THE TRUE-STATE SOLUTION Daniel J. Arbess WALL STREET JOURNAL Jan. 2, 2019 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-true-state-solution-11546473263 Follow the map the British drew in 1922, which put Arab and Jewish Palestine across the Jordan River. The Trump administration has offered tantalizing clues about its forthcoming “Deal of the Century” for Mideast peace. It could be a bold new concept—replacing the failed “two-state solution” with a Jordan-Israel confederacy, in which Jordan would be recognized as the Palestinian state. Call it the true-state solution. Palestinians have always been the majority in Jordan, though they haven’t been treated as such since its creation as a British-appointed Hashemite monarchy in 1921. The true-state solution would enfranchise the Palestinians. Jordan would extend citizenship to, and assume administrative responsibility for, Arabs now living on the West Bank of the Jordan River—including the cities of Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and Jericho—which would be Israeli territory. West Bank Jordanians could receive financial support to relocate across the river to Jordan itself if they wish, or remain as permanent residents (but not citizens) of Israel. Israelis would be free to live anywhere west of the Jordan River. Variations of this “Jordan option” have received increasing attention across the region in recent years. Why would King Abdullah II accept such an arrangement? To be blunt, it would be his best option. His rule—and his family’s security and fortune—already teeters under pressure of regional migration and domestic Palestinian discontent. The king’s acquiescence—or possibly U.S.-guided abdication—would probably buy his family’s protection. Trump administration officials have promised their plan will take advantage of Israel’s recent unprecedented collaboration with its Arab neighbors and other developments that suggest “things can be done today that were previously unthinkable,” as then-Ambassador Nikki Haley said last month. The administration promises a new approach based on practical realities. Start with a truthful foundation of history. Britain inherited all of present-day Jordan and Israel when the Ottoman Empire dissolved after World War I. The Palestinian Mandate of 1922 divided the area into Arab Palestine (Transjordan), comprising 78% of the territory, and Jewish Palestine (Israel), the remaining 22%. Britain later tried to accommodate Arab opposition by further dividing Israel’s 22% in what became the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947. The Jewish Agency for Palestine immediately accepted that plan. But when the General Assembly passed the resolution recognizing Israel’s independence, the Arab states immediately launched a war, which squandered the Partition Plan’s window for an Arab state on the West Bank. Jordan, encouraged by Britain, annexed the West Bank in 1950—a move the Arab League bitterly opposed and almost no state recognized. That arguably left Israel with the legal right under the original British Mandate to claim sovereignty over the entire 22% of Palestine outside modern Jordan. Israel’s claim was further consolidated by its victory in the 1967 war. Jordan later disavowed its claim on the West Bank and severed administrative ties in 1988, leaving the status of its former citizens further in limbo. Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization had tried to win Palestinian control of Jordan, repeatedly attempting to assassinate King Hussein in the 1960s. After the PLO was evicted to Syria by Jordanian troops in “Black September” 1970, the PLO’s narrative shifted entirely to painting Israel as the Palestinians’ “occupier.” Despite underwriting a two-state settlement in the 1993 Oslo Accords, Arafat’s launching of the second intifada seven years later revealed that the PLO’s paramount goal was still rejection and delegitimation of Israel, not coexistence. West Bank Palestinians have been fortunate to remain in territory under Israeli protection and administration since the 1967 war. They have been unwanted by the Hashemite Kingdom or other Arab nations—then and since. Little wonder that polls suggest a large majority of West Bank Palestinians would prefer life in Israel to being governed by the Palestinian Authority. They seek normal lives, jobs they can travel to and other basic human liberties. This would be possible with a Palestinian role in Jordan’s leadership that not only accepts the Jewish state’s legitimacy and mutual security responsibilities with Israel, as the Hashemite Kingdom already does, but also restores the Palestinians’ Jordanian citizenship and coordinates with Israel in civilly administering the West Bank. There are Palestinians who would support such a move. Mudar Zahran, 45, is a Jordanian Palestinian who describes himself leader of the Jordanian Opposition Coalition. He lives in Britain under asylum, having been convicted in 2014 in absentia for “inciting hatred against the regime, sectarian strife and insulting the king as well as security services” to show for it. Mr. Zahran told the European Parliament in September that what holds back the Palestinian people from enjoying Israel’s economic prosperity is the corruption of the Palestinian Authority and the Hashemite family’s exploitation of Jordan’s Palestinian majority. “Let our people go,” he implored, “both peoples, Jordanians and Israelis.” A true-state solution would let them end the futile refrain of resisting and defending and get on pursuing common interests as they have been for decades in Jerusalem’s Old City. A Palestinian capital in Amman would have no use for the Palestinian Authority, much less its corrupt, illegitimate and unpopular leaders and their incitement. Would King Abdullah make room for more-representative governance in Jordan? Or might some forward-looking Palestinian emerge, with U.S., Israeli and Arab support, to advance his citizens’ economic prospects and human rights? And what about Gaza? U.S. officials have said they see that as a separate problem and its resolution as a prerequisite for success. It seems logical that Palestinians there could also enjoy a confederacy option, with either Jordan or Egypt. The true-state solution would be innovative and elegant—worthy of “Deal of the Century” designation. If it materializes, Barack Obama will ironically deserve some of the credit. His cultivation of Iran’s Ayatollahs stimulated the Arab states’ recent cooperation with Israel. And Donald Trump will have proved instrumental in helping Israel fully attain its potential as a “light unto nations,” for all its cultures and inhabitants—Christians, Druze, Muslims and Jews—and as a beacon of democracy, prosperity, peace and stability in the Middle East and beyond. Mr. Arbess is CEO of Xerion Investments.

