The Bible Teaching Ministry of David Hocking
“The Word of our God shall stand forever” Isaiah 40:8

Archive for September, 2011


Tuesday, September 20th, 2011


Editor’s Note: Stewart Patrick is a Senior Fellow and the Director of the Program on International Institutions and Global Governance at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is the author of Weak Links: Fragile States, Global Threats, and International Security.

By Stewart Patrick – Special to CNN

This Wednesday, world leaders gather in Manhattan for the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). As always, the most anticipated moment will be when the U.S. President steps to the podium. With little doubt, Barack Obama’s third annual UNGA speech will also be his most challenging.

In September 2009, the president had it easy. After eight years of fractious U.S.-UN relations under George W. Bush, UN member states yearned for a new start. Promising a “new era of engagement,” Obama had his audience at hello. His 2010 speech was also straightforward. It celebrated the fruits of enhanced cooperation on terrorism, financial instability, and other global problems, while imploring the UN to live up to its mandate to promote human rights, global development, and collective security.

This week the President is in the hot seat, confronting Palestinian demands for statehood and a rising tide of anti-UN sentiment in the U.S. Congress. By pushing a UN Security Council vote on statehood—supported by a supermajority of UN member states—the Palestinian Authority (PA) has put Washington on the defensive. The United States will surely veto the resolution, which it considers a threat to Israel and a distraction from the peace process. But doing so will be excruciatingly awkward. Just last year, the President told the world body that he looked forward to the day Palestine would take its seat as a full UN member. By casting its veto,Washington will isolate itself from European allies, to say nothing of the UN’s broader membership, and raise doubts about whether it can ever be an honest broker in the Middle East.

The United States has worked hard to try to head off this diplomatic “train wreck.” In past weeks, it has sought to hold off the PA by reenergizing the peace process through the Middle East “Quartet” (the United States,European Union,Russia and the UN Secretariat). More recently, European diplomats have explored whether the PA might be willing to forgo the UNSC route and instead pursue a less confrontational UNGA resolution. This would enhance Palestine’s UN representation to “observer” status, allowing the PA to seek representation on multiple UN bodies, committees, agencies, and programs. The United States would be free to vote against the motion, but the diplomatic fallout would be far less than a UNSC veto.

Still, U.S.(and of course Israeli) officials worry that Palestinians would exploit these settings to delegitimize and attack Israel in multiple forums, such as the UN Human Rights Council. Most worrisome is the very real possibility that the PA will use their elevated status to seek prosecution of Israeli officials or soldiers by the International Criminal Court. Meanwhile, members of congress from both parties have warned that any Palestine move toward statehood prior to a final peace agreement will result in an abrupt end to U.S. financial support for the PA—and reprisals against UN agencies that afford the PA elevated status.

Meanwhile, Obama confronts a rebellion against the United Nations on Capitol Hill, making international observers wonder whether the brief U.S.-UN honeymoon is over. Anti-UN sentiments are strongest in the Tea Party flavored, GOP-controlled House. Florida Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, has introduced draconian legislation to curtail UN funding that will bring a smile to the shade of Jesse Helms. The most egregious provision of this bill—the United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act of 2011—would slash by 50% America’s legally binding assessed contributions to the UN’s regular and peacekeeping budgets—unless the United Nations shifts to an entirely voluntary funding system.

Such a shift to a la carte UN budgeting—with different countries “cherry picking” those items they wish to fund—would be an invitation to chaos. It would encourage other countries to follow the U.S lead, crippling the UN’s ability to provide global public goods on which the United States and other countries depend—from peace operations to global health surveillance to counterterrorism cooperation. More generally, the bill if it became law would return U.S.-UN relations to the protracted arrears crisis of the 1990s, when U.S. unwillingness to pay its dues poisoned the atmosphere at the United Nations and undercut America’s image as an enlightened global leader.

The President thus faces a daunting two-fold challenge on Wednesday morning when he addresses the UN General Assembly. First, he must persuade a skeptical General Assembly that the United States remains committed to the goal of a Palestinian state, but believes that the route to that objective must be final status negotiations in which the Palestinians accept Israel’s right to exist within secure borders. The President should caution Palestinians against using enhanced UN status to pursue Israel in the ICC, while giving them hope that a rejuvenated “peace process” can actually get somewhere.

