sunday spewing the usual assortment of lies so easily accepted by the naive -- or is it stupid? -- American media.

ElBaradei's big lie was his assertion that Egypt's peace treaty with Israel was "rock solid" and would remain so no matter who succeeds Mubarak.

That reminds me of the Japanese ambassador to the United States at the White House on December 7, 1941 telling America's Secretary of State Cordell Hull that Nippon's relations with Uncle Sam are nothing but ginger-peachy. Meanwhile Emperor Hirohito's airplanes were bombing Pearl Harbor, destroying the U.S. fleet and killing thousands of Americans.

There's nothing cheaper than diplomatic talk.

Bibi surely knows better than to believe ElBaradei or any of the other Arab stooges jockeying for power in the wake of endless rioting in Cairo.

Stooge B happens to be Amr Moussa, the Arab League secretary, who becomes a potential Mubarak successor merely because of his cozy position with Arab diplomats.

Unfortunately, his friendship toward the only democracy in the Middle East could be defined as somewhat to the left of zero. Jerusalem will get no favors from Moussa.

Which brings us to the question: is there an Egyptian figure on whom Netanyahu can rely?

Could it possibly be Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman who -- in an attempt to save Egypt -- recently has met with opposition groups such as the officially banned Muslim Brotherhood?

If you believe in long, longshots, there's an outside chance that Suleiman might -- just might -- take a reasonable stance toward Israel. But reality tells me that the Brotherhood won't let that ever happen.

As a matter of fact, why should any Egyptian leader be expected to do Bibi any favors when you consider how perfidious the American administration has been?

One month Barack Obama is hugging Mubarak and the next month he's figuratively stabbing the beleaguered Egyptian leader in the back.

Then there's the America's Secretary of Defeat, Hilary Clinton, who now is cow-towing to the Muslim Brotherhood as if the MB is as peaceful as Costa Rica.

All the Muslim Brotherhood would like is to see Israel eliminated from the face of the earth -- same plank as Hamas and Hezbollah -- and now we see the ever-appeasing Clinton giving the Brotherhood a sisterly pat on the back.

A realistic, rational Israeli leader must understand that -- in terms of Egypt's eventual fate - Israel has no friend in the White house nor in Europe and certainly not in Cairo.

If Bibi is as insightful as I hope he is, Israel's policy should work from a worst-case scenario while fervently hoping for the best.

The reality of Cairo demands a realistic response in Jerusalem!

Tuesday, February 1, 2011


LOWKEY is an English born Iraqi Arab.

He also happens to be the glaring example of how twisted and sick Europe and Europeans have become in their appeasement to hostile, Arab, Muslim culture and acceptance of Anti-Israel, Anti-Semitism.

LOWKEY is nothing more than an agent of the BDS and ISM.

LOWKEY spends his time stealing American culture, then condemning it. Along with this he spends his time creating hate and anti-Semitism with lies under the falacy of freedom for Palestine.

His freedom for Palestine is the destruction of the Jewish Nation State, a racist and genocidal policy. In any normal place a person like this would have been booted off of the world stage, but today being a racist, anti-Semite gets you places.

One of his greatest and most ridiculous quotes was to say "Zionism is not about self-Determination."

Is it not amazing when an Arab, European, who has never even been to Israel or read anything about Zionism can tell us what our national movement is. This movement has created a Nation State that is eighty two percent Jewish with equal rights to the other minorities. It is not about self-Determination? That is just plane Hate and racism. To say Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism is to say the KKK is not racist and thanks to people like LOWKEY this point is very easy to make clear.



Lowkey, your style is off-key

Your rhymes sound like those of a deranged monkey.

I despise your lies and your fallacy of Palestine has been compromised.

Do not talk to me about to Zionism cause you know not what it is.

Your feeble mind tries to rob my nation of its self-determination.

You and the Arab/Palestinian Nation are the Segregationists.

You and your people are the true off-spring of Apartheid South Africa.

Your a Hater and you and your BDS and ISM peeps will never rob us of our freedom, Arab enslaver.

Israel is right, that is why we always win the fight.

You say Zionism is Racism, but only a Racist could say that.

In fact it is your nations ideals that are built on annihilating another peoples dreams of freedom.

It is the Jewish/Israeli Nation that originates, It is you and your Arab people that duplicate what we create.

It was the Laws of Moses and the Hebrew Nation that came before Mohammed and the Quran.

It was the Kingdom of Israel and the Provence of Judea long before anything called Palestine.