ANTISEMITIC, RACIST, AND ANTI-ISRAEL: JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE HITS THE TRIFECTA https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/01/31/antisemitic-racist-and-anti-israel-jewish-voice-for-peace-hits-the-trifecta/?utm_content=blog1&utm_medium=daily_email&utm_campaign=email&utm_source=internal/ Mitchell Bard Algemeiner 1-31-19 Members of extreme anti-Zionist group Jewish Voice for Peace. Photo: NGO Monitor. According to its website, “Jewish Voice for Peace [JVP] is guided by a vision of justice, equality and freedom for all people. We unequivocally oppose Zionism because it is counter to those ideals.” In rationalizing this position, JVP displays arrogance, myopia, paternalism, and disregard for facts and history. Its positions are not just anti-Israel, but racist and antisemitic. That very first sentence quoted above from JVP’s “Our Approach to Zionism” page misrepresents Zionism. The definition of Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people are a nation entitled to self-determination in their homeland, which is Israel. It says nothing specifically about justice, equality, and freedom; but in its ultimate expression, namely, the State of Israel, it provides all of these to its citizens (and non-citizen residents). JVP lies when it claims that Israeli Jews have more rights than others, and that Zionism is a “settler-colonial movement.” All citizens, Jews and non-Jews, have equal rights under Israeli law. The canard that Zionists are colonialists is popular with the extreme left, which misuses the word to tar Israel. Colonialism means living by exploiting others, but the Zionists did not return to their homeland for that purpose. As philosopher Martin Buber explained: Our settlers do not come here as do the colonists from the Occident to have natives do their work for them; they themselves set their shoulders to the plow and they spend their strength and their blood to make the land fruitful. But it is not only for ourselves that we desire its fertility. The Jewish farmers have begun to teach their brothers, the Arab farmers, to cultivate the land more intensively; we desire to teach them further: together with them we want to cultivate the land — to “serve” it, as the Hebrew has it. The more fertile this soil becomes, the more space there will be for us and for them. We have no desire to dispossess them: we want to live with them. This is the true application of Zionism, not the tortured misrepresentation peddled by JVP. It is also a lie to say that Zionism was based on the idea of a “land without a people.” Palestine was not empty prior to the birth of the Zionist movement, but neither was it teeming with people — as photos and eyewitnesses easily prove. Moreover, the influx of Arabs to Palestine — who subsequently called themselves Palestinians — was driven in part by the desire to benefit from the social and economic advances produced by the Jewish community. Zionists were well aware of the existing population, and expected that Arabs would be included in a Jewish state. And that is precisely what happened when Palestinians who remained in Israel during the 1948 war were given citizenship. Further turning history on its head, JVP speciously claims that “Palestinian dispossession and occupation were by design.” The group knows that it was the Palestinians under the Mufti and, later, Arafat, Abbas, and Hamas who believed that the Jews have no place in their homeland. The current plight of the Palestinians is not a result of a Zionist plot; rather, it is the direct consequence of the Arab states trying to drive the Jews into the sea. JVP neglects to mention the occupation of the West Bank by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt, during which time the Palestinians never demanded a state. Had Jordan and Egypt not attacked Israel, the Palestinians would still be living under this occupation, and no one would be talking about a two-state solution with their Arab neighbors. Similarly, JVP overlooks decades of Palestinian terrorism directed at Jews in Israel and around the world. Instead, JVP blames Zionism for teaching Jews to “treat our neighbors with suspicion.” Conveniently, JVP forgets that Zionists withdrew from 40 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip, and that these concessions prompted more terror. JVP is also uninterested in abuses against Palestinians by their fellow Palestinians and other Arabs. Instead of condemning Palestinian violations of human rights, and Palestinian terrorism and glorification of murderers, JVP is “humbled by the vibrance, resilience, and steadfastness of Palestinian life, culture, and organizing.” JVP’s idea of a Palestinian icon is Rasmea Odeh, a member of the terrorist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who was convicted of the murder of two Jewish students in the bombing of a Jerusalem supermarket. JVP invited her as a guest of honor to its 2017 national meeting. That year, the United States stripped Odeh of American citizenship and deported her after she admitted to lying about her past on her citizenship application. Contrary to JVP’s claims about her innocence, US officials reported that “other admitted participants in the bombings named Odeh as the person who chose the supermarket as a target, scouted the location and placed the bomb.” JVP’s moral contortions are used to justify its support for the antisemitic boycott against Israel. The BDS movement’s raison d’etre is the destruction of Israel, and its proponents discriminate against Jews by asserting that only Palestinians have a right to self-determination. JVP presumes to speak for Jews, but 134 major international Jewish organizations representing a broad cross-section of Jewish religious and political opinion oppose BDS. If there is any doubt about JVP’s interest in the destruction of Israel, one need only read their position on Palestinian refugees. They falsely state that the 1948 war (started by the invasion of five Arab armies) resulted in “millions of Palestinian refugees.” They ignore the causes of their flight, which included the expectation that the Jews would be driven into the sea, and they would return to their homes and take over those of the Jews. JVP exclusively blames Israel and paternalistically relieves Palestinians of any responsibility for their actions. JVP’s support of the boycott is well known, but JVP had concealed its racism until now. “Jewish people of color,” JVP asserts, have “long been subjected to discrimination and violence by the Israeli government.” Are they referring to the thousands of Ethiopian Jews whose ardent Zionism sustained them for decades before they were rescued by the Israeli government? A coalition of Sephardi and Mizrahi groups issued a statement rejecting JVP’s perversion of their experience “as a driving force of their anti-Zionism.” The majority of Jews from Middle Eastern and African countries live in Israel, and “continue to identify as Zionist,” the statement said, and JVP’s position “perpetuates a history of racist exclusion where Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews are spoken for and spoken over.” Arabs sometimes spuriously claim they cannot be antisemitic because they are Semites. Similarly, members of JVP cannot hide behind their Jewish background to evade the conclusion that their views are antisemitic, racist, and promote hatred and intolerance against the Jews of Israel. Mitchell Bard, Executive Director of AICE and Jewish Virtual Library, has written 24 books including The Arab Lobby, Death to the Infidels: Radical Islam’s War Against the Jews, and After Anatevka: Tevye in Palestine.

REPORT: CHINA, RUSSIA, OTHERS DEVELOPING SUPER-EMP BOMBS

REPORT: CHINA, RUSSIA, OTHERS DEVELOPING SUPER-EMP BOMBS https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/emp-attack-electromagnetic-pulse-nuclear-weapons/2019/01/24/id/899705/?ns_mail_uid=3ad9e824-f245-4f23-a61f-efd18c731702&ns_mail_job=DM13884_01262019&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010502nj7f7o A new Congressional report claims China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran are making nuclear bombs powerful enough to create super-electromagnetic pulse (EMP) waves that can destroy electronics over wide swaths of land. According to The Washington Free Beacon, the countries have nuclear EMP weapons built into their military plans. "Nuclear EMP attack is part of the military doctrines, plans, and exercises of Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran for a revolutionary new way of warfare against military forces and civilian critical infrastructures by cyber, sabotage, and EMP," reads the report from the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from EMP Attack. "This new way of warfare is called many things by many nations: In Russia, China, and Iran it is called Sixth Generation Warfare, Non-Contact Warfare, Electronic Warfare, Total Information Warfare, and Cyber Warfare." The nuclear bombs being developed, according to the report, could take out all electronics, ranging from computers and cell phones to entire electric grids, over several hundred miles. The EMP attacks would involve detonating nuclear weapons far above the ground, which would then send EMP pulses to the Earth and knock offline all electronics in their path. "A single nuclear weapon can potentially make an EMP attack against a target the size of North America," the report reads. "Any nuclear weapon detonated at an altitude of 30 kilometers or higher will generate a potentially catastrophic EMP."