Second, the President must make it clear to both UN member states that the United States is no fair-weather partner with the United Nations—and that the enormous strides his administration has made to reengage the world body over the past three years will not be derailed by misguided legislative activism in Congress. He needs to frame this message in a way that resonates with the American people, too. He can remind his countrymen of the multiple ways the United States benefits from the United Nations every day: how more than 100,000 blue helmets are keeping the peace around the world; how WHO scientists are monitoring the globe for the next outbreak of a global pandemic; how U.S. leadership has helped make the Human Rights Council begin to hold abusers to account; and how at a time of U.S. fiscal crisis, the UN remains a great deal for U.S. taxpayers—leveraging a dollar of effort for every quarter the United States spends.

A short time ago, President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress was widely regarded as his last opportunity to shore-up confidence in his administration’s ability to help weather the Great Recession and create jobs. This week, he faces a starkly similar moment in reassuring a troubled ally, while also defending a mutually-reinforcing U.S-UN relationship. Good luck, Mr. President.


Tuesday, September 20th, 2011

by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu (Arutz Sheva News)

The influential Washington Post has accused Mahmoud Abbas of not being serious about wanting to establish the Palestinian Authority as a country.

In a lead editorial Tuesday morning, the liberal newspaper joined a growing number of mainstream media outlets – with the notable exception of The New York Times – throwing up their hands at Abbas’ constant rebuffs to the “peace process.”

The editorial noted that Abbas on Monday admitted that Palestinian Authority Arabs face hard times because of his tactic of asking the United Nations for unilateral recognition instead of returning to negotiations with Israel.

“Congress may terminate U.S. aid, causing an instant economic crisis,” the newspaper’s editors wrote. “Israel is hinting at retaliation, ranging from the withholding of tax funds to the annexation of its West Bank settlements. At worst, demonstrations being orchestrated by Mr. Abbas to support the statehood initiative will get out of hand, producing a violent confrontation with Israel.”

The Washington Post stated that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has accepted President Barack Obama’s policy, which basically mirrors that of Abbas, to reach an agreement based on the temporary 1949 Armistice Lines, commonly known as the “1967 borders” but also called the ”Auschwitz borders” by critics.

“Were he serious about achieving statehood, Mr. Abbas would seize on that point — which he defined as critical just months ago — and proceed with negotiations about drawing a border,” the editorial concluded. “Instead, he appears likely to stick with his grand gesture — and to let Palestinians pay the price.”

Other newspapers also have strongly editorialized against Abbas for burying the American-sponsored diplomatic process, which began in Madrid in 1991.

“The U.S. should honor its promise to veto any effort in the U.N. to unilaterally recognize an independent Palestinian state and thereby short-circuit a negotiated peace, which is the only path to long-term stability in the region,” an editorial in the Baltimore Sun stated Tuesday morning.

The Tuscaloosa Alabama News called the Abbas’ move to the United Nations “a foolhardy gambit” that “may be a short-lived diplomatic coup, but the result will be more hardship for Palestinians and more retrenchment along the hard lines of negotiation.”

Another negative editorial on Abbas was printed in the Boston Phoenix, which wrote, “The Palestinian Authority is in the midst of staging a hollow piece of political theater that will boomerang. By unrealistically raising the hopes of the people it purports to represent, the Authority will not fail only to change any facts on the ground, but sadly move the possibility of a workable peace beyond any visible horizon.”

The New York Times has taken an increasingly anti-Israel stand, blaming Israel and President Barack Obama for not accepting Abbas’ conditions for establishing the Palestinian Authority as a country within Israel’s borders


Monday, September 19th, 2011

SPECIAL REPORT – by General Shimon Erem

It is now ten years since 9/11. Ten years since the terrorist events that changed the world for all of us. New information is now coming out in court proceedings in New York about who was behind the attacks on the United States a decade ago that will alter completely our thinking about that horrifying day.