Look my little feeble minded friend Zionism was around long before Arab nationalism.

You got nothing on us.

Your hands are just as dirty with colonization as that of the White European. The enslaver of Africa is who you are.

Never talk to me of Palestine, it was your Grand Mufti who sat down with Hitler.

You and the Garbage you spit, make you sound like a five cent whore or a tuppence trick.

So take yourself, your fake rhymes and your fake history back to where you belong, the Dunes of Arabia.

Get out of Africa, hand it back to its people.

Before you try to preach freedom clean your up house, because it stinks from the excrement your nation creates.

Your arguments stink like a festering boil.

Your times up, and you’ve been smacked up.


By Schmoel Yitzhak

Once upon a time the genius of Israeli technology produced a fighter-bomber that was so special it was deemed the best in the world. It was called the Lavi and received world-wide critical acclaim.

Under normal conditions, an Israeli-designed airplane which passed all tests with flying colors would -- in reasonable time -- be produced and utilized in Israel by the country's own pilots.

Grimly, we have learned over the decades that simple logic does not apply when it comes to Israel's relations with its so-called allies; especially the United States of America.

In defiance of all reason, Uncle Sam said, "No, no, no -- a thousand times no; you can't build your own aircraft, you must buy your fighter-bombers from me."

And so rationality was tossed out the window and Israel -- against considerable pressure in Jerusalem -- caved in to Washington so that there could be more jobs for American aircraft workers.

Yes, Israel had an alternative move which would have involved more than a fair amount of chutzpuh.

That, of course, entailed telling the White House in no certain terms: "Hey, we appreciate why you want us to "Buy American," but this time it makes much, much much more sense for us to proceed with an Israeli plane for the Israeli Air Force.

No question, Uncle Sam would have responded with huffs and puffs, threats and more threats but you can bet that he would not have blown down Israelis house.

The outcome would have been a new, invigorating respect for Israel rooted in the fact that the Jewish State should be able to protect itself in as self-reliant a manner as possible. And what could be a more self-reliant move than to build the best fighter-bomber in the world for arguably the best air corps on the universe.

The moral then as it is more than ever now, is that timidity simply does not work.

It doesn't work in politics -- especially in the Middle East where Uncle Sam is fast becoming the laughing stock of militant Islam. (And, by the way, in which remote corner of the Earth isn't Islam militant?)

More to the point, volcanic events in Egypt must -- that is MUST -- change Israeli political thinking at the highest level.

When the Lavi project was scrapped after intense lobbying by the White House, Israel assumed that Washington would compensate for Uncle Sam's underhanded blow with enough materiel over enough years to protect the only democracy in the Middle East.

Perhaps it was a reasonable assumption at the time but events since the last presidential election harshly demonstrate that all bets are off when the time comes for Benjamin Netanyahu to depend on American support.

Since Barack Obama entered the White House support for Israel from his general staff has had all the substance of smoke rings flying in the air.

Think of it this way: as Obama begins planning for his re-election -- and he certainly has -- the Chief Executive has yet to visit what once was regarded as America's closest ally in the Middle East. In that regard, Obama treats Israel more in the manner that it does Pago-Pago or the island of Samoa.

This president, who is so fanatically concerned about "settlement-building" in the West Bank, hasn't found the time among his numerous continent-hops to check out Tel Aviv, let along Jerusalem.

Were he to suddenly land at Ben Gurion Airport tomorrow, I would urge a quick trip to Sderot and nearby communities which continue to be assaulted by assorted missiles fired from Gaza.

Obama will yell and scream about peaceful construction of "settlements" but I haven't heard so much of a peep about exploding grads being fired at innocent Israelis.

The assaults from Gaze must not go unpunished and by that I don't mean the token reprisal raids over munition-smuggling tunnels.

Hamas is being goaded into these attacks by its Iranian mentors not to mention the Islamic Brotherhood which soon will annex Egypt.

Bibi much act quickly and with sufficient force to once and for all quiet the mortars and rocket-launchers.

More important, the moment Islamic Brotherhood takes over Egypt and tears the Sadat-inspired peace treaty with Israel to shreds, the Israeli Army must move right back into the Sinai; and stay there until another treaty is signed.

Uncle Sam may not like that and when he huffs and puffs, Bibi should reply with one word, "Lavi!"

Should Obama make a fuss, Netanyahu should shoot back, "Once upon a time you loved us -- but that was long ago!"