HERE IS THE DEFINITIVE TIMELINE FOR THE COVINGTON CATHOLIC RUN IN AT THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL This is compelling, complete account of what actually happened. it is also an indictment of the media which created the frenzied atmosphere and false account which crucified the innocent high school students . It was Friday afternoon at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Three separate groups would clash, but only one would take the blame: a group of predominantly white kids (some wearing red MAGA hats), a group of Native Americans, and some black street preachers. Now in today’s media and social climate, just based off of that description… who do you think would wind up getting assigned the blame? And the reasonable answer should be, after watching a 60-second video of a kid smiling at a Native American banging a drum in his face, is… I’ve got NO CLUE what the heck that was. Sixty seconds doesn’t provide a whole lot of context. Here is the rest of the story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1470&v=da1Wy4O2shc

WHAT IF THE FBI HAD PROBED OBAMA?

WHAT IF THE FBI HAD PROBED OBAMA? Lee Smith Jan. 23, 2019 https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-if-the-fbi-had-probed-obama-11548287966?emailToken=0cf1d599ad774bc59d34fed020f8a81fZNVZ3aW/jUO+avbyjbdwtPPqpqa7QgdaqaxSmPvZTWf+TUhNpNFNR643XhpqePin+LNlafpiI1t3mlj+iEVWvg%3D%3D&reflink=article_gmail_share By the bureau’s Trump standard, he looked like an agent of Iran. Counterintelligence agents would have examined the target’s personal and professional networks. The FBI investigated at least four Trump campaign figures for supposed ties to Russia. Only one, Mike Flynn, worked in the administration, and for less than a month. The Obama administration had a few senior officials with personal ties to Iran. Obama confidant Valerie Jarrett was born in the Iranian city of Shiraz and reportedly led back-channel talks with the Iranians in 2012. Secretary of State John Kerry’s daughter quashed right-wing rumors that her Iranian-American husband’s best man was the son of Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. But under the FBI’s Trump procedures, that denial might have made her suspect. A month after Trump adviser Carter Page publicly asked then-Director James Comey for an interview to clear his name, the FBI obtained a warrant to wiretap him. As Mr. Trump’s desire for improved relations with Russia raised eyebrows at the bureau, a 2008 article written by John Brennan—who went on to serve as White House counterterrorism adviser and Central Intelligence Agency director—advocated a grand bargain with Iran. In 2009 the Obama White House conducted secret negotiations with Tehran. Mr. Obama later sidelined Project Cassandra, an investigation of illicit trafficking networks employed by Hezbollah, Iran’s Lebanese franchise. Launched in 2008, the investigation was run by a multiagency task force, including the FBI itself. Then for 18 months in 2014-15, the Obama White House gave the Iranians $700 million a month in sanctions relief. In January 2016, Mr. Obama sent Iran another $1.7 billion in cash. The administration also had a habit of leaking news of Israeli strikes on Iranian arms convoys and depots in Syria. All these Obama actions are easily explained: Inducing Iran to sign a nuclear agreement was the former president’s top foreign-policy priority. I believe this pro-Iran policy was disastrous. But it wasn’t collusion or treason or any of the other crimes of which Democrats and their media allies have accused Mr. Trump. The FBI’s suspicions about Mr. Trump’s relationship with the Kremlin were reportedly piqued by, among other things, a May 2017 television interview in which he said he fired Mr. Comey for the “Russia thing.” He’s also staged a series of brazenly public events where he professed his hopes of warmer ties with Vladimir Putin. Like Mr. Obama’s pro-Iran policies, Mr. Trump’s hope for better relations with Russia was anything but clandestine. Yet critics of the Russia investigations are wrong to suggest the attacks on the president and his associates reflect the increasing tendency to criminalize policy differences. It has nothing to do with policy, for Mr. Trump’s Russia policy has been as hard-line as that of any post-Cold War administration, including Mr. Obama’s. The FBI’s motive for investigating Mr. Trump looks more like pure politics. Mr. Smith is a media columnist for Tablet magazine..

PragerU Content Silenced Once Again!

PragerU Content Silenced Once Again! BREAKING: After only a few weeks of advertising PragerU content on Spotify, they have made the decision to "stop all existing ads and not approve any new ads coming through in the future." We still have not received any explanation from Spotify as to which specific policy we didn't comply with. Given the ongoing pattern of censorship of conservative voices online, it's clear that we are being silenced because we have a conservative point of view. Here is the email we received from Spotify: [Photo of the email notification from Spotify was reproduced – – – it is nonspecific and gives no reason for their summary decision. We can only conclude that Dennis Prager is 100% correct. This is part of a campaign to suppress conservative voices. As a nonpartisan, nonpolitical, publication we find that any attempt to to the supress free speech is also an attempt to amplify anti-Israel and anti-Jewish materials. Thus we joined in publicizing the situation as being completely unacceptable to the spirit of American democracy, under which the Jewish community has thrived. ] We will not back down from this latest attempt to silence our ideas and we will continue to fight back! We can't do this alone. Join us NOW and become a critical piece in this fight by donating today. Every day, PragerU is changing culture with online content that teaches the values that make America the freest and most prosperous nation on earth. Millions of Americans are watching our videos, and minds are changing. We cannot let that stop. The Left knows how effective we are. That's why they want to censor us. PragerU continues to fight online suppression of conservative ideas. Over the past year, we have led the charge in bringing public awareness to the issue of online censorship. Our case has been mentioned in nearly every article on the issue, and has been covered by several media giants, including the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and Buzzfeed. Over 500,000 Americans have signed our online petition urging Google and YouTube to end its censorship of conservative ideas. Our goal is to reach 1 million signatures by the time we meet Google in court. We need your support now more than ever. Please consider making a donation today.