What is becoming clear is that al Qaeda did not, and I emphasize it, al Qaeda did not act alone. There is indisputable evidence that the Iranian intelligence services helped them. If this is the case, was the invasion into Iraq a mistake?

Let me share with you now an intelligence bombshell that Washington may have preferred not to know. The confidential contacts between the 9/11 perpetrators and Iran, and the fingerprints of the Hezbollah, are unmistakable. It is reported that the NSA, the National Security Agency, has procured tens of thousands of wireless messages substantiating the contact between Iranian intelligence operatives and al Qaeda beginning in the early 90’s and still continuing up through 9/11. Included in these intelligence documents are 75 credible reports that are defined as critical to understanding the contact between Tehran and Bin Laden.

According to a newly published YNet report, the members of the 9/11 Commission were made aware of this information but didn’t know what to do with it. They had discovered a possible new direction for their investigation; however, they were near the end of their assignment and their report needed to be published in a matter of days. They decided on what I think was the worst possible course of action. They squeezed part of the information on the Iranian connection into just three pages of their report. Without further investigation, they missed most of the evidence of this involvement.

But one member of the 9/11 Commission staff, Senior Counsel Janice Kephart, who was in charge of researching the ways the terrorists entered the United States, said the commission learned after a long delay that Iran was behind the planting of at least eight of the ten terrorists who entered the U.S. to become part of the 9/11 plot.

The investigation into Iran’s involvement and the release of information on the mountain of evidence substantiating the connection would not have surfaced but for the commitment and persistence of one woman, Ellen Saracini, widow of the pilot of United flight 175 which left Boston on the morning of 9/11 heading for Los Angeles. It was Captain Saracini’s flight that hit the South tower of the World Trade Center, the second plane to fly into the twin towers that morning. Mrs. Saracini was not ready to let what had happened to her husband end up as a mere footnote in history. She decided to try and find out for herself what happened. She approached Tom Mellon, a successful personal injury and corporate litigation attorney who has won many large dollar awards for his clients from major corporations. Mellon and his team have done a terrific job in getting to the truth about 9/11.

By the way, they were not the only judicial group working to find culpability for the attacks. Some teams were looking for evidence that Iraq had helped al Qaeda, but did not find any proof that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with it. Others were looking for links to Saudi Arabia, where many of the 9/11 hijackers came from — it was very sensitive ground upon which these investigators were treading. But it was Mellon who discovered something explosive that no one else had looked into: an Iranian connection to 9/11.

Mellon and his team pursued an aggressive investigation, talking with intelligence operatives and political leaders from the U.S., Europe, and the Middle East. Eventually they came to the source that provided them with the utmost information — Israel.

According to Ynet, it was only after taking their investigation to Israel that the Mellon team concluded that they had indisputable proof connecting Iran and 9/11. They have prepared and submitted a claim to the district court in Manhattan. Their claim states that they have clear proof that the responsibility for 9/11 attacks on the United States is shared not only by al Qaeda but also by the Islamic Republic of Iran and Hezbollah. The evidence shows that Iran provided meaningful help to al Qaeda, beginning in the 90’s and the hits on the twin towers, Pentagon and other objectives on 9/11.

Since the investigation began, many more families have joined Saracini, and their number will probably reach hundreds pretty soon. We are dealing, of course, with a lawsuit for awesome amounts of money, more by far than has been sought in any other claim against Iran submitted in the United States courts as far as terrorism is concerned. This is the hot potato that’s been submitted recently to Judge Frank in the district court of Manhattan. Hundreds, if not thousands of documents were included with the claim, many with testimony of witnesses who swear to the veracity of Mellon’s claims against Iran. Among the protected witnesses are three senior people from Iran who defected from the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and the Republican Guard.