Some words of wisdom… Today we feature Dr. Harold Brackman

Some words of wisdom… Today we feature Dr. Harold Brackman “For millennia, we Jews have prayed ‘Next Year in Jerusalem.’ Now, Jerusalem is ours to defend. We are not going to give it up to appease the war weariness of young Jewish Americans who have never seen battle — except on their video game consoles. Winning a Rockefeller Foundation grant as agents provocateur on behalf of Palestinian empowerment, INN has proven instead to be made up of humorless pranksters further eroding Israeli confidence in peace. They should not be taken seriously.” Historian Harold Brackman is co-author with Ephraim Isaac of From Abraham to Obama: A History of Jews, Africans, and African Americans (Africa World Press, 2015).

RESCUING JEWS, DESPITE FDR

by Rafael Medoff

(Dr. Rafael Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and the author of The Jews Should Keep Quiet: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and the Holocaust, forthcoming from The Jewish Publication Society in 2019.)

As published by the History News Network - January 22, 2019

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/170942

It was a sight unlike any ever seen in the nation’s capital.

More than four hundred rabbis, “most of them with shrub-shaped beards, many in silky cloaks with thick velvet collars” (as Time magazine put it) marched to the White House just before Yom Kippur in 1943. They wanted to present President Franklin D. Roosevelt with a petition asking him to establish a government agency to rescue Jews from the Nazis.

FDR decided to snub the rabbis. He refused to meet with them or receive their petition for mercy. He even left the White House through a rear exit to avoid being seen by the rabbis. And he tried to block a subsequent Congressional resolution calling for creation of a rescue agency. 

But four months later, on January 22, 1944 —75 years ago today— President Roosevelt reversed himself and established the very rescue agency they were demanding, which he called the War Refugee Board. The remarkable story of FDR’s turnabout sheds light on America’s response to the most horrific humanitarian crisis of our time. 

THE NAZI SLAUGHTERHOUSE

In December 1942, the Roosevelt administration and its allies publicly confirmed that the Germans were “carrying into effect Hitler's oft-repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe,” with “many hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women and children” already having perished in “the Nazi slaughterhouse.” 

But FDR was not prepared to go beyond a verbal denunciation of the mass murder. Spokesmen for his administration insisted there was nothing the U.S. could do to help the Jews “short of military destruction of German armies and the liberation of all the oppressed peoples,” as one official put it. 

In reality, there were many avenues for U.S. action that would not have interfered with the war effort. For example, refugees could have been transported to the United States on Liberty troop-supply ships that were returning empty from Europe. The escapees could have been granted temporary haven to in U.S. territories such as the Virgin Islands.

Alternatively, many refugees could have been admitted to the U.S. within the existing immigration laws. Some 190,000 quota places from Germany and Axis- occupied countries sat unused during the Holocaust years, because the Roosevelt administration deliberately suppressed immigration below the levels permitted by law. The strategy for suppression was simple: “postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas,” as Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long explained to his colleagues.

In short, the problem was not that rescue was impossible. The real problem was the attitude that prevailed in FDR’s White House and State Department. If there had been a will to rescue, ways could have been found.

Then fate intervened. In mid-1943, senior aides to Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. discovered that the State Department had been suppressing Holocaust news and blocking rescue opportunities. The aides began pressing Morgenthau to intercede. 

“The bull has to be taken by the horns in dealing with this Jewish issue, and get this thing out of the State Department into some agency’s hands that is willing to deal with it frontally,” Treasury official Josiah E. DuBois, Jr. told Morgenthau and other top aides. “You get a committee set up with their heart in it, I feel sure they can do something.” His colleague John Pehle agreed: “It seems to me the only way to get anything done is for the President to appoint a commission or committee consisting of sympathetic people of some importance.” 

Jewish refugee advocates provided the vehicle for such action. A political action committee known as the Bergson Group began sponsoring newspaper ads and lobbying Congress to take the refugee issue away from the State Department. The Bergson activists came up with the idea of a rabbis’ march to Washington, and they made the demand for creation of a rescue agency the centerpiece of the rabbis’ petition.

“THE ACQUIESCENCE OF THIS GOVERNMENT”

In November 1943, U.S. Senator Guy Gillette (D-Iowa) and Rep. Will Rogers, Jr. (D-California) introduced a resolution, drafted by the Bergson Group, calling on the president to create an agency to “save the surviving Jewish people of Europe from extinction at the hands of Nazi Germany.” The Roosevelt administration sent Assistant Secretary Long to Capitol Hill to block the measure. 

Long testified to the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the resolution was unnecessary because the U.S. was already “very actively engaged” in doing whatever was possible to rescue Europe’s Jews. Long’s claims were sufficient to persuade the committee to set the resolution aside without a vote. Had matters rested there, the Roosevelt administration might have succeeded in snuffing out any momentum towards rescue action.

But when Long’s testimony was made public a few weeks later, it turned out he had wildly exaggerated the number of Jews who had been admitted. Long’s assertions were forcefully refuted in the press by Jewish organizations and other refugee advocates. As the controversy escalated in December, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously adopted the Gillette-Rogers resolution, and a full Senate vote was scheduled for late January 1944.

Secretary Morgenthau’s aides, who were closely monitoring the fight over the Gillette-Rogers resolution, pleaded with the Treasury Secretary to strike while the iron was hot. It was time to go the president, they urged—to explain to FDR that “it will be a blow to the Administration” if the full Senate were to adopt a resolution that would in effect rebuke him, just ten months before Election Day.

Morgenthau agreed that the congressional tumult gave him crucial ammunition. “I personally hate to say this thing, but our strongest out [with the President] is the imminence of Congress doing something,” the secretary remarked. “Really, when you get down to the point, this is a boiling pot on the Hill. You can’t hold it; it is going to pop, and you have either got to move very fast, or the Congress of the United States will do it for you.”

The Treasury staff had been gathering evidence of the State Department’s obstruction of rescue, and now they handed Morgenthau his main weapon: a stinging 18-page report, authored by DuBois and edited by his colleagues, titled “Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews.” It thoroughly documented the whole sordid story of rescue opportunities that were obstructed, quotas that were deliberately left unfilled, and Holocaust news that was suppressed.

       On January 16, 1944, Morgenthau met with President Roosevelt in the Oval Office and presented FDR with an abbreviated version of the “Acquiescence” report (with the toned-down title, “Report to the President”). He included a draft of an executive order establishing a “War Refugee Board.” 

        DuBois had suggested that Morgenthau tell the president that if Roosevelt did not act, he (DuBois) would “resign and release the report to the press.” But Morgenthau did not need to go that far. He told the president he was “deeply disturbed” to discover that State Department officials were “actually taking action to prevent the rescue of the Jews.” Citing his father’s World War One-era efforts on behalf of Armenian genocide victims, Morgenthau said he was “convinced that effective action could be taken”—thus contradicting the administration’s longstanding line that Jews could be saved only by winning the war.

         President Roosevelt recognized how embarrassing it would be to have the full Senate call attention to his administration’s stark humanitarian failure. The political cost of taking no action now outweighed his longstanding policy of not taking  special steps to aid Europe’s Jews. Pre-empting congressional action by unilaterally establishing a rescue agency was the politically advantageous route. At the end of the twenty-minute discussion, the president said, “We will do it,” and six days later he issued an executive order creating the War Refugee Board. 

TOKEN RESCUE

Although understaffed and underfinanced, the War Refugee Board played a key role in the rescue of some 200,000 Jews and 20,000 non-Jews in the final 15 months of the war. Among other actions, it provided funds to bribe Nazis and shelter Jews, and facilitated and financed the life-saving work of Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg in Budapest. 

But many more lives could have been saved if President Roosevelt had not been opposed to rescue before he was for it. For example, he could have established the War Refugee Board when refugee advocates first requested it, instead of fighting it tooth and nail for so many months. And he could have given the War Refugee Board proper funding, instead of providing only a token initial sum (90% of the Board’s budget had to be supplied by private Jewish organizations). 

What a difference it would have made if FDR had extended some of his reputed humanitarianism to Europe’s Jews before most of them had been murdered by Hitler. Instead, as David S. Wyman wrote in his 1984 best-seller ‘The Abandonment of the Jews,’ “the era’s most prominent symbol of humanitarianism turned away from one of history’s most compelling moral challenges.”

* * *

RE: OMAHA ELDER NATHAN PHILLIPS AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT NICK SANDMANN GIVE THEIR VERSIONS OF VIRAL MOMENT ON THE STEPS OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL. [By  Michael E. Miller   Washington Post   January 21, 2019 ]

The Washington Post and  Michael E. Miller are guilty of knowingly and willfully peddling false news in their attempt to ignite racial and religious conflict and to demonize political opponents.

THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE A DANGER TO THE BLACK, JEWISH AND OTHER MINORITY COMMUNITIES IN THE UNITED STATES.

Instead of telling you to watch the  full video and determine for yourself that the "Hebrew Israelites" are a vicious anti-white, anti-semitic hate group who were actively shouting racial and religious obscenities at the high school students. Also  they did not tell you is that the "Indian elder" (Nathan Phillips) has long anti-white history and that Phillips went out of his way to approach

 Nick Sandmann (who was waiting with his group board return buses} and that  then Phillips held his drum up and pounded the drum just inches from Sandmann’s face while, Phillips chanted at him,

repeating over and over, "go back to Europe, white man, this is our land."

There was nothing confusing or ambiguous and what happened.

There is nothing confusing or ambiguous in the Washington Post mishandling of the story.

False reporting is an abomination and the Washington Post and Michael E Miller have betrayed our trust.

Again, "Their activities are a danger to the black, Jewish and other minority communities in the United States.” Democracy dies in darkness…. Unfortunately democracy fairness, and honesty have been murdered at the Washington Post.

******

OMAHA ELDER NATHAN PHILLIPS AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT NICK SANDMANN GIVE THEIR VERSIONS OF VIRAL MOMENT ON THE STEPS OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL. 

By  Michael E. Miller   Washington Post   January 21, 2019 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/picture-of-the-conflict-on-the-mall-comes-into-clearer-focus/2019/01/20/c078f092-1ceb-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html?utm_term=.143637403c09&wpisrc=al_trending_now__alert-national&wpmk=1

The three groups that met Friday in the cold shadow of the Lincoln Memorial could hardly have been more different. They were indigenous rights activists from Michigan, Catholic schoolboys from Kentucky — some wearing Make America Great Again hats — and Hebrew Israelites from the nation’s capital.

They were Native American, Caucasian and African American; old, young and middle-aged.

And there, beneath the fallen president’s promise to work “with malice toward none, with charity for all,” they came together in an incident that would echo nationwide for its ugliness.

The Israelites and students exchanged taunts, videos show. The Native Americans and Hebrew Israelites say some students shouted, “Build the wall!” But the chant is not heard on the widely circulated videos, and the Cincinnati Enquirer quotes Nick Sandmann, the student at the center of the confrontation, saying he did not hear anyone utter the phrase.

When a Native American elder intervened, singing and playing a prayer song, scores of students around him seem to mimic and mock him, a video posted Monday shows. At one point, he found himself face to face with Sandman, whose frozen smile struck some as nervousness and others as arrogance.

Neither budged.

Tribal elder Nathan Phillips, 64, stands before Nick Sandmann, a high school student from Covington Catholic High School in Park Hills, Ky., near the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. (Jon Stegenga/Humanizing Through Story)

Video footage of the tense confrontation quickly went viral, stirring outrage across the political spectrum. The Kentucky teens’ church apologized on Saturday, condemning the students’ actions. By Sunday, however, conservative commenters on social media were saying it was the students who had been wronged, and the organizers of the March for Life, the event that drew the teens to Washington, rescinded their initial criticism of the youths.

Sandmann, an 11th-grader, said in a statement provided to the Enquirer that he and his classmates had been called “racists,” “bigots” and worse. He said he was “remaining motionless and calm” in hopes that things would not “get out of hand.”

The Native American elder said he was caught in the middle.

“When I took that drum and hit that first beat . . . it was a supplication to God,” said Nathan Phillips, a member of the Omaha tribe and a Marine veteran. “Look at us, God, look at what is going on here; my America is being torn apart by racism, hatred, bigotry.”

The incident, and the finger-pointing that followed, seemed to capture the worst of America at a moment of extreme political polarization, as discourse once again gave way to division, and people drew conclusions on social media before all the facts were known.

High school students from Covington Catholic High School chant before a crowd of Native American activists Friday on the Mall. (Jon Stegenga/Humanizing Through Story)

[Meet the segregationist’s granddaughter trying to get rid of the Stars and Bars]

'Did I provoke that?'

The students, from Covington Catholic High School in Park Hills, Ky., were one school group among scores bused to the annual March for Life.

The Native American activists were there for the Indigenous Peoples March.

So were the Hebrew Israelites, who believe African Americans are God’s chosen people and the real descendants of the Hebrews of the Bible.