Iran has been connected with al Qaeda for the past two decades. Iran and Hezbollah helped Osama Bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is now the head of al Qaeda, in Sudan in the 90’s. At that time, Sudan’s spiritual leader was Dr. Hassan al-Turabi, a graduate of Oxford University. Dr. al-Turabi was the one who arranged a meeting of Islamist leaders from many different countries where they decided to establish an organization that will eventually enforce the Islamic religion over the whole world. Iran was quite in a hurry to provide the new regime in Khartoum, the capitol of Sudan. With this, Sudan became part of the team Iran needed and a passage for Iranian arms destined for different radical Islamist groups. Hundreds of members of the Republican Guard were stationed in Khartoum, providing a place to live and train for the followers of Abu Nidal, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and extremist Muslims from Egypt. They had more than 12 camps in Sudan in which to train active Islamic extremists, with the Iranians providing the training through members of the Republican Guard and under the supervision of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security.

The Iranian support was provided to hasten the spread of the jihadist movement throughout the Middle east and globally. Iran and Hezbollah supported the radical Islamist groups with money and training – training in Iran and in Hezbollah camps in Lebanon. Iran and Hezbollah stood behind efforts Zawahiri and other Egyptian jihadists in Cairo. Iran trained and equipped them with sophisticated weapons and technology. Iran also paved their way to move freely from country to country. Mellon claims that Iran directly helped the group for the 9/11 terrorist activities. If his people are able to prove it, all we thought we knew about 9/11 will change.

Since 1990 the Israeli Intelligence has also identified substantial arms shipments that were sent from Iran and were unloaded in Port Sudan, of the Republic of Sudan. According to CIA witnesses, in 1991 Sudan hosted the then President of Iran, Rafsanjani, and other regime leaders. Joinig them for the visit was Imad Mughniveh, a high-level Hezbollah operative, who was ‘eliminated’ in Syria by the Israelis in 2008.


Sunday, September 18th, 2011

by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu (Arutz Sheva News)

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the Cabinet Sunday he will meet with President Barack Obama this week and added that the Palestinian Authority will fail to win full recognition from the United Nations.

He said the meeting with the President will take place after he addresses the United Nations General Assembly.

Obama’s promise to veto any United Nations Security Council motion to recommend full membership status of the Palestinian Authority has reearned him some lost Jewish support, according to recent polls.

A high-profile meeting with the Prime Minister, in an atmosphere different from previous tense meetings, might help President Obama bounce back a bit from record-breaking lows in popularity, although the economic situation in the United States is voters’ main worry.

”The UN is not a place where Israel wins praise, but I think that it is important that I go there in order to represent both the State of Israel and the truth – and the truth is that Israel wants peace and the truth is that the Palestinians are doing everything to torpedo direct peace negotiations,” the Prime Minister said.

He cast on Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas all of the blame for the failure to engage in direct talks with Israel for two years.

“They have ignored every proposal that I have made, both in my [2009] Bar-Ilan speech and in my speech to the US Congress” last May, Prime Minister Netanyahu asserted.

“They have avoided coming to direct negotiations after this government made an unprecedented decision to freeze new construction in the communities. For 10 months, they simply were unwilling to come and negotiate. They need to understand that, despite their current attempt to again overturn the negotiations by going to the UN, peace will be achieved only through direct negotiations.

“Their attempt to be accepted as a member of the UN will fail. The Palestinians’ attempt to be accepted as a member of the UN is what they declared – one year ago – as their objective; this is what Abu Mazen [Abbas] recently declared as a goal. This attempt will fail. It will fail because it must go through the UN Security Council….”

Concerning a non-binding resolution, he pointed out, “The UN also has the General Assembly in which almost any decision can be passed. It is possible to decide there that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, and this would pass there. But it has neither the same weight nor the same importance. This is not the Palestinians’ avowed goal. Even there it is possible that there will be various actions in their regard. We are coordinating our efforts with those of the US and with other important countries, in Europe and beyond.”

He said he will address the General Assembly “and present our truth…– the fact that we are not foreigners in this country [and] that we have rights in this country that go [back] ‘only’ 4,000 years….

“In my opinion, after the dust settles and after everything that is happening at the UN, in the end, the Palestinians will regain their composure, I hope, and will shelve these moves that are designed to bypass negotiations. They will return to the table in order to achieve peace and security both for us and our neighbors.”


Saturday, September 17th, 2011

By Khadlid Abu Toameh

Erekat says anyone who supports two-state solution should back Palestinian efforts at UN, says would consider dismantling the PA if statehood bid is thwarted; PLO official says UN bid inspired by Obama speech.

The Palestinian Authority on Saturday warned the US against using the veto to thwart its plan to seek membership for a Palestinian State in the UN next week.

The PA said that a US veto would “destroy” the two-state solution.

US ‘remains committed’ to renewing Israeli-PA talks

The warning came hours after PA President Mahmoud Abbas announced in a speech in Ramallah that he would ask the UN Security Council to accept membership of a Palestinian state.

Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat warned that the US Administration’s use of a veto to foil the PA move would destroy the two-state solution.

“Anyone who supports the two-state solution should back the Palestinian effort [at the UN],” he said.

Erekat hinted that the Palestinians would consider dismantling the PA if the US thwarted their statehood bid.

Zakariya al-Agha, the PLO’s top representative in the Gaza Strip, also warned against the consequences of a US veto at the UN next week.

He said that the PA was going to the UN because US President Barack Obama, in his last speech to the UN in 2010, talked about the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state within one year.

“We are going to the Security Council,” Abbas declared. “As soon as I finish delivering my speech [at the UN on September 23], I will submit the application [for membership] to the UN Secretary-General, who will relay it to the President of the Security Council.”

Abbas said that his “extensive and sincere” efforts to reach an agreement that wound end occupation and lead to an independent Palestinian state through negotiations have hit a dead end.

He blamed Israeli “intransigence” for failure of the peace process.

“We seek to gain membership in the UN on the basis of the 1967 borders so that we could afterward return to the negotiations on a clear and internationally recognized reference.”

Abbas said that the statehood bid was only part of the Palestinian strategy that is designed to “put the Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital back on the geography map.”

He also cautioned Palestinians against resorting to violence, stressing that support for the statehood bid should be “peaceful.” Otherwise, he said, this could “harm us and sabotage our efforts.”

Abbas made it clear that the statehood bid would not affect the status of the PLO as “the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians.” He said that the PLO would continue to exist and function not only until a solution is reached, but until it’s implemented.

The PLO, he pointed out, would also continue to work toward solving the issue of the Palestinian refugees.

Abbas said that he was ware that the Palestinian would face major obstacles and difficulties after the statehood bid at the UN. vBut, he said, “we must remain determined to achieve our goal.”

He said that even if the PA succeeds at the UN, “we must know that occupation would not end the day after the recognition of the state. But we would have gained recognition of the world that our state is occupied and that our lands are no longer disputed territories as the Israeli government claims.”

Calling on Palestinians to take to the streets on September 21 to support the statehood bid, al-Agha emphasized the importance of avoiding violence “so as not to give the Israeli government any excuses to ignite the region.”

The PLO official said that the statehood bid would not affect the Palestinian refugees’ “right of return” to their original homes inside Israel.

“The Palestinian state is being established in connection with UN resolutions 242 and 338,” he pointed out. “But the right of return for the refugees is guaranteed through UN resolution 194.”


Thursday, September 15th, 2011

by Ryan Jones (Israel Today News)

The Palestinine Liberation Organization (PLO) ambassador to the US, Maen Areikat, told reporters in Washington that the Palestinian State his regime is trying to gain recognition for at the UN next week should be free of Jews.

“I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated,” said Areikat. Of course, any talk by Israeli politicians of removing Arabs from the Jewish state is immediately branded as racism and aggressively dismissed by the international community.

Israeli and Jewish leaders were incensed by the Palestinian official’s remarks.

“It is advisable for the world’s nations to take these statements into account when discussing the Palestinian request to establish an independent state,” said Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who filed official statements of protest with the US and European powers.

Turning the tables on those who want to make Israel synomymous with history’s most racist regimes, Minister of Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Yuli Edelstein noted: “After an unending de-legitimization campaign and attempts to brand Israel an apartheid state, it appears it is the Palestinians who seek apartheid. …[Areikat’s] comments conjure up Judenrein motifs.”

Judenrein was the term used by the Nazis to describe the goal of their campaign to cleanse Germany and Europe of Jews.