“We were there to teach, to teach the truth of the Bible, to show them our real history,” said Shar Yaqataz Banyamyan, one of five Hebrew Israelites on the Mall that day.

The group has militant members and “a long, strange list of enemies” that includes whites, Jews, Asians, members of the LGBTQ community, abortion rights advocates and continental Africans, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Banyamyan said he and those with him Friday believe in using blunt language, but not violence. A video he posted to social media shows them insulting other marchers.

“Where’s your husband?” one Hebrew Israelite asked a woman who had stopped to argue with the group. “Bring your husband. Let me speak to him.”

At one point, the Hebrew Israelites began arguing with Native American activists, telling them the word “Indian” means “savage,” according to the video.

While the groups argued, some students laughed and mocked them, according to Banyamyan and another Hebrew Israelite, Ephraim Israel, who came from New York for the event. As tension grew, the Hebrew Israelites started insulting the students.

“Tell them to come over in the lion’s den instead of mocking from over there,” Banyamyan can be heard saying in the video. “Y’all dirty ass little crackers, your day is coming.”

“They were sitting there, mocking me as I was trying to teach my brothers, so, yes, the attention turned to them,” Israel told The Washington Post. “I explained to them, you want to build the wall for Mexicans and other indigenous people, but you’ve never seen a black or a Mexican shoot up a school.”

[Kentucky diocese condemn teens’ conduct at March for Life]

Phillips said he and his fellow Native American activists also had issues with the students throughout the day.

“Before they got centered on the black Israelites, they would walk through and say things to each other, like, ‘Oh, the Indians in my state are drunks or thieves,’” the 64-year-old said.

Phillips said he heard students shout, “Go back to Africa!”

Sandmann said in his statement that he “did not witness or hear any students chant ‘build that wall’ or anything hateful or racist at any time. Assertions to the contrary are simply false.”

He said he and his classmates were shouting cheers they knew from school, with permission from their chaperones, “to drown out the hateful comments that were being shouted at us by the protesters.”

By 5 p.m., the light was fading on the Mall and both marches had mostly petered out. A group of about 100 Covington students had gathered on the stairs of the Lincoln Memorial, where they had been told to meet before catching their buses home.

The Hebrew Israelites were also still there, and still insulting the students.

“You all are a bunch of Donald Trump incest babies,” Israel said to them, according to the video, before asking if there were any black students among them.

When a black Covington student came forward, Israel called him “Kanye West” and the n-word, the footage shows. He tells the teen his friends will one day harvest his organs, an apparent reference to the racially fraught movie “Get Out.”

At that point, the students began chanting, jumping and shouting. The songs culminated in one student stripping off his shirt and shouting as others cheered.

“The chants are commonly used at sporting events. They are all positive in nature,” Sandmann said. “We would not have done that without obtaining permission from the adults in charge of our group.”

Banyamyan said the Hebrew Israelites took the performance as a racist impersonation.

“They were mocking my ancestors in a chant, one of them was jumping up and down like a cave man,” he said. “Did I provoke that?”

'A mob mentality'

To Jessica Travis, a Florida attorney who was at the memorial with her mother, the students looked out of control.

“The kids really went into a mob mentality, honestly,” she said, adding that she didn’t see any chaperones trying to control the situation. She said she heard one student tell the Hebrew Israelites to “drink the Trump water.”

Jon Stegenga, a photojournalist who drove to Washington on Friday from South Carolina to cover the Indigenous Peoples March, recalled hearing students say “build the wall” and “Trump 2020.” He said it was about that time that Phillips intervened.

“He said, ‘I wish I could say something to these people, to the whole crowd,’ ” Stegenga said in an interview Sunday.

Another member of the Indigenous Peoples March suggested Phillips start singing, the photographer said. Phillips played a prayer song on a drum as he walked toward the students.

Some of the students began doing a “Tomahawk chop” and dancing, the video shows. Phillips said he found it offensive but kept walking and drumming.

Most of the students moved out of his way, the video shows. But Sandmann stayed still.

Asked why he felt the need to walk into the group of students, Phillips said he was trying to reach the top of the memorial, where friends were standing. But Phillips also said he saw more than a teenage boy in front of him. He saw a long history of white oppression of Native Americans.

“Why should I go around him?” he asked. “I’m just thinking of 500 years of genocide in this country, what your people have done. You don’t even see me as a human being.”

Stegenga described Phillips as emotional. “He was dealing with a lot of feelings, as he was being surrounded and not being shown respect,” the photographer said. “In Native American culture, respect of elders is everything. . . . It was a heartbroken feeling.”

[The Indians were right, the English were wrong: A tribe reclaims its past]

Phillips said he blamed both the students and the Hebrew Israelites for what happened.

“If it wasn’t for those Israelites being there in the first place, this wouldn’t have happened,” he said. “And if it wasn’t for the lack of responsibility from school chaperones, this wouldn’t have happened either.”

Sandmann said Phillips bore responsibility, too.

“He locked eyes with me and approached me, coming within inches of my face,” the statement said. “I did not speak to him. I did not make any hand gestures or other aggressive moves. To be honest, I was startled and confused as to why he had approached me. We had already been yelled at by another group of protesters . . . I was worried that a situation was getting out of control where adults were attempting to provoke teenagers.”

School officials and the Catholic Diocese of Covington released a joint statement Saturday condemning and apologizing for the students’ actions. “The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion,” the statement said. In a column on the town website, Covington Mayor Joe Meyer declared that “The videos being shared across the nation do NOT represent the core beliefs and values of this City.”

The debate over what happened continued to play out on social media Monday, with one Twitter user posting video that showed Covington students jumping and yelling around Phillips as he played. Sandmann does not appear to be in the clip.

With his statement circulating, and more attention focused on the behavior of the Hebrew Israelites, some public reaction had already shifted. March for Life organizers, who on Saturday had called the teens’ behavior “reprehensible,” deleted that statement from their website Sunday evening and pledged to reserve judgment.

“It is clear from new footage and additional accounts that there is more to this story than the original video captured,” the group said in a new statement. “We will refrain from commenting further until the truth is understood.”

And Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) tweeted that “in the face of racist and homosexual slurs, the young boys refused to reciprocate or disrespect anyone.”

“In the context of everything that was going on (which the media hasn’t shown) the parents and mentors of these boys should be proud, not ashamed, of their kids’ behavior. It is my honor to represent them,” Massie’s tweet said.