Speaking of the Nazis, former US National Security Council official said that it appears the planned Palestinian state will be the first nation since World War II-era Germany where Jews are forbidden to live by law.

The UN General Assembly is scheduled to start deliberating on recognizing a Palestinian Arab state on September 21. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas will address the assembly on September 23, the last day of the first session of deliberations.

That same day, Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki has said he will officially submit to the UN Security Council a request for full UN membership status for “Palestine.” The US has already said it will veto such a motion, but the General Assembly may hold its own vote which, though not legally binding, is almost certain to approve the Palestinian statehood bid.

And just in case anyone was considering that recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN would end the conflict and lead to peace, the Palestinians themselves have revealed otherwise.

Even if the UN votes in favor of recognizing a Palestinian state and accepting it as a UN member state, the Palestine Liberation Organization will not disband, and will still be seen as the offical representative of the Palestinian Arabs.

Why, one might ask, would such a “liberation” organization need to continue its work if the ostensible goal of statehood has been achieved? Because, as the Palestinians have said all along – starting with Yasser Arafat and continuing with the democratically-elected Hamas government – the true end goal is not a Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel, but rather a Palestinian state replacing Israel.


Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

by Elad Benari (Arutz Sheva News)

Jordanians planning a mass march on Thursday, in which they will call to shut down the Israeli Embassy in Amman.

The website of the Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper reported on Wednesday that Jordanian protesters are planning a million man march on Thursday.

According to the report, the protesters will demand that the Israeli Embassy in Amman be shut down. The newspaper noted that the call to protest against the Israeli Embassy was made by Jordanian activists but was welcomed among many political parties in Jordan that were quick to announce they would take part in the mass demonstration.

Among the Jordanian political groups that have announced their participation in the march is the Coordination Committee of the Jordanian opposition parties, which includes seven parties. Hamza Mansour, secretary general of the Islamic Action Front Party – the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan – has also called on the Jordanian people to participate in this protest, Al-Quds Al-Arabi noted.

The planned Jordan march comes less than a week after the Israeli Embassy in Cairo was attacked by an angry mob of Egyptians, who managed to break down the wall surrounding the embassy building and almost lynched six security guards.

The Islamic Action Front party in Jordan welcomed the incident in Egypt, congratulating the Egyptian people on “the flight from Cairo of the Israeli Embassy staff after the teens of the revolution broke into the embassy.” An official in the party was quoted by Al-Quds Al-Arabi as having called on the Jordanian government to hurry up and get rid of what he termed “the Zionist spy lair” in Amman. The official was quoted as having said that it is a shame that the Israeli Embassy in Amman remains open in light of what he called “the ongoing Zionist attacks on the sovereignty and interests of Jordan.”

The official clarified that the Arab nations strongly oppose ties with Israel and that leaders should not go against that fact. He noted that what happened at the Israeli Embassy in Cairo is a clear message that the struggle against Israel is the choice of the Arab people and that the revolutions in the Arab world are headed toward releasing ‘Palestine.’

The planned million man march in Jordan comes amidst growing concerns in Israel over the situation in Jordan.

Sources in Jerusalem said Wednesday the government of King Abdullah II may be headed for a major shakeup.

Jordan, which signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, has already tightened security around the Israeli Embassy in Amman following the events in Cairo.


Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

Republican Bob Turner won an upset in New York’s strongly Democratic and Jewish 9th district Tuesday in a special election that focused on Obama’s views of Israel. (For Arutz Sheva interview with Bob Turner, click here.)

The seat was vacated by Democrat Anthony Weiner, who was forced to resign earlier this year after it was discovered he sent indecent pictures via social networks.

Turner, a retired cable television executive, beat out New York State legislator David Weprin, an observant Jew, the first time the GOP has held the seat in more than 80 years. It was one of two defeats for President Barack Obama Tuesday. Republican Mark Amodei won a special Congressional race in Nevada.

The election in New York won national attention, partly because of high-profile debates on President Obama’s policy that accepts most of the demands of the Palestinian Authority from Israel. The ninth district is heavily populated by Orthodox Jews.

“Tonight we sent a message,” Turner told cheering supporters. “I am delighted we rejected the political rhetoric we heard in this campaign. I think Washington had better listen to us.”

Dissatisfaction with the president on all fronts – including foreign policy and domestic – led to Weprin’s loss, despite intervention on his behalf from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other high-level Democratic leaders.

Weprin had lost the support of Orthodox Jew and Democratic New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind by using religion to attempt to justify his vote for the gay marriage law that carried the New York legislature in June. The fact that he backed the law at all cost Weprin Orthodox votes.

Democrats tried to downplay the loss, noting that the district’s Orthodox Jews represented a disproportionate number of voters because of their high turnout in special elections.

“This is a special election that is purely reflective of who showed up to the polls and the makeup of the district,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), chairman of the Democratic National Committee, commented. “There isn’t any comparison between districts like mine and New York Nine.”

The ninth district, especially the Orthodox Jewish community, voted strongly for President Obama in 2008 but now gives him an approval rating of only 13 percent, largely because of his backing of the Palestinian Authority.

Former Democratic New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani supported Turner and said during the campaign, “Israel is our ally, not the Palestinian Authority.” He added that recognizing the PA would be the same as “establishing another terrorist state.” Former Democratic New York Mayor Ed Koch said to vote for Turner to show displeasure at Obama’s behavior towards Israel.

The district’s working class, often referred to as the “Archie Bunker” vote, was less interested in foreign policy in the race. It is suffering from unemployment and has drifted away from supporting President Obama.


Tuesday, September 13th, 2011

By JPOST Staff

Previous US system automatically classified all Israeli targets as “friend,” disallowed any attacks on them, Turkish newspaper reports.

Turkey’s Military Electronic Industry developed a new identification system for its F-16 fighter jets that will allow it to attack Israeli targets, according to a Tuesday report by the Turkish Star Gazete.

The previous US system automatically classified all Israeli targets as “friend” and disallowed any attacks on them. The new system will allow Turkey to determine whether or not a target should be considered “friend.”

After two years of development, the system is ready for use and will be installed on Turkish aircrafts, ships and submarines in the near future.

The report came a day after Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan arrived in Cairo, amid expectations he will blast Israel at a meeting of the Arab League foreign ministers on Tuesday as part of his efforts to be seen as the head of the Muslim world.

“Israel has become a spoiled child… Not only does it practice state terrorism against the Palestinians, but it also started to act irresponsibly,” he was quoted as saying in a recent interview with the Egyptian daily Al-Shorouk.

“Israel does not want to admit its mistakes or that the world around it has changed.”


Tuesday, September 13th, 2011

By JPOST Staff

Federal senators engage in heated political debate with conflicting views of anti-Israeli boycott movement; Green party condemned for support.

Australian politicians engaged in heated political debate on Tuesday, with contrasting opinions about support or condemnation of boycotting Israeli products and businesses, according to an AAP report in the Sydney Morning Herald.

It was reported that Australia’s part in the global anti-Israeli Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was at the root of the debate. The Greens were condemned for not having denounced the movement, which Greens Party senator Lee Rhiannon has publicly supported in the past, though it is not party policy.

Australian PM: We won’t attend Durban III conference

BDS is a campaign that has expressed itself in various regions of the world through academic, cultural, political and economic boycotts of Israel. The movement recently gained some momentum in Australia, with protests taking place outside Israeli chocolate shop chain Max Brenner in several cities during the summer.

“(The Senate) should not tolerate the boycotting of businesses because the ownership is Jewish,” leader of the opposition in the Senate Eric Abetz is reported to have said. “We know enough about world history never to go down that track.”

AAP quoted Greens Party Deputy Christine Milne rejecting accusations from other parties that compared their support of the boycott to the start of the Holocaust: “I know precisely about the cruelty of the Nazis to the Jews in the second World War and I find it despicable in the extreme that every last one of you stand over there and try and point fingers.”

He reportedly added, “The issue we should be debating is the question of … a two-state solution in the Middle East.”

Web Site Designed and Hosted by Ceronex