In his statement, Sandmann said he had received “death threats via social media, as well as hateful insults. One person threatened to harm me at school, and one person claims to live in my neighborhood.” He said he was “mortified that so many people have come to believe something that did not happen — that students from my school were chanting or acting in a racist fashion toward African Americans or Native Americans.”

Travis, who was in town to attend the Women’s March before sightseeing, said the scene on Friday shocked her and her mother.

“It was really depressing,” she said, “to see we are even more divided than ever.”

Moriah Balingit, Michelle Boorstein, DeNeen L. Brown, Joe Heim and Julie Tate contributed to this report.

NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST CHEERS FOR BOYCOTT OF ISRAELI BANKS

By Ira Stoll, The Algemeiner  

It’s a sad day when a New York Times op-ed columnist — not a guest contributor, but a regular columnist — can mark Martin Luther King Jr. Day with a piece applauding a boycott of Jewish banks.

https://unitedwithisrael.org/new-york-times-columnist-cheers-for-a-boycott-of-israeli-banks/?utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NY+Times+Columnist+Cheers+for+Boycott+of+Israeli+Banks%3B+Netanyahu%3A+‘We%27re+Making+History’+in+Chad%3B+Palestinian+Drivers+Praise+%27Apartheid+Road%27&utm_campaign=20190120_m149342499_NY+Times+Columnist+Cheers+for+Boycott+of+Israeli+Banks%3B+Netanyahu%3A+‘We%27re+Making+History’+in+Chad%3B+Palestinian+Drivers+Praise+%27Apartheid+Road%27&utm_term=New+York+Times+Columnist+Cheers+for+a+Boycott+of+Israeli+Banks

“Time to break the silence on Palestine,” is the headline over New York Times opinion columnist Michelle Alexander’s article, and a pretty good indication of where it’s going, because there’s no “silence” to break on the issue, and because “Palestine” isn’t a country and never has been.

Alexander uses the approaching Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday to accuse Israel of having “adopted some practices reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow segregation in the United States.”

Alexander’s analysis is so far off the deep end that it almost doesn’t merit a response.

She refers to “our elected representatives, who operate in a political environment where Israel’s political lobby holds well-documented power,” hyperlinking to the Washington Post home page rather than to any actual documentation of such power. Is her innuendo that Israel controls the Washington Post? Never mind that the lobby isn’t “Israel’s” but America’s, consisting of American Jews and Christians who support Israel for many excellent reasons.

Classically Anti-Semitic Trope

Alexander trades in double negatives: “This is not to say that anti-Semitism is not real.” She can’t quite bring herself to say that anti-Semitism is real. Anyone wondering about that, however, might examine Alexander’s own column, which obsesses, using a classically anti-Semitism trope, about Jewish financial power.

“Many civil rights activists and organizations have remained silent as well, not because they lack concern or sympathy for the Palestinian people, but because they fear loss of funding from foundations,” she writes. As if pro-Israel Jews control the big foundations? Alexander also cheers, for Times readers, as an example of “moral clarity,” the United Methodist Church pension fund’s boycott of the five largest Israeli banks.

Alexander concedes that “while criticism of Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic, it can slide there.” She seems not even the slightest bit aware that her own column is a demonstration of precisely that phenomenon.

Alexander seems totally unfamiliar with the reality of Israel. She writes of King, “Like many black leaders of the time, he recognized European Jewry as a persecuted, oppressed and homeless people striving to build a nation of their own.” Yet Israel is a home not only for “European Jewry,” but for Jews from Yemen, Morocco, Iraq, Ethiopia, Egypt, Syria, and many other Middle Eastern and African countries where they were brutally persecuted, expelled and oppressed until they found refuge in Israel. It is also home to a population of Jews who have dwelled there for many centuries.

Alexander writes that King “said on national television that it would be necessary for Israel to return parts of its conquered territory to achieve true peace and security and to avoid exacerbating the conflict.” But Alexander makes no mention of the reality that Israel did indeed return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt as part of a peace agreement, or that Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and Arab population centers in the West Bank.

‘Horrific Human Rights Abuses’

Alexander mentions a Reconstructionist rabbi. “During more than 20 visits to the West Bank and Gaza, he saw horrific human rights abuses, including Palestinian homes being bulldozed while people cried — children’s toys strewn over one demolished site — and saw Palestinian lands being confiscated to make way for new illegal settlements subsidized by the Israeli government,” she writes. She doesn’t mention or even acknowledge the tears or strewn toys of Israeli Jewish children caused by Arab suicide bombings and rocket attacks on Israeli civilian targets.

It’s a sad day when a New York Times op-ed columnist — not a guest contributor, but a regular columnist — can mark Martin Luther King Jr. Day with a piece applauding a boycott of Jewish banks. King is an American hero because he fought against bigotry. It’s perverse.

The American Jewish Committee called Alexander’s op-ed “shameful.” That’s close, but perhaps too kind. “Shameless” is more like it.

Maybe — hopefully — one of the New York Times‘ Zionist voices, such as Bret Stephens, Bari Weiss, or Matti Friedman, will rise to the occasion with a powerful rebuttal, the way Stephens did recently when another Times op-ed columnist, Michelle Goldberg, defended anti-Zionism. But there’s something vile about the notion that something as blatantly bigoted as a boycott of Jewish banks — by a Christian church, no less! — is something to be politely debated, with voices on each side, on the Times op-ed page, as if it were immigration policy or the optimal marginal tax rate. That advocacy for such a boycott is inside the bounds of acceptable discourse is precisely Alexander’s point, and one the Times implicitly endorses with its decision to publish her column.

Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. 

Jew-Hatred in the Democratic Party

By Eileen F. Toplansky   American Thinker   1-20-19

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/jewhatred_in_the_democratic_party.htmlmail

It is really time for the liberal American Jewish Democrat to acknowledge that blatant anti-Semitism has infected the Democratic Party.

Nancy Pelosi has appointed Ilhan Omar to the House Foreign Relations Committee.  Omar is viciously anti-Israel and is in favor of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement.  Omar has long been a harsh critic of Israel.  In fact, in 2012 – just "a few days after Gaza-based Hamas terrorists had launched more than 150 deadly rockets into the Jewish state, prompting an Israeli military response – she tweeted that 'the apartheid Israeli regime' had 'hypnotized the world' in order to conceal its own 'evil doings.'"

In fact, the only apartheid in the Middle East comes from Arab countries and is clearly documented by Muslim reporter Khaled Abu Toameh, who regularly highlights the Arab apartheid against Palestinians.

Furthermore, "in 2016, Omar stated that she was in favor of completely divesting the University of Minnesota of its Israel bonds.  The following year, she opposed a bill designed to counter economic boycotts targeting the Jewish state."  In addition, "in 2018, Omar ran for the U.S. House of Representatives seat formerly held by Keith Ellison.  Her campaign was supported by ... the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which  held three fundraising events on Omar's behalf[.]"

Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy asserts that "the Democratic Party is increasingly anti-Israel and flirts, to be charitable, with anti-Semitism. Today we see the latest evidence of the character of what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls the 'New party.'"

Omar is not an anomaly.  To wit, the Palestinian Rashida Tlaib is another newly elected Democrat who harbors intense hatred for Jews and Israel.  Like Omar, Tlaib supports the BDS movement.  Moreover,

[S]upporters of Tlaib's congressional bid included J Street, Michael Moore, and Linda Sarsour[.]  By August 2018, Tlaib had raised more than $30,000 from Islamists affiliated with CAIR, MPAC, MSA, and MAS [all offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood].

After Tlaib narrowly won the Democratic primary on August 7, she draped herself in a Palestinian flag while celebrating with her supporters.  In her victory speech, she promised to 'fight back against every racist and oppressive structure that needs to be dismantled.'

This is code for dismembering America and Israel and any Western country that wants to maintain basic freedoms. 

If she is to be judged by the company she keeps, it should be noted that "CAIR founder and CEO Nihad Awad congratulated Tlaib on her historic victory of becoming the first Muslim and Palestinian woman in the U.S. Congress."  Moreover, "[a] notable attendee at Tlaib's swearing-in ceremony was the executive director and co-founder of Al-Awda, Abbas Hamideh, who has repeatedly: (a) stated his belief that 'Israel does not have a right to exist'; (b) equated Zionism with Nazism and the genocidal ideology of ISIS; and (c) voiced support for Hezbollah and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, whom he regards as 'the most honorable Arab-Muslim leader of our lifetime.'  Following the swearing-in ceremony, Hamideh posted to his Twitter account a photo of himself and Tlaib holding up a large painting of the newly elected congresswoman.  He also attended a private dinner with Tlaib, her family, and a number of her friends and activists."

Not surprisingly, "[t]he press ... has not showed much interest in reporting on the attitude of either [woman] toward Jews."  David Harsanyi writes, "Tlaib ... wants to cut aid to the Jewish state because supporting it 'doesn't fit the values of our country.'"

Let's be frank.  It doesn't support the values of a jihadist-loving individual who seeks to demolish fundamental American values.  Harsanyi further explains:

The writer David Steinberg identified 105 news stories written in the immediate aftermath of Omar's victory, and not a single one mentioned her belief that Jewry possessed mind-control abilities or that Israel was 'evil.'  No one called on the Democratic party to distance itself from this rhetoric.

Now, it isn't inherently anti-Semitic to be critical of Israeli political leadership or policies. ... But Omar used a well-worn anti-Semitic trope about the preternatural ability of a nefarious Jewish cabal to deceive the world. ... Omar had a chance to retract, or at least refine, her statement.  Instead, she doubled down.  'These accusations [of anti-Semitism] are without merit,' she claimed, blaming Jewish Islamophobia for the backlash.  Omar even wants the U.S. to normalize relations with the Holocaust-denying terror-state of Iran[.] ... Omar's defenders will claim she's anti-Israel, not anti-Jewish.  'Anti-Zionism has been the preferred justification for hatred of Jews in institutions of education and within progressive activism for a long time. Now it's coming for politics. Democrats can either [refuse to accept it], or they can remain silent.'

It has become clear that many American Jews have substituted liberalism for their religion, and, as Raymond Domanico writes, "American Jews are fervent proselytizers for every "ism" – feminism, environmentalism, pacifism, redistributionism[.]  It's not just that Jews can't distinguish their political friends from their enemies, or that Jews consistently promote non-Jewish values.  Far worse, this reflex liberalism compels them to take positions adverse to their best interests."

But the handwriting has been on the wall, unconcealed and unashamed.  There are Congressional representatives who are working to undermine the country and in the process use the powerful and dangerous prejudice of anti-Semitism.  There is no disputing this; their words and their associations speak for themselves.

Ari Lieberman asks, "[W]hy have Democrats

 remained silent?  Why have they not issued a full-throated condemnation of Tlaib's vile comments?"  He maintains:

First, many Democrats suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, which prevents them from assessing serious matters, such as anti-Semitism, in rational terms.  Tlaib is anti-Semitic to her core but because she is a Trump hater, she's given a free pass.

Second, fear is a powerful motivator and is effective at curbing dissent.  Many within the Democratic Party are fearful of speaking their minds and challenging the new up and coming but still relatively small socialist contingent within the Democratic Party.  The fascist left has been successful in drowning out voices of moderation.

Finally, the Democratic Party itself is metastasizing into an anti-Semitic body much the same way that Britain's Labour Party has.  The British Labour Party, taking its cues from its party boss, Jeremy Corbyn, is rife with Judeophobia and hatred of Israel.

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen in The Devil that Never Dies wrote that "anti-Semitic expression has exploded in volume and intensity.  It has done so with classical tropes and with new ones, in long familiar forums and in recently invented ones."

So a shift has begun that does not bode well.  Until the rank and file among Jewish Americans calls out the anti-Semitism of the Democratic Party, things will not improve, since clearly, the Democratic Party leadership remains mute and indifferent.

Jews of all stripes should recall that in April of 2014, Investor's Business Daily described how the "radical Muslim Brotherhood has built the framework for a political party in America that seeks to turn Muslims into an Islamist voting bloc."  Consequently, "'Muslim voters have the potential to be swing voters in 2016,' said Nihad Awad in launching the benign-sounding U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, (USCMO) whose membership reads like a Who's Who of Brotherhood front groups.  USCMO also aims to elect Islamists in Washington, with the ultimate objective of 'institutionalizing policies' favorable to Islamists – that is, Shariah law."

Ilhan Omar and Rashid Tlaib's elections are no mere happenstance.  Their success results from carefully coordinated steps "to wage a 'civilization jihad' against America" that explicitly calls for infiltrating the U.S. political system and "destroying [it] from within."

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/jewhatred_in_the_democratic_party.html#ixzz5dBZunbjC 

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook